Tax is a divisive subject but everyone seems to agree on one point: taxes are too complicated and should be simpler. Unfortunately, tax systems did not receive the memo.
税收是一个容易让人产生分歧的话题，但所有人似乎都同意一点：税收过于复杂，应该被简化。遗憾的是，税收体系不知道这一点。
In the UK only a few years ago, almost everyone in work used to be taxed at a marginal rate of either 31 per cent or 41 per cent, depending on how much they earned. (If Brits do not recognise those numbers, it is because the UK has two cumulative systems of income tax, one of which goes by the code name of “national insurance”.)
仅仅在几年前，在英国几乎所有的职场人士还是按照收入的多少，以31%或41%的边际税率交税。（如果英国人看不懂那些数据，那是因为英国有两套累计的收入税制度，其中一套是以“国民保险”的名义征收的。）

The system is trickier today than Martian algebra. Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal studies points out that, over different levels of income, a non-working spouse with two children will be taxed at marginal rates of 12 per cent, 32 per cent, infinity, 42 per cent, 60 per cent, 42 per cent, 60 per cent, 42 per cent and 47 per cent. You might ask what kind of muppet designed a tax schedule like that, and one answer would be George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer, and Alistair Darling, his predecessor – the last two men to be in charge of the UK tax system.
如今英国的税收体系比火星代数还要复杂。伦敦财政研究所(Institute for Fiscal Studies)的保罗•约翰逊(Paul Johnson)指出，按照不同的收入水平，一个不工作、有两个孩子的配偶将被以12%、32%、无穷大、42%、60%、42%、60%、42%和47%的边际税率征税。你或许会问，哪个傻瓜设计了这样的税收制度，有人会说是英国财政大臣乔治•奥斯本(George Osborne)及其前任阿利斯泰尔•达林(Alistair Darling)——最后两个负责英国税收体系的人士。
Another answer would be that this is just the sort of thing that happens without diligent maintenance. Window frames rot. Iron structures rust. Tax systems become complex.
还有人会说，这只是没用心维护才会发生的事情。窗框会腐蚀，铁结构会生锈。税收制度会变得复杂。
Having nine different marginal tax rates is an ugly sign that things are not well. There are others. Cereal bars attract value added tax at 20 per cent but flapjacks enjoy a zero rate; vegetable chips are tax-free if the vegetable in question is not a potato; dried fruit is subject to VAT unless destined for a cake. On a gingerbread man, chocolate icing attracts a substantial VAT liability unless the icing constitutes the eyes. There are more things in tax accounting, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
有9种不同边际税率显示出，英国税收体制状况不佳。英国税制还有其他问题。谷物棒的增值税税率是20%，但燕麦饼却享受零税率。除了土豆脆片以外，其他蔬菜脆片都免税；如果干果不是用于制作蛋糕，就会被征收增值税。就姜饼人来说，巧克力糖衣如果不是用来做眼睛的话，就会被以高额税率征收增值税。税收会计中的花样之多超出任何人的想象。
If a tax break for unfrosted gingerbread seems uniquely British in its eccentricity, it is not. Officials in New York state have been obliged to rule on the tax status of burritos. (Legally they are sandwiches and attract sales tax of 8 per cent.) Or consider Pillow Pets, a stuffed toy/ pillow whose slogan – “It’s a pillow, it’s a pet, it’s a Pillow Pet” – poses a dilemma for US Customs. For the purposes of levying a tariff, is it a pillow? Or is it a tariff-free toy pet?
对无糖姜饼免税似乎是英国独有的古怪举措，但其实并非如此。纽约州的官员们被迫就墨西哥玉米煎饼的税收地位做出决定。（从法律上说，它们是三明治，应按照8%的销售税税率纳税）或者想想Pillow Pets，这是一种填充玩具/枕头，它的标语是“它是一个枕头，它是一个宠物，它是一个枕头宠物”。这种Pillow Pets让美国海关陷入两难。从征收关税的角度来说，它是枕头？还是一款免关税的玩具宠物？
Then there are tax subsidies for agricultural land in places such as Florida. Agricultural land is no easier to define than a flapjack or a sandwich. Rent a cow, let it graze on your garden or vacant lot; if that is not agriculture, what is?
然后是在弗罗里达州等地的农田税收补贴。定义农地不比燕麦饼或三明治容易多少。租上一头母牛，让它在你的花园或空地上吃草，如果这不是农业，又是什么？
All this matters not just because the rules are hard to understand and expensive to obey but also because taxes shape our behaviour. The “camelback” houses of late 19th century New Orleans, with a hump of two storeys at the rear and a long single-storey snout stretching to the street, were tax-efficient because property taxes were levied based on the number of storeys at the front of the house. Abba’s outlandish outfits are reported to have been inspired by tax rules: they were tax-deductible only if they were too outré to be worn anywhere other than on stage.
所有这些之所以重要，不仅仅是因为这些法规很难理解，守法成本高，而且还因为税收影响着我们的行为。19世纪末新奥尔良市的“驼背”房——尾部有两层隆起，一个长长的单独楼层延伸至街道——是税收高效率的，因为房产税是按照屋前楼层的数量征收的。有报道称，阿巴乐队(Abba)的怪异服装是税法激发的：这些服装只有怪异得无法在舞台以外的地方穿，才能享受减免税。
These are trivial examples of tax-efficient charm but the same principle can be harnessed for a far greater good: a carbon tax to shift our energy system towards low-carbon fuels. Well-designed taxes can raise revenue while rewarding green behaviour.
这些是免税魅力的琐碎例子，但同样原则可以用于更有意义的事情：推动我们的能源体系转向低碳燃料的碳税。设计良好的税收可以在奖赏绿色行为的同时，带来财政收入。
Meanwhile complex, illogical taxes raise less revenue while rewarding clever accountants. There has been outrage over celebrity tax-dodging in the UK but the tax avoidance schemes usually involve a government attempt to provide a tax incentive for the British film industry or some other hobbyhorse.
与此同时，复杂而不合逻辑的税收奖赏聪明的会计人员，却减少了财政收入。人们对英国名人逃税感到愤怒，但此类避税项目通常牵涉到政府为英国电影业或其他娱乐业提供税收激励的企图。
What is behind such insanities? Partly, absurd loopholes exist because special interest groups demand them; hence the subsidies for land with cows on it. Partly, voters are given the tax systems they deserve because we sympathise with highly vocal losers whenever a loophole is closed and we fall for simple tricks that hide taxes behind a veil of complication.
此类不理智行为背后的原因是什么？一方面，之所以存在荒谬的漏洞，是因为特殊利益集团要求这些漏洞，比如对有母牛的土地给予补贴。另一方面，选民之所以活该得到这种税收体系，是因为每当税收漏洞被堵住时，我们同情那些吵吵嚷嚷的输家，而且我们容易被把税收藏在复杂面纱后的简单伎俩欺骗。
The UK’s two-tier income tax system is a good example. Basic income tax rates have tended to fall over time, while national insurance rates have tended to rise. True income tax rates for the typical worker are similar to those of 35 years ago but they seem much lower. The sleight of hand is politically convenient but increases complexity, creates unfairness and opens opportunities for tax avoidance.
英国的双层所得税体系是一个很好的例子。基本所得税的税率往往随着时间推移而下降，而国民保险的税率往往会上升。对普通工薪阶层来说，实际所得税税率与35年前类似，但它们看起来要低得多。玩弄手腕是政治上的需要，但它加大了复杂性，导致不公，并为逃税创造了机会。
It is tempting, then, to call for a radical simplification, for taxes simple enough to write on the back of a postcard. But this ignores the third reason that taxes are complex, which is that fair taxation is a genuinely complex business. This year’s piecemeal reform efforts become next year’s loopholes.
因此人们会忍不住呼吁对税制进行彻底的简化，呼吁将税法简化到可以写在一张明信片上。但这忽视了税收复杂的第三个理由，那就是公平税收是相当复杂的事情。今年零碎的改革努力到明年就成为税收漏洞。
Only radical, systemic reform has much chance of success – and it may be less elegant than some reformers hope. A per-person “poll tax” was introduced in the UK 25 years ago, and promptly ended the premiership of Margaret Thatcher. It was undoubtedly simple – but in taxation, as in life, simplicity is not the only virtue.
只有系统性的根本改革才有可观的成功机会，而且它可能没有某些改革家预期的那么简洁。25年前英国出台了对每个人征收的“人头税”，结果很快导致英国首相玛格丽特•撒切尔(Margaret Thatcher)的下台。“人头税”无疑很简单，但税收和生活一样，简单并非唯一的美德。