????比爾?蓋茨不贊同法國經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家托馬斯?皮凱蒂的理念,，對許多人來說也許并不意外,，要知道，蓋茨可是《福布斯》雜志（Forbes）評選的全球第二大富豪,。

????今年名聲大噪的皮凱蒂,，在其著作《21世紀(jì)資本論》（Capital in the 21st Century）中指出，如果沒有全球戰(zhàn)爭等打破穩(wěn)定格局的事件,，財(cái)富會越發(fā)集中,，這就是資本主義的基本法則。如何解決這一問題,？皮凱蒂的建議是征收全球資本稅,，幫助各國政府更好地掌握財(cái)富分配情況，并遏制貧富差距擴(kuò)大的必然趨勢,。皮凱蒂認(rèn)為,，貧富差距擴(kuò)大會影響社會穩(wěn)定。

????如果《福布斯》富豪榜排名無誤，那么真按皮凱蒂的建議開征全球財(cái)富稅的話,，除了世界首富卡洛斯?斯利姆,，受打擊最大的將非比爾?蓋茨莫屬。不過,，蓋茨上周在個(gè)人博客上批評皮凱蒂的大作,，并不是完全是為了自身利益。畢竟,，蓋茨已經(jīng)承諾,，在世期間將捐出自己一半財(cái)產(chǎn)，這一比例遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于皮凱蒂建議的1%或2%的財(cái)產(chǎn)稅,。蓋茨有意見的,，不是超級富豪應(yīng)該散財(cái)?shù)挠^點(diǎn)，而是皮凱蒂提出的機(jī)制以及此機(jī)制將形成的誘因,。

????“假設(shè)有三種不同類型的富人,。第一位男士把資金用來發(fā)展業(yè)務(wù)。第二位女士把大多數(shù)財(cái)產(chǎn)用于慈善,。而第三位富人把大部分都用來消費(fèi),，購入游艇和飛機(jī)等。雖然他們擁有的財(cái)富確實(shí)都造成了貧富不均,，但我要說,，前兩位給社會創(chuàng)造的價(jià)值要超過第三位。皮凱蒂應(yīng)對此加以區(qū)分,，因?yàn)檫@對政策的影響很大,。”

????和皮凱蒂一樣,，蓋茨的目標(biāo)也是把財(cái)產(chǎn)分出去,。但他不愿打擊那些（像他一樣）

????冒著風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、投資于創(chuàng)造價(jià)值的企業(yè),、通過慈善幫助世界的超級富豪的積極性,。那么，蓋茨對此有何良策,？他認(rèn)為，應(yīng)該調(diào)整美國稅法,，從對勞動所得征稅變?yōu)閷οM(fèi)征稅,。這聽起來像是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的右翼經(jīng)濟(jì)理論。富人和保守經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家通常都偏好消費(fèi)稅,，因?yàn)樵摱惙N往往具有遞減特性,。因?yàn)闊o論富人還是窮人，都得消費(fèi)一定量的產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)，而窮人消費(fèi)占自身收入的比重遠(yuǎn)高于富人,，因此,，州政府和地方政府銷售稅這類消費(fèi)稅對窮人的影響比對富人大。

????但這種情況可以改變,。長期以來,，包括康奈爾大學(xué)（Cornell University）羅伯特?弗蘭克教授在內(nèi)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，一直倡導(dǎo)采用累進(jìn)制消費(fèi)稅,。他們認(rèn)為,，該稅制在消除貧富差距擴(kuò)大的弊端方面大有可為。弗蘭克寫道：

????It might not come as a surprise to many that Bill Gates, whom Forbes’ magazine ranks as the second wealthiest man in the world, doesn’t agree with the ideas of French economist Thomas Piketty.

????It’s Piketty, after all, who made a big splash this year with his book Capital in the 21st Century, which argued that it is a fundamental law of capitalism that wealth will grow more concentrated absent destabilizing events like global wars. Piketty’s solution? A global tax on capital that could help governments better understand how wealth is distributed and stem the tide of inevitably increasing inequality, which Piketty believes is socially destabilizing.

????If you believe the Forbes list, there is nobody in the world besides Carlos Slim who has more to lose than Bill Gates if Piketty’s global wealth on tax were to be instituted. But Gates’ critique of Piketty’s work, published Monday on his personal blog, isn’t completely self-interested. After all, Gates has already pledged to give away half his fortune over the course of his lifetime, a much larger amount than the 1% or 2% wealth tax, proposed by Piketty, would confiscate. His problem isn’t with the idea that the super wealthy should spread their fortunes around, but ratherwithPiketty’s mechanism and the incentives it would create:

????“Imagine three types of wealthy people. One guy is putting his capital into building his business. Then there’s a woman who’s giving most of her wealth to charity. A third person is mostly consuming, spending a lot of money on things like a yacht and plane. While it’s true that the wealth of all three people is contributing to inequality, I would argue that the first two are delivering more value to society than the third. I wish Piketty had made this distinction, because it has important policy implications.”

????Gates shares Piketty’s goal of spreading wealth, yet he doesn’t want to discourage the uber wealthy (like Gates) who are taking risks, investing in value-creating businesses, and helping the world through philanthropy. Gates’ solution? Shift the American tax code from one that taxes labor to one that taxes consumption. Now, this sounds like standard, right-wing economic theory. Consumption taxes are usually favored by the wealthy and by conservative economists because they tend to be regressive in nature. Since everyone—rich and poor—have to consume some amount of goods and services, and because the proportion of income spent is much higher for the poor than the rich, consumption taxes like state and local sales tax burden the poor more than the rich.

????But this doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Economists like Cornell University’s Robert Frank have long advocated for progressive consumption taxes that could do much to solve what they perceive as the ills of growing income inequality. As Frank writes: