2009-03-01 17:48:19globalist
歐巴馬要扭轉雷根以來的經濟哲學：以縮短貧富差距為目標
美國在二戰以後，經濟政策分為二大意識型態，第一階段是二戰後羅斯福的新政，大幅提升中產階級的收入水準，接著雷根時代，為富人減稅、大唱市場經濟、自由貿易，全球化的結果導致各國都是貧者愈貧、富者愈富，雷根主義帶來美國最有錢的階級，稅前收入大增而稅率卻大降，結果呢？美國最有錢的百分之一人口，稅後平均所得從一九七九年的一百萬美元，直升到一百四十萬美元。歐巴馬的經濟顧問Lawrence Summers常這樣舉例，貧富差距惡化的情形正如全美較低收入的百分之八十的人，每年送給最高收入的百分之一人口，一萬美金的現金支票！
因此，歐巴馬首先就提出稅制改革，利用各種稅制改革，中低收入者將會增加八百美金以上的稅後收入。而，百分之一最有錢的人，將必須一年多付一萬美元的稅。主要目標就是提高有錢的人稅率，降低中低收入者的稅負擔。
歐巴馬要致力於提升中低收入者的收入，縮短貧富差距，除了最有效的稅制改革之外，就是教育，太高的學費己經讓中低收入者無法入大學。開創歷史，歐巴馬的角色有如雷根，只是方向完全不同！
美國終於在經濟重創下，學會反省過去雷根主義帶來的錯誤方向，讓富人有更多財富，會帶來更多的經濟成長，以致大家都會得利！這樣的思潮已經受到極大的挑戰，因為，沒錯，經濟看起來是不斷成長，但是貧富差距擴大，富人增加財富的速度比其他人快了太多，另外，經濟一再蓬勃，付出的是未來的代價，當泡沫撐不下去時，發生的大崩解可能是大家都受不了的！
台灣呢？還不懸崖勒馬，還在走美國的老路，當美國老大哥已經學著要轉彎 時，我們難道不想一下，還在為富人減稅？
Obama's budget plan sweeps away Reagan ideas
By David Leonhardt The New York Times
Friday, February 27, 2009
The budget that President Barack Obama proposed is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters.
TheObama budget - a bold, even radical departure from recent history,wrapped in bureaucratic formality and statistical tables - wouldsharply raise taxes on the rich, beyond where Bill Clinton had raised them. It would reduce taxes for everyone else, to a lower point than they were under either Clinton or George W. Bush. And it would lay the groundwork for sweeping changes in health care and education, among other areas.
More than anything else, the proposals seek to reverse the rapid increase in economic inequalityover the past 30 years. They do so, first, by rewriting the tax codeand, over the longer term, by trying to solve some big causes of themiddle-class income slowdown, like high medical costs and slowingeducational gains.
After Obama spent much of his first fiveweeks in office responding to the financial crisis, his budgeteffectively tried to reclaim momentum for the priorities on which hehad campaigned.
His efforts would add to a budget deficit already swollen by Bush's policies and the recession, creating the largest deficit, relative to the size of the economy, since World War II.Erasing that deficit will require some tough choices - about furtherspending cuts and tax increases - that Obama avoided this past week.
But he nonetheless made choices.
He sought to eliminate some corporate subsidies, for health insurers, banks and agricultural companies, that economists have long criticized. He proposed putting a price on carbon, to slow global warming,and then refunding most of the revenue from that program throughbroad-based tax cuts. He called for roughly $100 billion a year in taxincreases on the wealthy - mostly delayed until 2011, when therecession will presumably have ended - and $50 billion a year in nettax cuts for the nonwealthy.
The history of the U.S. economyover the past 70 years can be roughly divided into two periods: thedecades immediately after World War II, when inequality plummeted, andthe past three decades, when global economic forces and governmentpolicies caused it to soar.
Obama is setting out to begin a third period that looks more like the first than the second.
Thatagenda starts with taxes. Over the last three decades, the pretaxincomes of the wealthiest households have risen far more than they havefor other households, while the tax rates for top earners have fallen more than they have for others, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Asa result, the average post-tax income of the top 1 percent ofhouseholds has jumped by roughly $1 million since 1979, adjusted forinflation, to $1.4 million. Pay for most families has risen onlyslightly faster than inflation.
Before becoming Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence Summersliked to tell a hypothetical story to distill the trend. The increasein inequality, he would say, meant that each family in the bottom 80percent of the income distribution was effectively sending a $10,000check, every year, to the top 1 percent of earners.
Obama'sbudget reflects that sensibility. Budget experts were still sortingthrough the details on Thursday, but it appears that various tax cutsand credits aimed at the middle class and the poor will increase thetake-home pay of the median household by roughly $800.
The tax increases on the top 1 percent, meanwhile, will most likely cost them $100,000 a year.
"Thetax code will become more progressive, with relatively higher rates onthe rich and relatively lower rates on the middle class and poor," saidRoberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center in Washington. "This is reversing the effects of the Bush policies," he added, and then going even further.
Andjust as Franklin D. Roosevelt's tax increases on the wealthy followed astock-market crash, which had already depressed their incomes, Obama'sproposals - if they become law - would, too. The combination has thepotential to reverse a significant portion of the inequality trends ofthe last few decades.
But for the country to repeat thepost-World War II pattern, the incomes of most families would also haveto begin rising at a faster rate than they have since the 1970s. Thatoutcome remains deeply uncertain. Economists who study growth say theAmerican economy is unlikely to grow nearly as fast in coming years asin the 1950s and '60s. Obama would try to lift the incomes of themiddle class and poor through two main channels, administrationofficials said. The first is an overhaul of health care, meant toreduce the insurance premiums now taking a large bite out of many families' paychecks.
Thedetails remain vague, but the budget begins paying for investments thatwould eventually allow Medicare officials to refuse to pay for medicaltreatment that does not show evidence of improving health. Ifsuccessful, that change would vastly reduce the government's long-termbudget deficit. It is also likely to bring down private health costs,because insurers typically follow Medicare's lead.
The otherchannel is education. Over the last three decades, the pay of collegegraduates has risen significantly faster than the pay of less-educatedworkers. Obama aims to move workers into the first category byincreasing federal financial aidand simplifying the myriad of aid programs. In recent years, the UnitedStates has lost its standing as the country in which the largest shareof young adults graduate from college.
"Low- and middle-income kids often don't aspire to college," Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said Thursday. "They hear '$40,000 tuition' and think that's impossible."
Thereare still many outstanding questions about Obama's efforts, startingwith whether Congress will pass a budget that looks anything likehis. His proposals on health care are likely to meet stiff oppositionfrom some doctors and insurers. Spending more money on financial aid -absent other changes to the education system - may not lift thegraduation rate very much. And if the economy remains weak into nextyear, as many forecasters expect, congressional Republicans will try toblame the affluent for the looming tax increases.
Whateverhappens, though, it has been a long time since any president has triedto use his budget to shape the government and the economy quite as muchas Obama did on Thursday. On that score, he and Reagan have somethingin common.
因此，歐巴馬首先就提出稅制改革，利用各種稅制改革，中低收入者將會增加八百美金以上的稅後收入。而，百分之一最有錢的人，將必須一年多付一萬美元的稅。主要目標就是提高有錢的人稅率，降低中低收入者的稅負擔。
歐巴馬要致力於提升中低收入者的收入，縮短貧富差距，除了最有效的稅制改革之外，就是教育，太高的學費己經讓中低收入者無法入大學。開創歷史，歐巴馬的角色有如雷根，只是方向完全不同！
美國終於在經濟重創下，學會反省過去雷根主義帶來的錯誤方向，讓富人有更多財富，會帶來更多的經濟成長，以致大家都會得利！這樣的思潮已經受到極大的挑戰，因為，沒錯，經濟看起來是不斷成長，但是貧富差距擴大，富人增加財富的速度比其他人快了太多，另外，經濟一再蓬勃，付出的是未來的代價，當泡沫撐不下去時，發生的大崩解可能是大家都受不了的！
台灣呢？還不懸崖勒馬，還在走美國的老路，當美國老大哥已經學著要轉彎 時，我們難道不想一下，還在為富人減稅？
Obama's budget plan sweeps away Reagan ideas
By David Leonhardt The New York Times
Friday, February 27, 2009
The budget that President Barack Obama proposed is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters.
TheObama budget - a bold, even radical departure from recent history,wrapped in bureaucratic formality and statistical tables - wouldsharply raise taxes on the rich, beyond where Bill Clinton had raised them. It would reduce taxes for everyone else, to a lower point than they were under either Clinton or George W. Bush. And it would lay the groundwork for sweeping changes in health care and education, among other areas.
More than anything else, the proposals seek to reverse the rapid increase in economic inequalityover the past 30 years. They do so, first, by rewriting the tax codeand, over the longer term, by trying to solve some big causes of themiddle-class income slowdown, like high medical costs and slowingeducational gains.
After Obama spent much of his first fiveweeks in office responding to the financial crisis, his budgeteffectively tried to reclaim momentum for the priorities on which hehad campaigned.
His efforts would add to a budget deficit already swollen by Bush's policies and the recession, creating the largest deficit, relative to the size of the economy, since World War II.Erasing that deficit will require some tough choices - about furtherspending cuts and tax increases - that Obama avoided this past week.
But he nonetheless made choices.
He sought to eliminate some corporate subsidies, for health insurers, banks and agricultural companies, that economists have long criticized. He proposed putting a price on carbon, to slow global warming,and then refunding most of the revenue from that program throughbroad-based tax cuts. He called for roughly $100 billion a year in taxincreases on the wealthy - mostly delayed until 2011, when therecession will presumably have ended - and $50 billion a year in nettax cuts for the nonwealthy.
The history of the U.S. economyover the past 70 years can be roughly divided into two periods: thedecades immediately after World War II, when inequality plummeted, andthe past three decades, when global economic forces and governmentpolicies caused it to soar.
Obama is setting out to begin a third period that looks more like the first than the second.
Thatagenda starts with taxes. Over the last three decades, the pretaxincomes of the wealthiest households have risen far more than they havefor other households, while the tax rates for top earners have fallen more than they have for others, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Asa result, the average post-tax income of the top 1 percent ofhouseholds has jumped by roughly $1 million since 1979, adjusted forinflation, to $1.4 million. Pay for most families has risen onlyslightly faster than inflation.
Before becoming Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence Summersliked to tell a hypothetical story to distill the trend. The increasein inequality, he would say, meant that each family in the bottom 80percent of the income distribution was effectively sending a $10,000check, every year, to the top 1 percent of earners.
Obama'sbudget reflects that sensibility. Budget experts were still sortingthrough the details on Thursday, but it appears that various tax cutsand credits aimed at the middle class and the poor will increase thetake-home pay of the median household by roughly $800.
The tax increases on the top 1 percent, meanwhile, will most likely cost them $100,000 a year.
"Thetax code will become more progressive, with relatively higher rates onthe rich and relatively lower rates on the middle class and poor," saidRoberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center in Washington. "This is reversing the effects of the Bush policies," he added, and then going even further.
Andjust as Franklin D. Roosevelt's tax increases on the wealthy followed astock-market crash, which had already depressed their incomes, Obama'sproposals - if they become law - would, too. The combination has thepotential to reverse a significant portion of the inequality trends ofthe last few decades.
But for the country to repeat thepost-World War II pattern, the incomes of most families would also haveto begin rising at a faster rate than they have since the 1970s. Thatoutcome remains deeply uncertain. Economists who study growth say theAmerican economy is unlikely to grow nearly as fast in coming years asin the 1950s and '60s. Obama would try to lift the incomes of themiddle class and poor through two main channels, administrationofficials said. The first is an overhaul of health care, meant toreduce the insurance premiums now taking a large bite out of many families' paychecks.
Thedetails remain vague, but the budget begins paying for investments thatwould eventually allow Medicare officials to refuse to pay for medicaltreatment that does not show evidence of improving health. Ifsuccessful, that change would vastly reduce the government's long-termbudget deficit. It is also likely to bring down private health costs,because insurers typically follow Medicare's lead.
The otherchannel is education. Over the last three decades, the pay of collegegraduates has risen significantly faster than the pay of less-educatedworkers. Obama aims to move workers into the first category byincreasing federal financial aidand simplifying the myriad of aid programs. In recent years, the UnitedStates has lost its standing as the country in which the largest shareof young adults graduate from college.
"Low- and middle-income kids often don't aspire to college," Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said Thursday. "They hear '$40,000 tuition' and think that's impossible."
Thereare still many outstanding questions about Obama's efforts, startingwith whether Congress will pass a budget that looks anything likehis. His proposals on health care are likely to meet stiff oppositionfrom some doctors and insurers. Spending more money on financial aid -absent other changes to the education system - may not lift thegraduation rate very much. And if the economy remains weak into nextyear, as many forecasters expect, congressional Republicans will try toblame the affluent for the looming tax increases.
Whateverhappens, though, it has been a long time since any president has triedto use his budget to shape the government and the economy quite as muchas Obama did on Thursday. On that score, he and Reagan have somethingin common.
您確定歐巴馬真有那個決心要履行他這個選前的承諾嗎？即便他有決心，您確定他有那個本事履行承諾嗎？我在這部分是很懷疑的，他若真要硬幹，擋人財路的後果只有兩種下場，要嘛就是被幹掉，成為美國諸位被暗殺的總統之一，這算不錯的，起碼留下個好名聲讓後世景仰；再不然嘛，就是被圍繞在他身邊的統治階級們想方設法，威脅利誘挖坑給他跳，讓他總統大位坐不下去。
如果根據歷史經驗，最後一定是「照慣例被精神病患開槍打死」。