![](https://static.zsdocx.com/FlexPaper/FileRoot/2019-6/5/11/15a4a6eb-232c-44d0-b710-1f19aae7775a/15a4a6eb-232c-44d0-b710-1f19aae7775apic.jpg)
![外文翻譯--能源,稅收和增長(節(jié)選)_第1頁](https://static.zsdocx.com/FlexPaper/FileRoot/2019-6/5/11/15a4a6eb-232c-44d0-b710-1f19aae7775a/15a4a6eb-232c-44d0-b710-1f19aae7775a1.gif)
版權說明:本文檔由用戶提供并上傳,收益歸屬內(nèi)容提供方,若內(nèi)容存在侵權,請進行舉報或認領
文檔簡介
1、<p> 3700漢字,2000英文單詞,11000英文字符</p><p> 出處:Weinstein B L. Energy, taxes and growth[J]. Society, 1984, 22(1):41-47.</p><p> Energy,Taxes and Growth</p><p> Bernard L Bernstei
2、n</p><p> Conflicting concerns of energy producing and energy consuming states will occupy center stage in the regional arena during the 1980s. The popular press speaks of “energy haves” and “energy have-n
3、ets.” Politicians from consuming states bemoan the “unfair windfalls” to producing states while those in producing states claim their economic future is being sacrificed to heat homes in Minneapolis or to provide electri
4、city to Detroit. Legislation has been introduced in the United States Congress that </p><p> My first objective is to review some earlier interregional conflicts and the Sunbelt-Frostbelt controversy in pa
5、rticular, and my second is to explain how and why state energy taxation has emerged as a political and fiscal issue. A third objective is to examine the economics of the severance tax with particular attention to who pay
6、s, who benefits, what are the impacts on production, and what are some approaches for resolving the issue.</p><p> The economic history of the United States during the nineteenth century is replete with co
7、nflicting regional interests. The Civil War can be understood in strictly economic terms. Slaves represented the bulk of the South’s productive capital, and a large portion of the region’s in- come was attributable to th
8、e productivity of this peculiar institution. Southern slaveowners felt threatened by the election of a Republican president and saw secession as a means of protecting their economic interest</p><p> almost
9、a century, the North and South differed over tariff policy. The South favored free trade because much of its agricultural production was exported. Southern businessmen and politicians feared retaliation by other countri
10、es if United States tariffs were set too high. The North was anxious to protect its growing industries and saw high tariffs as a means of restricting manufactured imports until domestic industries could achieve economie
11、s of scale. High tariffs remained long after economie</p><p> Sunbelt-Frostbelt Wars</p><p> On February 8, 1976 the New York Times discovered the Sunbelt. For a full week, the Times described
12、 in a series of articles the phenomenal growth occurring in the South and West and contrasted it to the sluggish economic performance of the Northeast and Midwest. Ac- cording to the reports, the major cause of Sunbelt p
13、rosperity and northern decline was an inequitable balance of federal funds—that is, the Sunbelt states received more from Washington in federal outlays than they sent to Washington </p><p> In response to t
14、he alleged shortchanging of the Frostbelt, a host of political coalitions was formed to represent regional interests. The Coalition of Northeastern Governors and the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition have been th
15、e primary spokesgroups for the Frostbelt states while the Southern Growth Policies Board and the Western Governors’ Policy Office have represented the South and West before Congress and the executive branch. In early 198
16、1, a new congressional coalition called the </p><p> Since the mid- 1970s, most of the regional battles have nvolved attempts to change federal grant formulas to the benefit of one region or another or to r
17、equire the targeting of federal procurement to distressed areas. The northern coalitions appear to have been more successful than the southern and western groups since the measured “balance-of-payments” deficits with Was
18、hington have narrowed considerably in recent years.</p><p> That discriminatory federal policies have been responsible or the relative economic decline of the Northeast and Midwest is difficult to substanti
19、ate. While it is true, for example, that New York, the state with the lowest rate of economic growth in the seventies, got back slightly less in federal disbursements than it paid in taxes, the “payback ratio” was about
20、 the same or higher than that of many fast-growing states such as Nevada, Texas, and New Hampshire.</p><p> Any a priori expectation of balances between spending and taxes would totally ignore the significa
21、nt distributional aspects of federal fiscal policy. Progressive in- come taxes take more from wealthy persons (and states) than they do from poor persons (and states). Similarly, many federal expenditure and transfer pro
22、grams have been specifically designed to raise the income of the nation’s lowest socioeconomic groups. Per capita incomes in the South Atlantic, South Central, and Mountain regions a</p><p> The contributio
23、n of federal spending to the economic development of the Sunbelt has been overstated. People and industry have been moving to the South and West for decades. To a large extent, this migration is occurring in response to
24、 economic forces affecting the cost and efficiency of production. As the London Economist point out recently, the raise of the Sunbelt has helped America’s international competitiveness, increased investment by capturing
25、 firms that might otherwise have gone abroad,</p><p> By 1980, the Sunbeltfrostbelt wars had quieted down, and in retrospect it is easy to see why. The controversy really began in the aftermath of the reces
26、sion induced by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1973-75, the most severe national economic downturn since the Great Depression. The industrial heartland of the Northeast and Midwest was hit es
27、pecially hard, and unemployment rates climbed to their highest levels in thirty five years. With gross national product dropping</p><p> Haves vs. Have-Nets</p><p> Over the past several years
28、, taxes levied by states on energy resources, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, have become the center of growing controversy between energy producing and energy consuming states. Although many of these taxes have bee
29、n around for decades—Texas has taxed oil for over seventy -five years—they first began to attract attention when the federal government freed oil from price controls in 1979 and instituted the phased decontrol of natural
30、 gas prices.</p><p> As oil and gas prices began to rise, severance tax collections by major producing states rose in tandem. For example, revenue from Texas’s oil tax alone jumped from $435 million in l978
31、 to $1.3 billion in 1982, a 200 percent increase. In 1974, severance tax collections in the nation amounted to only $1. 2 billion; but by 1962 the taxes were producing $7. 8 billion, with Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, and Ok
32、lahoma capturing 72 percent of the total. A widely circulated, although unpublished, U.S. Treas</p><p> Some of the energy consuming states are complaining of severe economic consequences from escalating en
33、ergy costs and the attendant revenue gains to energy producers. They also worry that the producing states will use their energy wealth to fuel even more economic growth at the expense of the energy have-nots. For example
34、, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, in a recent publication, The United American Emirates, argues that higher severance tax collections will enable energy states to keep other tax</p><p> Concern has also be
35、en voiced that higher severance tax collections by energy producing states will seriously distort the intergovernmental fiscal system. Several intergovernmental grants include a tax-effort factor in the allocation formul
36、a, and growing severance tax yields will allegedly give rise to a false measure of actual tax effort since a portion of the tax is exported.</p><p> The recently enacted federal budget cuts have also height
37、ened regional tensions. Consuming states believe adjustment to the parameters of the New Federalism will be difficult for them and relatively easy for the energy producing states whose rising severance tax receipts will
38、more than compensate for the federal revenue losses. The energy producing states counter that the increased revenues are justifiable in that they compensate the state for the economic costs of production. These include d
39、ire</p><p> We learned a big lesson from our own history. Anaconda Copper took billions of dollars of copper out of Montana and left nothing behind. So our governor demanded that we get the revenue so that
40、when the coal is gone, something will be left behind in Montana.</p><p> Continuing controls on natural gas pricing are also a source of irritation to Texas, Louisiana, and other important gas producing sta
41、tes. Under the 1978 Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA), thirty price categories were established for natural gas with periodic price adjustments for each. The intent of these adjustments was to close the gap between oil and g
42、as prices and to phase out most controls by 1985. The NGPA's price escalation provisions did not anticipate the rapid increase in oil prices that o</p><p> Gas producers would like to see the decontrol
43、process accelerated. One of the arguments frequently made in support of speedy decontrol is that it would boost production and reduce the nation's dependence on imported oil. Decontrol would also be a step toward end
44、ing the dual natural gas market perpetuated by the NGPA. Opponents argue that immediate decontrol would be costly to consumers and would speed up the transfer of wealth and economic power from consuming to producing stat
45、es. Opponents of d</p><p><b> 能源,稅收和增長</b></p><p> Bernard L Bernstein</p><p> 能源生產(chǎn)和能源消費大國之間的矛盾沖突問題將會占據(jù)20世紀80年代區(qū)域舞臺的中心。如今大眾媒體談到了“能源富國”和“能源無產(chǎn)者”這兩個概念。 在消費國的政客哀嘆那些“不正當暴利
46、”的生產(chǎn)國,而那些生產(chǎn)國們聲稱他們的經(jīng)濟前景被犧牲在了為明尼阿波利斯提供家庭供暖或是在為底特律提供電力上。美國國會已經(jīng)出臺了一個法案,該法案將加入一項聯(lián)邦限制州征收能源稅的條例,而且商業(yè)周刊以及東北中西部的國會聯(lián)盟一直都贊成國家征收能源資源稅。</p><p> 本文的第一個目標就是回顧一些早期的區(qū)域間的沖突,特別是南部的陽光地區(qū)和霜凍地區(qū)的爭議沖突,第二個目標是解釋如何以及為什么國家能源稅已經(jīng)成為一個政治和財
47、政問題。第三個目標是要調(diào)查經(jīng)濟遣散稅,尤其注意以下幾個方面,誰支付了這筆費用,誰能獲得利益,什么方面會對生產(chǎn)產(chǎn)生影響,用什么方法能夠解決這些問題。</p><p> 十九世紀的美國經(jīng)濟史充滿了區(qū)域利益的沖突。這場內(nèi)戰(zhàn)可以用嚴酷的經(jīng)濟條件來理解。以奴隸代表了大部分的南方的生產(chǎn)資本主義,而這地區(qū)的大部分地區(qū)都歸功于這一特殊機構的生產(chǎn)力。南方奴隸主受到共和黨總統(tǒng)選舉的威脅,看到國家分裂于是采取了這種手段來保護自己的經(jīng)
48、濟利益。在十九世紀末發(fā)生的“民粹主義”運動也有強烈的地域色彩。民粹主義對農(nóng)村和南部大平原,以及一些不參與工業(yè)革命的地區(qū)吸引力最大。因為民粹主義政治家們承諾保護“小人物”,不受“北方壟斷”的剝削。</p><p> 近一個世紀以來,北方和南方實行不同的關稅政策。南部贊成自由貿(mào)易,因為其大部分農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)用于出口。如果美國的關稅被設置得太高,南方的商人和政客們擔心會被其他國家報復。而北方急于保護其不斷增長的產(chǎn)業(yè),并將高
49、關稅作為一種限制生產(chǎn)進口的手段,直到國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)能夠實現(xiàn)一定的經(jīng)濟規(guī)模。高關稅在經(jīng)濟規(guī)模實現(xiàn)之后仍然需要實行很長的時間。</p><p> 陽光地帶霜凍地帶的戰(zhàn)爭</p><p> 1976年2月8日,紐約時報報道發(fā)現(xiàn)陽光地帶。在一周內(nèi),紐約時報報道了一系列文章,文章中描述了南部和西部的經(jīng)濟出現(xiàn)驚人的增長,并與東北部和中西部的低迷的經(jīng)濟表現(xiàn)做對比。據(jù)報道,陽光地帶的繁榮和北部衰弱的主要原因
50、是聯(lián)邦資金的分配不公平,也就是說,陽光地帶的國家收到來自華盛頓的聯(lián)邦的財政支出多于他們送往華盛頓的稅收支出。而北方各州支出的稅收比他們獲得還要多。這種說法在5月17日進一步發(fā)展,于是1976年商業(yè)周刊封面文章將其命名為“州之間的第二次戰(zhàn)爭”。</p><p> 為響應被政府欺騙的霜凍地帶,許多政治聯(lián)盟紛紛成立來代表和維護各自的區(qū)域利益。東北各州州長聯(lián)盟和東北中西部國會聯(lián)盟一直是霜凍地帶國家的主要發(fā)言組,但南部發(fā)
51、展政策委員會和西部州長的政策辦公室代表的南部和西部優(yōu)于國會和行政部門。于是到了1981年初,一個新的國會聯(lián)盟成立了并稱該聯(lián)盟的成立是為了對抗東北中西部聯(lián)盟。</p><p> 自20世紀70年代中期以來,大部分區(qū)域性戰(zhàn)役都試圖改變聯(lián)邦政府對一個地區(qū)或另一個地區(qū)的利益,或者要求聯(lián)邦政府針對貧困地區(qū)進行采購支出。北方聯(lián)盟似乎一直比南部和西部群體更有優(yōu)勢,因為最近幾年來,“國際收支平衡”使華盛頓的財政赤字已經(jīng)大幅度縮
52、小。而東北地區(qū)和中西部地區(qū)經(jīng)濟相對衰退是否與這種歧視性的聯(lián)邦政策有關很難得到證實。雖然這是事實,例如,紐約,在70年代是經(jīng)濟增長率最低的國家,如果聯(lián)邦支出回到略低于它支付的稅收,那么它的“投資回收率”將會相同或高于許多快速增長的州,如內(nèi)華達州,德克薩斯州和新罕布什爾州。</p><p> 支出和稅收之間的平衡的任何先驗預期都將完全無視聯(lián)邦財政政策的分配問題。累進所得稅從富裕人士(和州)那比來自貧窮的人(和州)那
53、獲得的多。同樣,許多聯(lián)邦支出和轉移支付計劃經(jīng)過特別設計,以此來提高全國最低的社會經(jīng)濟群體的收入。在南大西洋,南部和中部的人均收入,以及山區(qū)均遠低于全國平均水平,新英格蘭,大西洋,和五大湖地區(qū)的人均收入高于全國平均水平。因此,在南部和大多數(shù)的山區(qū)國家,一般納稅的人數(shù)都比北方的人少。稅收差異反映了區(qū)域的相對收入地位。州與州或區(qū)域與區(qū)域之間的聯(lián)邦稅收和支出比較也會對其他地區(qū)造成誤導。一些聯(lián)邦計劃被引導到個人,而不是地方政府或私人,一些社會保障
54、金、聯(lián)邦退休和軍隊退休金是從高流動人口處獲得的。盡管許多退休人員帶著他們的養(yǎng)老金搬到了陽光地帶,但這并不是一個特定的公共政策所導致的結果。</p><p> 聯(lián)邦支出在陽光地帶經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的貢獻被夸大了。人類和工業(yè)已遷移到南部和西部幾十年了。在很大程度上,這種遷移的發(fā)生影響了經(jīng)濟力量的成本和生產(chǎn)效率。近日倫敦經(jīng)濟學家指出,陽光地帶有助于提升美國的國際競爭力,通過抓住那些上市公司來增加投資,來提高所有美國人的生活水平
55、。</p><p> 到1980年,陽光地帶與霜凍地帶的戰(zhàn)爭已經(jīng)平息了,回顧歷史就很容易明白這是為什么。此項爭論開始于石油輸出國組織(歐佩克)引起的經(jīng)濟衰退,這是1973年到1975年以來發(fā)生德爾最嚴重的國際經(jīng)濟大蕭條。東北部和中西部地區(qū)的工業(yè)中心受到嚴重了打擊,尤其是在近三十五年里,失業(yè)率攀升至最高水平。隨著國民生產(chǎn)總值急劇下降,該地區(qū)開始爭奪經(jīng)濟萎縮餡餅。1977至1960年間,經(jīng)濟恢復,全國各地區(qū)公布了經(jīng)
56、濟收益。在公共政策領域,區(qū)域關注的問題就變得不那么重要了。近年來,真正的經(jīng)濟增長有助于減少陽光地帶與霜凍帶的沖突。東部與西部在上世紀60年代在能源利用上引起的沖突也起到了一個教訓。</p><p> “能源富國''和“能源無產(chǎn)者”</p><p> 過去幾年,國家對能源資源,如煤炭、石油和天然氣征收的稅收,已成為能源生產(chǎn)和能源消費國之間日益激烈的爭論的中心話題。雖然許多
57、這些稅已經(jīng)存在了數(shù)十年,例如,德克薩斯州已有超過七十年的征收石油稅收的歷史,當聯(lián)邦政府把石油從1979價格控制和制定天然氣價格逐步放開時,他們才第一次引起了人們的注意。</p><p> 隨著石油和天然氣價格開始上升,主要生產(chǎn)國的遣散稅也隨之上漲。例如,僅德克薩斯的石油稅收入,1978年的4億3500萬到了1982年就上漲到了30億美元,增加了百分之200。在1974年,遣散稅的國家征收總額僅為1.2億美元;但
58、是到了1962,稅收總額就達到7.8億美元,占德克薩斯,阿拉斯加,路易斯安那和奧克拉荷馬的總額的72%。一組廣為流傳,但未公開的關于美國財政部在1979年的研究數(shù)據(jù)估計,來自石油管制產(chǎn)生的增加國家和地方的收入金額將達到128億美元超過了20世紀60年代財政收入。雖然這些估計的準確度受到了廣泛的質(zhì)疑,但“超級美元”使得能源富國和能源無產(chǎn)者之間的潛在的財政差異受到了人們的關注。</p><p> 一些能源消費國抱怨
59、能源成本上升以及隨之而來的能源生產(chǎn)者收入增加帶來的嚴重經(jīng)濟后果。他們還擔心,生產(chǎn)國將利用其能源財富,以犧牲能源匱乏者為代價,推動更多的經(jīng)濟增長。例如,美國東北部中西部研究所最近發(fā)表的一份出版物《聯(lián)合酋長國》指出,征收更高的遣散費將使能源州能夠降低其他稅收,從而增強它們吸引新產(chǎn)業(yè)的能力。來自東北和中西部的政治家和專家將這些稅收收益稱為“不公平的意外收獲”,并預測了一種“分離稅戰(zhàn)爭”的情景,即能源擁有者在減輕地方稅收負擔的同時向能源擁有者出
60、口稅收。他們擔心,看到產(chǎn)油國巨額財政盈余,其他礦產(chǎn)豐富的國家將試圖提高自己的稅收。這場“戰(zhàn)爭”甚至可能超越礦物,擴展到木材和谷物等資源。</p><p> 也有人擔心,能源生產(chǎn)國征收高額遣散費將嚴重扭曲政府間財政制度。幾項政府間贈款在分配公式中包含了稅收努力因素,而且由于部分稅款出口,增加的遣散費收益據(jù)稱會導致實際稅收努力的錯誤衡量。</p><p> 最近頒布的聯(lián)邦預算削減也加劇了地
61、區(qū)緊張局勢。消費國認為,調(diào)整新聯(lián)邦制的參數(shù)對他們來說將是困難的,而對能源生產(chǎn)國來說則相對容易,因為這些國家不斷增加的遣散費收入將足以彌補聯(lián)邦收入的損失。能源生產(chǎn)國反駁說,增加收入是合理的,因為它們補償了國家的生產(chǎn)經(jīng)濟成本。其中包括直接影響,如污染和環(huán)境破壞,以及額外的間接成本,如教育、道路和其他與能源開發(fā)有關的公共工程項目。能源生產(chǎn)國也以實際資源枯竭為由證明征稅是合理的。因為能源是不可再生的,所以它們的開采是一次性的收入來源。一旦儲量耗
62、盡,該國一度富有的地位可能就沒什么可炫耀的了。遣散費有助于將礦產(chǎn)財富轉化為經(jīng)濟財富;收入不僅可以用來緩解與采掘行動有關的混亂,而且可以促進多樣化經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展,取代資源型經(jīng)濟。蒙大拿州聯(lián)邦與州關系主任狄恩哈特最近為該州30 %的煤稅辯護時指出:</p><p> 我們從自己的歷史中學到了很大的教訓。蟒蛇銅從蒙大拿州帶走了數(shù)十億美元的銅,什么也沒有留下。所以我們的州長要求我們獲得收入,這樣當煤用完了,蒙大拿州就會留下
63、一些東西。 對天然氣定價的持續(xù)控制也是對德克薩斯州,路易斯安那州和其他重要天然氣生產(chǎn)國的刺激源。根據(jù)1978年的“天然氣政策法案”(NGPA),為天然氣確定了30種價格類別,并定期調(diào)整價格。這些調(diào)整的目的是縮小石油和天然氣價格之間的差距,并在1985年之前逐步取消大部分控制措施.NGPA的價格上漲規(guī)定并沒有預測1979 - 1980年間油價的快速上漲,因此雖然天然氣價格近年來大幅增加,但仍遠低于同等油價。NGPA還將價格管制擴展
溫馨提示
- 1. 本站所有資源如無特殊說明,都需要本地電腦安裝OFFICE2007和PDF閱讀器。圖紙軟件為CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.壓縮文件請下載最新的WinRAR軟件解壓。
- 2. 本站的文檔不包含任何第三方提供的附件圖紙等,如果需要附件,請聯(lián)系上傳者。文件的所有權益歸上傳用戶所有。
- 3. 本站RAR壓縮包中若帶圖紙,網(wǎng)頁內(nèi)容里面會有圖紙預覽,若沒有圖紙預覽就沒有圖紙。
- 4. 未經(jīng)權益所有人同意不得將文件中的內(nèi)容挪作商業(yè)或盈利用途。
- 5. 眾賞文庫僅提供信息存儲空間,僅對用戶上傳內(nèi)容的表現(xiàn)方式做保護處理,對用戶上傳分享的文檔內(nèi)容本身不做任何修改或編輯,并不能對任何下載內(nèi)容負責。
- 6. 下載文件中如有侵權或不適當內(nèi)容,請與我們聯(lián)系,我們立即糾正。
- 7. 本站不保證下載資源的準確性、安全性和完整性, 同時也不承擔用戶因使用這些下載資源對自己和他人造成任何形式的傷害或損失。
最新文檔
- 外文翻譯--能源,稅收和增長(原文)
- 外文翻譯--合并政策和稅收競爭(節(jié)選)
- 2012年--外文翻譯--稅收籌劃的動機(節(jié)選)
- 城市化進程和經(jīng)濟增長外文文獻翻譯(節(jié)選)
- 外文文獻翻譯--發(fā)展中國家能源與經(jīng)濟增長的因果關系(節(jié)選)
- 外文文獻翻譯--發(fā)展中國家能源與經(jīng)濟增長的因果關系(節(jié)選)
- 外文文獻翻譯--發(fā)展中國家能源與經(jīng)濟增長的因果關系(節(jié)選)
- 國際貿(mào)易外文翻譯--外商直接投資對清潔能源的使用碳排放和經(jīng)濟增長的貢獻(節(jié)選)
- 出口和經(jīng)濟增長【外文翻譯】
- 啟動和增長融資【外文翻譯】
- 服務貿(mào)易和增長【外文翻譯】
- 出口結構和增長【外文翻譯】
- 外文翻譯--紅利和資本收益的稅收策略和在雙重稅收標準下的分紅決策(節(jié)選)
- 2014年稅收籌劃外文翻譯-稅收籌劃對企業(yè)市場績效的影響(節(jié)選)
- 外文翻譯--外商直接投資怎樣影響經(jīng)濟的增長(節(jié)選)
- 電子商務和稅收[外文翻譯]
- 外文翻譯----- 碳市場和碳合同(節(jié)選)
- 稅制結構和經(jīng)濟增長【外文翻譯】
- 能源和自然資源【外文翻譯】
- 非洲民間資本流動與經(jīng)濟增長外文文獻翻譯(節(jié)選)
評論
0/150
提交評論