????“在這樣的稅制下,，人們不光要申報收入，還要申報每年的儲蓄額,，就像許多人在提交401（k）養(yǎng)老金或其他養(yǎng)老金申報表時所做的那樣,。收入和儲蓄之差就是一個家庭的年消費額。而該家庭的應(yīng)稅消費額,，則是該數(shù)字減去一定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)扣除數(shù),，比如說一個四口之家的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)扣除數(shù)為3萬美元。起始稅率可以較低,，例如10%,。這樣，如果一個四口之家年收入5萬美元,，儲蓄5千美元,，其應(yīng)稅消費額就是1.5萬美元?！?/p>

????“假設(shè)一個年消費1千萬美元的家庭正在考慮,，是否要花200萬美元,，為自家豪宅增建側(cè)翼。如果最高邊際消費稅率為100%,，那么這項工程將耗資400萬美元,。由此帶來的稅收，能使聯(lián)邦政府赤字減少200萬美元,?；蛘撸@個家庭可以壓縮規(guī)模,，只花1百萬美元來擴建房屋,。這樣的話，他們就需要繳1百萬美元的稅,，可以把省下的2百萬美元存起來,。如此一來，聯(lián)邦政府赤字會減少1百萬美元,，而新增的2百萬美元儲蓄則可以刺激投資,、促進(jìn)增長。無論哪種情況,，國家都能獲益,，而且這個富有家庭無需做出任何真正的犧牲。因為如果所有人都擴建房屋,，其結(jié)果只會導(dǎo)致人們對住房的要求越來越高,。由于存在消費稅，大多數(shù)鄰居也會縮小自家房屋的擴建規(guī)模,?！?/p>

????如大家所見，這種稅制的策略之一是削弱消費動力,。如果揮霍性消費減少,，錢比別人少一事就不會對窮人造成過大的困擾。許多行為研究都表明,，較之絕對富裕程度,，相對富裕程度對個人幸福感的影響更大。

????這樣的措施對美國左翼和右翼政治勢力可能都有吸引力,。左翼人士有時會對消費文化的影響感到不安,，對他們來說，這種稅制可以降低人們的消費積極性,。同時,，鼓勵儲蓄和投資的措施將受到右翼人士的歡迎。

????然而,，累進(jìn)制消費稅要真正具有遞增特性,，還需要征收高額遺產(chǎn)稅,，以免富人通過利息收入實現(xiàn)財富代代遞增。但蓋茨認(rèn)為這不成問題,，因為我們有能力征收遺產(chǎn)稅,，而且他“深信”該政策行之有效。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Charlie

????“Under such a tax, people would report not only their income but also their annual savings, as many already do under 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts. A family’s annual consumption is simply the difference between its income and its annual savings. That amount, minus a standard deduction—say, $30,000 for a family of four—would be the family’s taxable consumption. Rates would start low, like 10 percent. A family that earned $50,000 and saved $5,000 would thus have taxable consumption of $15,000.”

????“Consider a family that spends $10 million a year and is deciding whether to add a $2 million wing to its mansion. If the top marginal tax rate on consumption were 100 percent, the project would cost $4 million. The additional tax payment would reduce the federal deficit by $2 million. Alternatively, the family could scale back, building only a $1 million addition. Then it would pay $1 million in additional tax and could deposit $2 million in savings. The federal deficit would fall by $1 million, and the additional savings would stimulate investment, promoting growth. Either way, the nation would come out ahead with no real sacrifice required of the wealthy family, because when all build larger houses, the result is merely to redefine what constitutes acceptable housing. With a consumption tax in place, most neighbors would also scale back the new wings on their mansions.”

????As you can see, one of the strategies behind this tax regime is to reduce the incentive to consume. With less conspicuous consumption, the poor would suffer from the negative effects of having less than those around them. As many behavioral studies have shown, relative wealth has more of an impact on personal happiness than absolute wealth.

????Such a regime could appeal to both the right and left sides of the political spectrum. For those on the left, who are sometimes uncomfortable with the effects of a culture based around consumption, this tax would discourage such behavior. Meanwhile, a regime that encourages savings and investment would appeal to conservatives.

????But for a progressive consumption tax to be truly progressive, there would need to be a hefty estate tax to prevent the rich from simply letting their wealth grow over generations through interest income. But Gates argues this is not a problem, because we have the ability to institute estate taxes, a policy which he is a “big believer” in.