问答题
In the 1939 classic Western " Stagecoach ", a villainous banker
with a bag of embezzled cash in his lap frets about the state of the American
economy: "Our national debt is something shocking!" he complains. That year
American public debt was just over two-fifths of GDP. This year, the IMF
reckons, it will be just over 98% , rising to over 102% in 2012. Were he still
around, the unscrupulous banker might have struggled to express his outrage,
although he might have found solace in the fact that America's August 2nd deal
to increase the debt ceiling envisages $2.4 trillion in spending cuts but no tax
hikes. This strikes many, both outside the United States and within it, as odd.
A Democratic congressman called the debt deal a "sugar-coated Satan
sandwich". It does, however, loosely reflect longstanding
differences between Americans' attitudes to taxation and those in much of the
rest of the rich world. America is far less inclined than many of its rich-world
peers to use taxation and redistribution to reduce inequality. The OECD, a
think-tank, reckons that taxation eats up a little less than 30% of the average
American's total compensation, compared with nearly 50% in Germany and France.
America's top federal income-tax rate of 35% is lower than in many other
advanced economies (although most Americans also pay state taxes). Britain's top
tax rate is 50%. Swedes and Danes acquiesce to tax rates that would
outrage many Americans: Sweden's top rate is 57% and Denmark's is
55%. Unsurprisingly, the American state is also less generous to the poor.
Unemployment benefits in the United States replace a smaller share of income,
and run out more quickly, than in most European countries. The
differences in attitude towards redistributive taxes are not just between
countries but also within them, and economists have several explanations as to
why. When it comes to differences between countries, social cohesion plays a
major role. Broadly speaking, countries that are more ethnically or racially
homogeneous are more comfortable with the state seeking to mitigate inequality
by transferring some resources from richer to poorer people through the fiscal
system. This may explain why Swedes complain less about high taxes than the
inhabitants of a country of immigrants such as America. But it also suggests
that even societies with a tradition of high taxes ( such as those in
Scandinavia) might find that their citizens would become less willing to finance
generous welfare programmes were immigrants to make up a greater share of their
population. Immigration can also subtly alter the overall attitude towards such
matters in another way. A 2008 study by economists at Harvard found evidence
that immigrants' attitudes towards taxation and redistribution were rooted in
the places they had left. Social divisions also play a role in
determining who within a society prefers greater redistributive taxation. In
America blacks—who are more likely to benefit from welfare programmes
than richer whites—are much more favorably
disposed towards redistribution through the fiscal system than white
people are. A 2001 study looked at over 20 years of data from America's General
Social Survey and found that whereas 47% of blacks thought welfare spending was
too low, only 16% of whites did. Only a quarter of blacks thought it was too
high, compared with 55% of whites. In general (though not always), those who
identify with a group that benefits from redistribution seem to want more of
it. Paradoxically, as the share of the population that receives
benefits in a given area rises, support for welfare in the area falls. A new
NBER paper finds evidence for an even more intriguing and provocative
hypothesis. Its authors note that those near but not at the bottom of the income
distribution are often deeply ambivalent about greater redistribution.
Economists have usually explained poor people's counter-intuitive disdain
for something that might make them better off by invoking income mobility.
Joe the Plumber might not be making enough to be affected by proposed hikes in
tax rates on those making more than $250,000 a year, they argue, but he hopes
someday to be one of them. This theory explains some cross-country differences,
but it would also predict increased support for redistribution as income
inequality widens. Yet the opposite has happened in America, Britain and other
rich countries where inequality has risen over the past 30 years.
Instead of opposing redistribution because people expect to make it to
the top of the economic ladder, the authors of the new paper argue that people
don't like to be at the bottom. One paradoxical consequence of this "last-place
aversion" is that some poor people may be vociferously opposed to the kinds of
policies that would actually raise their own income a bit but that might also
push those who are poorer than them into comparable or higher positions. The
authors ran a series of experiments where students were randomly allotted sums
of money, separated by $1, and informed about the "income distribution" that
resulted. They were then given another $ 2, which they could give either
to the person directly above or below them in the distribution.
In keeping with the notion of "last-place aversion", the people who were a spot
away from the bottom were the most likely to give the money to the person above
them: rewarding the "rich" but ensuring that someone remained poorer than
themselves. Those not at risk of becoming the poorest did not seem to mind
falling a notch in the distribution of income nearly as much. This idea is
backed up by survey data from America collected by Pew, a polling company: those
who earned just a bit more than the minimum wage were the most resistant to
increasing it. Poverty may be miserable. But being able to feel
a bit better-off than someone else makes it a bit more bearable.
问答题
What does the so-called "sugar-coated Satan sandwich" refer to? And what does it indicate?
【正确答案】The "sugar-coated Satan sandwich" refers to America's August 2[nd] debt deal. It indicates that America is less willing to use taxation and redistribution to reduce inequality, different from other developed countries in the attitudes toward taxation.
【答案解析】
问答题
Why Swedes complain less about high taxes than Americans? What does this example imply?
【正确答案】According to the explanation of the economists, a country with fewer immigrants, that is, more racially homogeneous, tends to reduce inequality through financial policies, transferring some resources from richer to poorer people. This example implies that social cohesion contributes to the different attitudes toward taxes between countries.
【答案解析】
问答题
What does the data from America's General Social Survey imply?
【正确答案】The data implies that the poor are more inclined to advocate redistribution than the rich, which indicates social divisions contribute to different attitudes toward redistribution within a society.
【答案解析】
问答题
According to the passage, why do people near but not at the bottom of the income distribution have a mixed feeling of greater redistribution?
【正确答案】People expect to reach the top of the economic ladder and don't like to be at the bottom. On one hand, they hope their income can be raised through redistribution; on the other hand, some poor people may be opposed to the policies that would actually raise their own income a bit but that might also push those who are poorer than them into higher positions.
【答案解析】
问答题
Paraphrase the sentence "But being able to feel a bit better-off than someone else makes it a bit more bearable."
【正确答案】Thinking of being not at the bottom of the economic ladder and being better than some others makes poverty can be endured.