Unfortunately, the points on both sides of the argument have considerable force. While I support moves to make the tax system more progressive, the reality is that inequality is likely to remain high and continue to rise, even in the face of all that can responsibly be done to increase the burden on those with high income and redistribute the proceeds. Measures such as allowing unions to organise without undue reprisals and enhancing shareholders’ role in executive pay-setting are desirable. But they are unlikely even to hold at bay the trend towards increasing inequality.
遗憾的是,辩论双方的论点均有相当的说服力。虽然我支持采取措施提高税制的累进程度,但现实是,即便我们在负责任的限度内尽一切可能增加高收入者的负担,并重新分配增税所得,不平等程度很可能仍保持在高位,并且会继续上升。允许人们组织工会而不受到不合理的报复、提高股东在制定高管薪酬中的作用等措施是可取的。但是,此类措施甚至不太可能遏制不平等程度日益上升的趋势。
Where does this leave the public policy agenda? The global record of populist policies motivated by inequality concerns is hardly encouraging. Equally, passivity in the face of dramatic economic change is unlikely to be viable. Perhaps the focus needs to shift from inequality in outcomes, where attitudes divide sharply and there are limits to what can be done, to inequalities in opportunity. It is hard to see who could disagree with the aspiration to equalise opportunity or fail to recognise the manifest inequalities in opportunity today.
【美国如何减少不平等?】相关文章:
★ 美国大选与金价
★ 美国外交的困局
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15