May 2026
2026年5月
How do you convert between wealth and income tax? If a government imposes a wealth tax of 1%, what's the equivalent in income tax?
如何在财富税和所得税之间换算？如果政府征收1%的财富税，这相当于多少所得税？
It's clear from the way most politicians talk about the subject that they not only don't know the answer, but don't even realize there's such a question.
从大多数政客谈论这个话题的方式就能明显看出来，他们不仅不知道答案，甚至都没意识到这个问题本身是存在的。
In fact the conversion rate between them is about 20. A wealth tax of 1% is equivalent to an income tax of 20%.
实际上，两者之间的换算系数大约是20。1%的财富税，相当于20%的所得税。
To convert between wealth and income tax rates, you have to divide by the rate of return on capital. The conversion rate of 20 comes from assuming that the risk-free rate of return is 5%. Historically that's an optimistic assumption. 4% might be more realistic. But 5% will do. [1]
要在财富税率和所得税率之间换算，你必须用税率去除以资本回报率。这个20倍的换算系数，来自于假设无风险回报率是5%。从历史上看，这甚至算是偏乐观的假设。4%或许更现实一些。不过5%也够用了。 [1]
If we run through an example it will be clear how this works. Suppose you have $100, you're getting a 5% rate of return on this capital, and there's a 20% income tax. The 5% rate of return means at the end of one year your $100 has made you another $5. But you have to pay 20% of that, or $1, in income tax, so your after-tax income is $4. At the end of the year, after paying taxes, you have $100 + $4 = $104.
我们跑一个例子，这个原理就很清楚了。假设你有100美元，这笔资本的回报率是5%，而所得税税率是20%。5%的回报率意味着，一年结束时，你的100美元会再为你赚来5美元。但你必须为这5美元缴纳20%的所得税，也就是1美元，所以你的税后收入是4美元。到年末，缴完税之后，你一共拥有100美元 + 4美元 = 104美元。
Now suppose instead of a 20% income tax, there's a 1% wealth tax. At the end of the year your $100 has made you another $5, as before. But that year you had to pay 1% of your $100, or $1, in wealth tax. So at the end of the year you have $99 + $5 = $104.
现在假设不是征收20%的所得税，而是征收1%的财富税。到年末时，你的100美元和之前一样赚了5美元。但这一年你必须按100美元的1%缴纳财富税，也就是1美元。所以到年末时，你拥有99美元 + 5美元 = 104美元。
Each 1% of wealth tax is equivalent to 20% of income tax.
每1%的财富税，都相当于20%的所得税。
It's clear that politicians don't get this from the way they talk about a "mere 1%" wealth tax. None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate, even though that's mathematically the same thing. [2]
从政客们谈论“区区1%”财富税的方式就能明显看出来，他们并不明白这一点。即使在数学上这完全是一回事，也没有人会把所得税税率“仅仅再加20%”说得这么轻描淡写。 [2]
Politicians understand that an additional 20% income tax would be a lot. And indeed a US state that added 20% to its top income tax rate would have extraordinarily high taxes.
政客们明白，额外增加20%的所得税会是很重的税负。事实上，美国如果有哪个州把最高所得税税率再加上20%，那都会成为税负高得惊人的地区。
Currently the country with the highest marginal income tax rate is Denmark, at 60.5%. The top US federal tax rate is 37%, and the median state income tax rate is Oklahoma's, which is 4.75%. So in the median case, a state adding an additional 20% in income tax would have a total marginal tax rate of 37% + 4.75% + 20%, or 61.75%. [3]
目前边际所得税税率最高的国家是丹麦，为60.5%。美国联邦最高税率是37%，而各州所得税税率的中位数是俄克拉荷马州的4.75%。所以在中位数这个情况下，一个州如果额外增加20%的所得税，总边际税率就会是37% + 4.75% + 20%，也就是61.75%。 [3]
In the median case, US state politicians talking about adding a "mere 1%" wealth tax are talking about causing the residents of their state to have the highest taxes in the world. That's not the sort of decision you make lightly.
在中位数这个情况下，美国那些谈论“区区1%”财富税的州政客，实际上是在主张让本州居民承受全世界最高的税负。这不是一种可以轻率做出的决定。
That's why I think few politicians currently understand how to convert between wealth and income taxes. You can tell from the way they talk about the subject that they don't understand the momentousness of what they're proposing. But I'm optimistic that we can teach them. The answer's not hard to understand, once you realize the question exists.
这就是为什么我认为，目前很少有政客真正理解如何在财富税和所得税之间换算。你从他们谈论这个问题的方式就能看出来，他们并不理解自己所提议之事究竟有多么重大。不过我对此还是乐观的：我们是可以把这个道理教会他们的。这个答案并不难懂，只要你先意识到这个问题的存在。
Notes
注释
[1] It's possible to get a higher rate of return if you're willing to risk losing your capital. But to convert between tax rates you should use the risk-free rate of return, because considered as an anti-investment, a wealth tax is absolutely risk-free: you will absolutely owe the government that money. And while you do have to put "risk-free" in scare quotes when talking about returns, the kind of risks you're talking about now are the almost apocalyptic kind that would make tax rates a moot point.
[1] 如果你愿意承担资本亏损的风险，确实有可能获得更高的回报率。但在换算税率时，你应该使用无风险回报率，因为把财富税视作一种反向投资的话，它是绝对无风险的：你绝对得把这笔钱交给政府。而且，虽然谈到回报时，“无风险”这个说法确实得打点引号，但你现在谈论的那种风险，已经接近末日级别，真到了那种程度，税率问题也就无关紧要了。
[2] The same conversion rate applies to capital gains. The source of the multiple is whether the money is taxed every year or just once. Indeed it's the same math you'd use to calculate the value of any income-generating asset.
[2] 同样的换算系数也适用于资本利得。这个倍数的来源，在于这笔钱是每年都被征税，还是只被征一次。事实上，这也正是你用来计算任何能产生收入的资产价值时会用到的同一套数学。
[3] You can deduct some state tax from your federal income taxes, but there's a cap on how much you can deduct, which means in the marginal case we simply add the two rates.
[3] 你可以把一部分州税从联邦所得税中扣除，但可扣除额度是有上限的，所以在边际情况下，我们就直接把这两个税率相加。
Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Jessica Livingston, Carolynn Levy, Jon Levy, Alex Tabarrok, and Harj Taggar for reading drafts of this.
感谢 Trevor Blackwell、Jessica Livingston、 Carolynn Levy、Jon Levy、Alex Tabarrok 和 Harj Taggar 阅读本文草稿。