Выдержка из работы:
Некоторые тезисы из работы по теме 10 статей по экономике на английском языке (+перевод)
THE CASE FOR FLAT TAXES
Apr 14th 2005
Pioneered in eastern Europe, flat tax systems seem to work because they
are simple
AN ARTFUL taxman, according to Jean-Baptiste Colbert, treasurer to
Louis XIV, so plucks the goose as to obtain the most feathers for the
least hissing. Such arts are lost in America. As the April 15th
deadline for filing tax returns falls due, the hissing is as audible as
ever. But Americans are not alone. New Zealand's tax code instils
"anger, frustration, confusion and alienation" in the islands'
businessmen, according to a 2001 report to ministers. Adam Smith spoke
for many when he bemoaned the "unnecessary trouble, vexation, and
oppression" the people suffer at the hands of the tax-gatherers.
The White House claims to be listening. Shortly after his election
victory, President George Bush set up a panel to advise him on how to
reform the tax system. A report is expected this summer. Judging by the
remit he has given them, Mr Bush wants to iron out some of the kinks in
the tax code that distort saving and deter work, while retaining tax
breaks for charity and home-ownership. But he also wants to simplify
the tax code for simplicity's sake.
The Americans are talking about it. Meanwhile in Europe, east of Vienna
and as far afield as Russia and Georgia, they are actually doing it. In
1994, Estonia became the first country in Europe to introduce a
so-called "flat tax", replacing three tax rates on personal income, and
another on corporate profits, with one uniform rate of 26%. Simplicity
itself. At the stroke of a pen, this tiny Baltic nation transformed
itself from backwater to bellwether, emulated by its neighbours and
envied by conservatives in America who long to flatten their own
country's taxes.
Latvia and Lithuania, Estonia's Baltic neighbours, promptly followed
its example. In 2001, Russia too moved to a flat tax on personal
income. Three years later, Slovakia imposed a uniform 19% rate on
personal and corporate income, and set the same rate for its
value-added tax (VAT) too, for the sake of symmetry rather than
economic logic, it seems. In Poland, Civic Platform, a centre-right
opposition party, wants to mirror Slovakia, only at the lower rate of
15%. In all, eight countries have now followed Estonia (see table).
Might America do the same? The tax system there has been debated for
years. William Simon, America's treasury secretary under President
Richard Nixon, wanted a system that looked "like someone designed it on
purpose". But the bewildering bulk and complexity of a modern tax code
is not only the result of poor or malicious design.
Fairness is the chief reason why most countries have imposed multiple
rates of tax. In Canada, Australia and the European Union, for example,
staple foods, but not restaurant meals, are exempted from value-added
tax. This is deemed fair because the poor spend a greater share of
their income on unprepared food. It can lead to nonsense, however.
Jeffrey Owens and Stuart Hamilton of the OECD point out that hot roast
chicken is taxed, but cold roast chicken is not. "Does anyone expect
tax administrators and business owners to have thermometers on hand
when they do their tax calculations?" they ask, only half in jest.
In Luxembourg tax collectors work with no fewer than 17 different tax
brackets, to ensure rich Luxemburghers pay a greater proportion of
their income than their slightly less rich countrymen. The
international trend, however, is away from such pointillism towards
broader brushwork. Between 2000 and 2003, the OECD reports, seven of
its members (including Luxembourg) cut the number of brackets, although
Canada, Portugal and America all added one.