dingdong

第4章  公共工程意味着增税
 

（接前面部分）

2

The same reasoning applies, of course, to every other form of public work. It applies just as well, for example, to the erection, with public funds, of housing for people of low incomes. All that happens is that money is taken away through taxes from families of higher income (and perhaps a little from families of even lower income) to force them to subsidize these selected families with low incomes and enable them to live in better housing for the same rent or for lower rent than previously.

这种推理方法同样适用于其他各种形式的公共建设。例如，动用公共资金兴建供低收入家庭居住的廉租房。这么做，只不过是用征税的方式让收入较高的家庭把钱拿出来（也可能有一小部分是其他低收入较低家庭的钱），强迫他们补贴那些政府选定的低收入家庭，让后者以相同或更低的租金，享有更好的住房条件。

I do not intend to enter here into all the pros and cons of public housing. I am concerned only to point out the error in two of the arguments most frequently put forward in favor of public housing. One is the argument that it “creates employment”; the other that it creates wealth which would not otherwise have been produced. Both of these arguments are false, because they overlook what is lost through taxation. Taxation for public housing destroys as many jobs in other lines as it creates in housing. It also results in unbuilt private homes, in unmade washing machines and refrigerators, and in lack of innumerable other commodities and services.

我不打算在这里探讨兴建廉租房的种种利弊，只想指出，赞成兴建廉租房的最常见的两个论调都存在谬误。其一是它能“创造就业”，其二是建造廉租房即创造了财富，否则便没有这笔财富。这两个论调都站不住脚，因为它们忽视了赋税造成的损失。用于兴建廉租房的税赋所毁掉的其他行业的工作机会，跟它在住房建设行业创造的工作机会一样多。这也导致有些私人住房无法盖起来，有些洗衣机和电冰箱无法生产出来，使其他不计其数的商品和服务供给缺乏。

And none of this is answered by the sort of reply which points out, for example, that public housing does not have to be financed by a lump sum capital appropriation, but merely by annual rent subsidies. This simply means that the cost to the taxpayers is spread over many years instead of being concentrated into one. Such technicalities are irrelevant to the main point.

有人说，兴建廉租房不需要一次拨一大笔钱，用年租金补足就行。类似的回答并不能解决任何问题。那只意味着把纳税人的负担分摊到许多年，而不是集中在一年。这样的技术细节与我们的主要问题是不相关的。

The great psychological advantage of the public housing advocates is that men are seen at work on the houses when they are going up, and the houses are seen when they are finished. People live in them, and proudly show their friends through the rooms. The jobs destroyed by the taxes for the housing are not seen, nor are the goods and services that were never made. It takes a concentrated effort of thought, and a new effort each time the houses and the happy people in them are seen, to think of the wealth that was not created instead. Is it surprising that the champions of public housing should dismiss this, if it is brought to their attention, as a world of imagination, as the objections of pure theory, while they point to the public housing that exists? As a character in Bernard Shaw’s Saint Joan replies when told of the theory of Pythagoras that the earth is round and revolves around the sun: “What an utter fool! Couldn’t he use his eyes?”

支持兴建廉租房的人有着很大的心理上的优势。建设时能看到繁忙的工地，完工后能看到崭新的建筑，入住时能看到乔迁新居的人喜气洋洋地带领亲朋好友参观房间。相反，因赋税而损失的工作是看不见的，那些无法生产出来的产品和无法提供的服务也是看不见的。每次看到那些房子，看到那些住在里面的幸福快乐的人，我们都需要重新集中精力，才能想象出那些没有被创造出来的财富。主张兴建廉租房的人指着矗立在眼前的楼房反驳说，你说的那些只是想象出来的、不存在的事物，是纯理论的东西。他们的言行令人惊讶吗？就像萧伯纳的剧作《圣女贞德》中的那个家伙，当被告知毕达哥拉斯的理论说地球是圆的、而且绕着太阳转时，他驳斥道： “十足的白痴！他不会用自己的眼睛去看吗？”

We must apply the same reasoning, once more, to great projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority. Here, because of sheer size, the danger of optical illusion is greater than ever. Here is a mighty dam, a stupendous arc of steel and concrete, “greater than anything that private capital could have built,” the fetish of photographers, the heaven of socialists, the most often used symbol of the miracles of public construction, ownership and operation. Here are mighty generators and power houses. Here is a whole region, it is said, lifted to a higher economic level, attracting factories and industries that could not otherwise have existed. And it is all presented, in the panegyrics of its partisans, as a net economic gain without offsets.

对于像田纳西河流域治理工程这样的宏伟工程，我们仍需进行同样的推理。这项工程十分浩大，其视觉冲击力更容易让人产生错觉。你看，这是一座巨大的拦水坝，这是一座令人震撼的弧形钢筋混凝土建筑。它“比私人资本能够建造的任何东西都伟大”，它是摄影师的圣殿，是社会主义者的天堂，也是最常被引述的公共建设、公共所有权、公共设施运营奇迹的象征。这里有巨大的水轮发电机组和电站厂房。单靠这项工程就带动了更多的新工厂和新产业，整个地区的经济水平也得以提高。拥护者对此推崇备至，说这里创造了没有负面效应的经济净收益。

We need not go here into the merits of the TVA or public projects like it. But this time we need a special effort of the imagination, which few people seem able to make, to look at the debit side of the ledger. If taxes are taken from individuals and corporations, and spent in one particular section of the country, why should it cause surprise, why should it be regarded as a miracle, if that section becomes comparatively richer? Other sections of the country, we should remember, are then comparatively poorer. The thing so great that “private capital could not have built it” has in fact been built by private capital—the capital that was expropriated in taxes (or, if the money was borrowed, that eventually must be expropriated in taxes). Again we must make an effort of the imagination to see the private power plants, the private homes, the typewriters and television sets that were never allowed to come into existence because of the money that was taken from people all over the country to build the photogenic Norris Dam.

我们不必详细讨论田纳西河流域治理工程或者类似的公共工程的优劣。不过在这里，我们必须看一看这本账目的支出部分，这需要加倍努力去运用想象力，因此似乎很少人能够做得到。如果政府把从个人和企业那里征收来的钱集中花在某个地方，使当地变得相对富裕，那有什么好令人惊叹的？凭什么应该视之为奇迹？请不要忘了，其他地方会因此变得相对贫穷。所谓“私人资本建造不出来”的伟大建设，实际上正是用私人资本建造的，即利用从民间征来的税来筹集建造工程的资本（如果是发行国债借钱的话，最后也要靠征税去偿还）。我们必须再次借助想象力，才看得到那些不存在的民间发电厂、民宅、打字机和电视机。这些事物得不到建设或生产，是因为全国各地人民身上的钱都被拿去建设了特别上镜的诺里斯大坝。

3

I have deliberately chosen the most favorable examples of public spending schemes—that is, those that are most frequently and fervently urged by the government spenders and most highly regarded by the public. I have not spoken of the hundreds of boondoggling projects that are invariably embarked upon the moment the main object is to “give jobs” and “to put people to work.” For then the usefulness of the project itself, as we have seen, inevitably becomes a subordinate consideration. Moreover, the more wasteful the work, the more costly in manpower, the better it becomes for the purpose of providing more employment. Under such circumstances it is highly improbable that the projects thought up by the bureaucrats will provide the same net addition to wealth and welfare, per dollar expended, as would have been provided by the taxpayers themselves, if they had been individually permitted to buy or have made what they themselves wanted, instead of being forced to surrender part of their earnings to the state.

我审慎地选了几个对于支持公共支出项目的主张最为有利的案例，也就是说，这些公共支出计划都是主张政府支出的人推崇备至的，也是最受公众认可的。我还没有谈及那些主要为了“提供工作机会”和“让人们有工作可做”而着手搞的、耗资巨大而没有价值的面子工程。就象我们所看到的，项目本身的可用性在这类方案中必然是一种次要的考虑。而且，工程越是铺张浪费，耗用的人力成本越高，就越能达到提供更多就业机会这个目标。在这种情况下，由官僚们所构想出的项目所能够创造出的财富和福利水平，很难达到如若允许纳税者个人自由购买或生产他们自己所需要的东西，而不是强迫他们将一部分收入上缴国家所能带来的财富和福利水平。因为，每花一块钱都是纳税者自己提供的。

Trackback URI | Comments RSS