闲谈美国的税收制度

去年的税表寄出去了。一如既往，今年交给UncleSam的不多，主要是我在女儿上大学前准备的现金让我有足够的空间来压低AGI,加上各种credit（主要有AmericanOpportunity credit,children credit,dependent care credit,Makingwork pay credit)。女儿大学三年我们的联邦税分别是900， 1500，1600（州税里除了AGI可调整,credit不多）。今年不用作任何调整了，但明年女儿毕业后，从税收上看，AGI会有一些调整。这些调整其实是每年填完税表后首先要考虑的问题。

美国的个人税收制度越搞越复杂，让许多人望而却步，这也是报税用的计算机软件生意火红的原因。其实年年填下来，它没有看起来那么复杂。大多数人的收入单一，deduction和credit也一目了然。那用软件不就得了？是，那是很省事。但一个最大的问题是你没法理解美国税收的逻辑。而不理解这些逻辑，你是不可能为将来节税而规划的。这也是为什么我多年来一直用笔和纸填税表的原因。当然，这种原始的办法，对防止“老年痴呆”肯定有一定效益。

填税表其实是一个了解美国税收制度的极好方式。早年读ScottBurns的专栏，对他的许多比较“左”的观念难以理解，现在体会就不一样了。当年第一次听他说美国socialsecurity（SS）是中下层人民的税的时候，就觉得也不能完全这么说，人家高收入人群退休后不需要那么多SS福利，既然SS福利是封顶的，理所当然收入高出一定数字后的部分就不该交嘛。现在回头看自己在pension上钱的累积速度，再看看美国政府因缺钱而不得不消减退休人员的SS福利的时候，对他的观念就有了新的认识。不要说我们今后能不能拿到SS福利,就是拿得到，这个投资的回报也太低了。那谁是得益者呢？政府？政府其实只是纳税人的代理，而有收入不交的人才是真正的得益者。从目前SS变成政府财政的补贴这点来看，Burns说“SS是中下层人民的税”没有错。（现在回头看，倒是布什当年想把SS私有化，搞成个人退休账户性质，还有一些公平性呢。）

记得当年看Burns的专栏，论美国不同收入阶层的税率，提到税率最高的是20万左右的这个人群。但所有的收入阶层的税率其实差不多的，都在18-20%（他计算时把SS和雇主的match-up也作为税来计算），有点不理解。不是收入越高，税率越高吗？直到2005年前后，我把为女儿上大学存起来的现金放到股市里赌了一把，来美国第一次有了long-termcapitalgain，自己才为那7500的收入交了5%的税后（注明：我当时income最高税率是15%，所以是5%。如果个人的income最高税率在15%以上，就该是15%了。），才真正明白他的计算背后的逻辑。高收入家庭的收入很大一部分来自这些投资的收入，在美国税法里这些投资收益自然是另眼相待的。没有SS和medicare税之外，还有特殊的税率。从这点上，也能理解当年布什要减税的时候，这个long-termcapital gain从20%减到15%，它真正的得益人在那里了。也知道了两党之争的来由。

（对第一代移民来讲，无根无基，全靠工资收入，要享受这种投资收益带来的好处是不容易的。既需要资金累积到一定程度，也需要有投资的勇气。当然，第一代移民为扎根，在自住房子的投资上比较积极，也是有税收上的好处的。除了itemizeddeduction（所付利息）之外，还有就是住满两年后房子的增值部分，两口子有到五十万的免税额。当然，这几年没赶上好时候，自住放上亏损的不少。）

理解了这个税法上的不同来源的收入可能导致不同的税率，就理解许多美国公司管理高层在公司决策上是怎么替自己考虑的。在决定分红还是股票buy-back上，为什么高层会倾向后者？分红是年年交税（qualifieddividend是和long-term capital gain一样交税的），但long-term capitalgain是他们兑现的那一天，这个tax-defer的功能不是让他们（大多持有公司的股票）有税收上的好处嘛。

一个合适的税法体制其实要解决两大问题：1。政府的收支平衡；2。社会贫富差别能维持相对稳定。目前美国的税法在这两点上都没有做到。你看看今天CNN的文章就知道美国的贫富差别是越拉越大了：Howthe middle class became theunderclass：（http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm）。其实也难怪，谁愿意真正多交税呢？

所以，懂得税收的逻辑，不仅仅是给你省税，更重要的是你能真正了解这个国家的体制体系的缺陷。当你投上一票的时候，你不会因为政客的几句空话就决定你的选择。要熔入这个社会，让我们从税法上开始吧。

（二0一一年二月十六日）

附：

How the middle class became the underclass

By Annalyn Censky, staff reporterFebruary 16, 2011: 4:30 PMET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Are you better off than your parents?

Probably not if you're in the middle class.

Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it'snot just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes havebeen stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tierhas surged ahead at lighting speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400,adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much hadchanged: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008,according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 ormore -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years,leaving average Americans in the dust.

Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology andglobalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves andhave-nots.

But there's more to the story.
A real drag on the middle class

One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions andother labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chiefeconomist for the Labor Department, now a professor at RutgersUniversity.

Because of deals struck through collective bargaining, unionworkers have traditionally earned 15% to 20% more than theirnon-union counterparts, Rodgers said.

But union membership has declined rapidly over the past 30 years.In 1983, union workers made up about 20% of the workforce. In 2010,they represented less than 12%.

"The erosion of collective bargaining is a key factor to explainwhy low-wage workers and middle income workers have seen theirwages not stay up with inflation," Rodgers said.

Without collective bargaining pushing up wages, especially forblue-collar work -- average incomes have stagnated.

International competition is another factor. While globalizationhas lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn'texactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.

Factory workers have seen many of their jobs shipped to othercountries where labor is cheaper, putting more downward pressure onAmerican wages.

"As we became more connected to China, that poses the question ofwhether our wages are being set in Beijing," Rodgers said.

Finding it harder to compete with cheaper manufacturing costsabroad, the U.S. has emerged as primarily a services-producingeconomy. That trend has created a cultural shift in the job skillsAmerican employers are looking for.

Whereas 50 years earlier, there were plenty of blue collaropportunities for workers who had only high school diploma, nowemployers seek "soft skills" that are typically honed in college,Rodgers said.
A boon for the rich

While average folks were losing ground in the economy, thewealthiest were capitalizing on some of those same factors, anddriving an even bigger wedge between themselves and the rest ofAmerica.

For example, though globalization has been a drag on labor, it'sbeen a major win for corporations who've used new global channelsto reduce costs and boost profits. In addition, new markets aroundthe world have created even greater demand for theirproducts.

"With a global economy, people who have extraordinary skills...whether they be in financial services, technology, entertainment ormedia, have a bigger place to play and be rewarded from," said AlanJohnson, a Wall Street compensation consultant.

As a result, the disparity between the wages for college educatedworkers versus high school grads has widened significantly sincethe 1980s.

In 1980, workers with a high school diploma earned about 71% ofwhat college-educated workers made. In 2010, that number fell to55%.

Another driver of the rich: The stock market.

The S&P 500 has gained more than 1,300% since 1970.While that's helped the American economy grow, the benefits havebeen disproportionately reaped by the wealthy.

And public policy of the past few decades has only encouraged thetrend.

The 1980s was a period of anti-regulation, presided over byPresident Reagan, who loosened rules governing banks andthrifts.

A major game changer came during the Clinton era, when barriersbetween commercial and investment banks, enacted during thepost-Depression era, were removed.

In 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act also weakened thegovernment's oversight of complex securities, allowing financialinnovations to take off, creating unprecedented amounts of wealthboth for the overall economy, and for those directly involved inthe financial sector.

Tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration and extended underObama were also a major windfall for the nation's richest.

And as then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan broughtinterest rates down to new lows during the decade, the housingmarket experienced explosive growth.

"We were all drinking the Kool-aid, Greenspan was tending bar,Bernanke and the academic establishment were supplying the liquor,"Deutsche Bank managing director Ajay Kapur wrote in a researchreport in 2009.

But the story didn't end well. Eventually, it all came crashingdown, resulting in the worst economic slump since the GreatDepression.

With the unemployment rate still excessively high and the realestate market showing few signs of rebounding, the American middleclass is still reeling from the effects of the GreatRecession.

Meanwhile, as corporate profits come roaring back and the stockmarket charges ahead, the wealthiest people continue to eclipsetheir middle-class counterparts.

"I think it's a terrible dilemma, because what we're obviouslyheading toward is some kind of class warfare," Johnson said.