财政研究所表示，英国财政一团糟，保守党和工党让公众蒙在鼓里
UK finances are a mess and Tories and Labour keeping public in the dark, says IFS
译文简介
“我不认为我们被蒙在鼓里。我们知道这个国家的财政状况很糟糕，我们也知道谁应该为此负责。”——《卫报》报道。
正文翻译
UK finances are a mess and Tories and Labour keeping public in the dark, says IFS
-Institute of Fiscal Studies also dismissive of plans by Lib Dems, Greens and – in particular – Reform UK
财政研究所表示，英国财政一团糟，保守党和工党让公众蒙在鼓里
——英国财政研究所也对自由民主党、绿党，尤其是英国改革党的计划不屑一顾
-Institute of Fiscal Studies also dismissive of plans by Lib Dems, Greens and – in particular – Reform UK
财政研究所表示，英国财政一团糟，保守党和工党让公众蒙在鼓里
——英国财政研究所也对自由民主党、绿党，尤其是英国改革党的计划不屑一顾
(The IFS is sceptical that growth will be strong enough to spare Rachel Reeves from making tough choices.)
（财政研究所怀疑经济增长是否会强劲到足以让瑞秋·里夫斯免于做出艰难抉择。）
新闻：
Britain’s public finances are in a mess. Difficult decisions loom once the election is over. But the public is being kept in the dark about what might happen.
英国的公共财政一团糟。选举一结束，艰难的决定就迫在眉睫。但公众对可能发生的事情一无所知。
英国的公共财政一团糟。选举一结束，艰难的决定就迫在眉睫。但公众对可能发生的事情一无所知。
That, put briefly, was the gist of what the Institute for Fiscal Studies had to say about the Conservative and Labour party manifestos. The thinktank was also pretty dismissive about the plans of the smaller parties: the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and – in particular – Reform UK.
简而言之，这就是财政研究所对保守党和工党看法的主旨。该智库对小党派——自由民主党、绿党，尤其是英国改革党的计划也相当不屑一顾。
简而言之，这就是财政研究所对保守党和工党看法的主旨。该智库对小党派——自由民主党、绿党，尤其是英国改革党的计划也相当不屑一顾。
The IFS analysis is relatively simple. Debt as a share of national income is at its highest since the early 1960s. Taxes are close to the record level reached in the aftermath of the second world war. Spending has increased by more in the past five years than ever before under a Conservative government.
财政研究所的分析相对简单。债务占国民收入的比例达到了自20世纪60年代初以来的最高水平。税收接近二战后达到的创纪录水平。在过去的五年里，开支的增长超过了保守党政府执政时期的任何时候。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
财政研究所的分析相对简单。债务占国民收入的比例达到了自20世纪60年代初以来的最高水平。税收接近二战后达到的创纪录水平。在过去的五年里，开支的增长超过了保守党政府执政时期的任何时候。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Yet, the thinktank says, public services – everything from the NHS to prisons – are visibly struggling. And fresh cuts of between £10bn and £20bn will be on the way for unprotected Whitehall departments if the party elected on July 4 wants to reduce debt and avoid raising taxes.
然而，智囊团说，公共服务——从国家医疗体系到监狱——都在明显挣扎。如果7月4日当选的保守党希望减少债务并避免增税，那么不受保护的白厅部门将面临100亿至200亿英镑的新一轮削减。
然而，智囊团说，公共服务——从国家医疗体系到监狱——都在明显挣扎。如果7月4日当选的保守党希望减少债务并避免增税，那么不受保护的白厅部门将面临100亿至200亿英镑的新一轮削减。
The Conservative plan involves tax cuts of £17bn, paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion, and by cutting £12bn from the welfare bill, mainly by slowing the increase in claims for disability benefit. The IFS says this equates to 1.6 million people losing an average of £7,500 a year each, and would be politically hard to achieve.
保守党的计划包括削减170亿英镑的税收，通过打击避税和逃税来支付，并从福利法案中削减120亿英镑，主要是通过减缓残疾救济金申请的增长。财政研究所表示，这相当于160万人平均每人每年损失7500英镑，这在政治上很难实现。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
保守党的计划包括削减170亿英镑的税收，通过打击避税和逃税来支付，并从福利法案中削减120亿英镑，主要是通过减缓残疾救济金申请的增长。财政研究所表示，这相当于160万人平均每人每年损失7500英镑，这在政治上很难实现。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Judging by the opinion polls, there is no prospect of the Conservatives forming the next government and the only question is the scale of the party’s defeat. Inevitably, the focus in the last week or so of the campaign will be on what Labour will do. The IFS is sceptical that faster than expected growth will lead to higher tax revenues and so spare Rachel Reeves from making tough choices.
从民意调查来看，保守党组建下届政府的希望渺茫，唯一的问题是该党失败的程度。不可避免的是，在最后一周左右的竞选活动中，工党将采取什么行动将成为焦点。财政研究所怀疑，比预期更快的经济增长将带来更高的税收收入，从而使雷切尔·里夫斯免于做出艰难的选择。
从民意调查来看，保守党组建下届政府的希望渺茫，唯一的问题是该党失败的程度。不可避免的是，在最后一周左右的竞选活动中，工党将采取什么行动将成为焦点。财政研究所怀疑，比预期更快的经济增长将带来更高的税收收入，从而使雷切尔·里夫斯免于做出艰难的选择。
Stronger growth would certainly help. The IFS says that if growth exceeds the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts by 0.5 percentage points a year – which it says is unlikely but not inconceivable – that would strengthen the public finances by £30bn annually. But it says Reeves also needs to plan for what she might do if growth turns out to be 0.5 points weaker.
更强劲的经济增长肯定会有所帮助。财政研究所表示，如果英国经济增速每年比预算责任办公室的预测高出0.5个百分点——它表示这不太可能，但并非不可想象——这将使公共财政每年增加300亿英镑。但该机构表示，里夫斯还需要为如果经济增长放缓0.5个百分点，她可能会为做些什么制定计划。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
更强劲的经济增长肯定会有所帮助。财政研究所表示，如果英国经济增速每年比预算责任办公室的预测高出0.5个百分点——它表示这不太可能，但并非不可想象——这将使公共财政每年增加300亿英镑。但该机构表示，里夫斯还需要为如果经济增长放缓0.5个百分点，她可能会为做些什么制定计划。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The shadow chancellor says sticking to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable, but as the IFS director, Paul Johnson, pointed out, to prevent debt from growing in the absence of a sizeable growth dividend, the next government would need to run a primary budget surplus: collecting more in tax than it spends on everything apart from debt interest.
影子财政大臣表示，遵守财政规则是没有谈判余地的，但正如财政研究所所长保罗·约翰逊所指出的那样，为了防止债务在没有可观增长红利的情况下膨胀，下届政府需要实现基本预算盈余：除了债务利息外，征收的税收将超过其在所有方面的支出。
影子财政大臣表示，遵守财政规则是没有谈判余地的，但正如财政研究所所长保罗·约翰逊所指出的那样，为了防止债务在没有可观增长红利的情况下膨胀，下届政府需要实现基本预算盈余：除了债务利息外，征收的税收将超过其在所有方面的支出。
This is rare in the UK and, says Johnson, “not necessarily a recipe for a happy electorate”. The last chancellor to run a primary surplus was Gordon Brown a quarter of a century ago.
这在英国很少见，约翰逊表示，“这未必是让选民高兴的秘诀”。上一位实现基本盈余的财政大臣是25年前的戈登·布朗。
这在英国很少见，约翰逊表示，“这未必是让选民高兴的秘诀”。上一位实现基本盈余的财政大臣是25年前的戈登·布朗。
Johnson thinks it unlikely that Reeves will cut spending, which leaves the choice between tweaking the fiscal rules, raising taxes by more than already laid out in the manifesto, or both. As the IFS notes, opposition parties that win elections tend to raise taxes in their first budget.
约翰逊认为里夫斯不太可能削减开支，这就留下了一个选择，要么调整财政规则，要么在宣言中已经提出的基础上增加税收，要么两者兼而有之。正如财政研究所指出的那样，赢得选举的反对党倾向于在他们的第一个预算中提高税收。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
约翰逊认为里夫斯不太可能削减开支，这就留下了一个选择，要么调整财政规则，要么在宣言中已经提出的基础上增加税收，要么两者兼而有之。正如财政研究所指出的那样，赢得选举的反对党倾向于在他们的第一个预算中提高税收。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
评论翻译
很赞 ( 4 )
收藏
I don't think we're being kept in the dark. We know the country's finances are in a bad way and we know who is responsible for it.
我不认为我们被蒙在鼓里。我们知道这个国家的财政状况很糟糕，我们也知道谁应该为此负责。
I think you over estimate how engaged the average voter is. I'd wager many, many people do not realise that tax rises are inevitable and that they're being mislead by both parties.
我认为你高估了普通选民的参与度。我敢打赌，很多人都没有意识到增税是不可避免的，他们被两党误导了。
yes this really. Everybody knows the UK is currently fucked. At the moment I would vote for a plank of wood. At this point the biggest thing we can do to fix the country is get rid of the traitory party government and certainly make sure we do not give any encouragement to the racist, putin loving, neo-nazi party.
是的，这是真的。每个人都知道英国现在完蛋了。此时此刻，我会投票给一块木板。在这一点上，我们能做的最重要的事情就是摆脱领土党政府，当然要确保我们不会给种族主义，普京的支持者，新纳粹政党任何鼓励。
Most people don't though. They think it's the big bad Tories as opposed to outdated neoliberal economics and austerity — an approach which Rachel reeves is going to prolong. We are currently witnessing the UK's Brezhnev era, where the new and innovative ideas of the young are ignored in favour of tactics that we have already tried and that have already failed. Tories in red won't solve anything. At best, it's going to be a slightly slower death. If you think things are going to get better, then I have a red bridge to sell you.
但大多数人都不知道。他们认为这是大坏蛋保守党反对过时的新自由主义经济和紧缩政策——雷切尔·里夫斯将延长这种政策。我们目前正在见证英国的勃列日涅夫时代，年轻人的新颖和创新思想被忽视，取而代之的是我们已经尝试过但已经失败的策略。穿红色衣服的保守党不会解决任何问题。最好的情况是，这将是一个稍微缓慢的死亡。如果你认为情况会好转，那么我有一个红桥要卖给你（译注：指不切实际）。
Surely massive tax rises in the upper income brackets are the literal only solution to this?
In 1971, according to wikipedia, the top rate of income tax was 75%. It's now something like 40%.
It's the same story in many other countries, they had high taxes, and built all the infrastructure. Then they let the tax rates slowly drop over decades - which of course wins votes - and look where everyone has ended up.
对高收入阶层大幅增税显然是唯一的解决办法，不是吗？
根据维基百科，1971年，所得税的最高税率为75%。现在大约是40%。
在许多其他国家也是如此，他们有高税收，并建造了所有的基础设施。然后他们让税率在几十年内慢慢下降——这当然会赢得选票——然后看看每个人都落得什么下场。
Agreed.
Every time tax discussions come up on Reddit there's always a few people who will say that tax has never been this high.
This is a lie.
Taxes for the rich have been constantly falling. And they're using the "taxes are too high" to get the average voter to vote for parties that will lower their tax, despite the average voter not paying anywhere near the same percentages of tax.
Taxes need to go back up on the rich. And people need to start using their brain and stop falling for the lies.
赞同。
每次在红迪上讨论税收时，总有一些人会说税收从来没有这么高过。
这是个谎言。
富人的税收一直在下降。他们利用“税收太高”来让普通选民投票给那些会降低税收的政党，尽管普通选民缴纳的税收比例根本不一样。
应该重新对富人增税。人们需要开始动动脑子，不要再相信谎言了。
The best way to increase tax revenues is to increase wages, which is effectively just redistributing wealth from the top downwards. We need to empower workers to get better wages as well as invest more in growing the economy (actually growing it, not just increasing the population to make GDP go up).
增加税收的最佳方式是提高工资，这实际上只是从上到下的财富再分配。我们需要让工人获得更高的工资，同时加大对经济增长的投资（实际上是增长经济，而不仅仅是通过增加人口来提高GDP）。
Upper income and middle class workers already pay the lions share. You aren't a net contributor until around 40k income.
How does vat, duty, imports, capital gains tax etc vary from the 70s? What matters is the effective taxation rate, not base rate.
高收入和中产阶级工人已经支付了最大的份额。在达到4万左右的收入之前，你不是一个净贡献者。
增值税、关税、进口税、资本利得税等与70年代有何不同？重要的是有效税率，而不是基本税率。
According to this odd logic. Someone who went to a public university, never repaid the loan, had benefits/council housing for 5 years, had health issues and eventually managed to get a job which pays £41k. That's a net contributor.
Meanwhile. Someone who never used public services, healthy/never used NHS, never used benefits and have a job which pays £39k.. That's deficitary.
Do you realise how absurd is this logic?
根据这个奇怪的逻辑。有人上了一所公立大学，从未偿还贷款，有5年的福利/理事会住房，有健康问题，最终找到了一份年薪4.1万英镑的工作。这是一个净贡献者。
与此同时。一个从未使用过公共服务，健康/从未使用过国家医疗体系，从未使用过福利，却有一份年薪3.9万英镑的工作的人…这是净亏空者。
你知道这个逻辑有多荒谬吗？
I don't know why this keeps getting repeated on this sub, but it's extremely misleading. (To the point that it's basically a lie by any other name).
The contributor/beneficiary divide is primarily one of age. Retired people make up most of the net beneficiaries, and all but the lowest quintile (20%) of working age people are net contributors.
None of that should be surprising really, so I don't know why people seem to think this needs to be endlessly repeated as though it is some sort of amazing insight.
我不知道为什么这个说法会在这个版块上不断重复，但它非常误导人。（这基本上是一个谎言的另一个名称）。
贡献者/受益者的差别主要在于年龄的差别。退休人员构成了大部分的净受益人，而工作年龄人口除了收入最低的五分之一（20%）外，所有人都是净贡献者。
这些都不应该让人感到惊讶，所以我不知道为什么人们似乎认为这需要无休止地重复，好像这是某种惊人的洞察力。
Lower the personal allowance. Additional tax brackets over 150k. Bring capital gains in line with NI. Scrap the triple lock. Means test current pensions - with 15 year sunset clause. Reduce current state pensions by ~20%. Implement a triage system in the NHS that prioritizes working age people. Remove stamp duty for pensioners who are downsizing.
降低个人免税额。收入超过15万的额外税级。使资本收益与国民保险保持一致。废止养老金三重锁。对现有养老金进行经济状况调查——附带15年的日落条款。将目前的国家养老金削减约20%。在国民保健制度中实施优先考虑工作年龄人口的分类制度。取消精简养老金领取者的印花税。
Honeslty, I dont think most people understand how deep the UKs financial crisis is.
Our pension costs are due to sky rocket, our debt costs are now 4% of GDP per year. We have had weak growth, health care costs are up something like 40% in 15 years so we pay far more for what feels like a weaker service. Our tax base is being taxed to the max, inflation and house prices rises means most people have little extra to spare without bankruptcies becoming a thing.
老实说，我认为大多数人都不了解英国金融危机有多严重（译注：视频链接）。
我们的养老金成本飙升，我们的债务成本现在是每年GDP的4%。我们的经济增长疲软，医疗保健成本在15年内增长了40%，所以我们为感觉更弱的服务支付了更多的钱。我们的税基正在被征收到最高水平，通货膨胀和房价上涨意味着，如果没有破产，大多数人几乎没有多余的钱。
This video is worthless austerity propaganda. Every single talking point in this video has been repeated over and over since 2008. The UK's debt-to-GDP ratio is high but in historical terms its still perfectly manageable as are the interest rates, and even if it wasn't it doesn't matter. You cannot grow an economy or improve productivity without massive investment, its that simple.
How do you fix high pension costs? You invest in services to make sure they don't have to keep going up.
How do you fix weak growth? You invest in growth across the whole economy.
How do you fix per-capita healthcare costs? You invest in the healthcare system so its well staffed and extremely efficient.
How do you reduce taxes? You invest in growing the economy so that GDP goes up and you can cover spending with a smaller cut of it.
How do you reduce housing costs and house prices? You invest in a massive campaign of building to sate supply.
There's no version of this where things get fixed by saying "we've got no money, just become Google 2 please". Thats already what the tories spent the last decade doing, it doesn't work.
这个视频是毫无价值的紧缩宣传。自2008年以来，这个视频中的每一个观点都被一遍又一遍地重复。英国的债务与GDP之比很高，但从历史角度来看，它仍然是完全可控的，利率也是如此，即使不是，也没关系。没有大规模投资，你就无法发展经济或提高生产率，就这么简单。
如何解决高养老金成本问题？你投资于服务，以确保它们不必继续上涨。
如何解决增长乏力的问题？你投资于整个经济的增长。
如何确定人均医疗费用？你投资于医疗保健系统，使其人手充足，效率极高。
如何减少税收？你投资于经济增长，这样GDP就会上升，你可以用更少的削减来支付支出。
如何降低住房成本和房价？你投资一场大规模的建筑运动来保证供应。
没有任何版本的解决方案可以通过说“我们没有钱，请升级为谷歌双重认证”来解决问题。这是保守党在过去十年里一直在做的事情，它不起作用。
It’s not rocket science. We’ve grown the population by 6 million non tax payers
这不是什么高精尖科学。我们增加了600万非纳税人人口
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Ah, bringing up the old 6 million illegal immigrants line I see. Repeating it doesn't (and won't ever) make it true.
啊，又回到了600万非法移民的老一套说辞了。重复它不会（也永远不会）使它成为事实。
Who said illegal? We’ve grown the population by 6 million but not the tax contribution from them. I am merely pointing out that gap between income and outgoings has grown. It’s not the old this or that it’s just a fact. You do the sums ok ? It’s cost the UK £12k/year to support one citizen.
谁说非法了？我们的人口增加了600万，但税收却没有增加。我只是指出，收入和支出之间的差距已经扩大。这不是老一套的这个或那个，这只是一个事实。你算一下，好吗？英国每年要花1.2万英镑来养活一个公民。
Again, how do you know they have zero tax contributions?
You're imagining it.
还是那句话，你怎么知道他们没有纳税？
这是你的想象。
How much do you have to earn before you pay £12k in tax
你得挣多少钱才能交1.2万英镑的税
So, let me get this straight.
Unless you generate 12k per year in taxes, you should be considered useless?
那么，让我把事情弄清楚。
除非你每年能产生1.2万美元的税收，否则你就应该被认为是无用的？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
We've made millions of people economically inactive by under-funding the health service.
I've been on a waiting list for over a year now but I'm lucky enough that my employer has been able to adapt my role.
由于医疗服务资金不足，我们使数百万人失去了经济活动。
我已经在等待名单上等了一年多了，但我很幸运，我的雇主已经能够适应我的角色。
Spending £300-400 billion on Covid19 measures wasn't really a political choice. As for Brexit, the question may have been put by Cameron but he really would have preferred the public didn't vote to shoot themselves in the foot. The public also backed austerity measures and are arguably still going to vote for a bit more.
在疫情措施上花费3000亿至4000亿英镑并不是一个真正的政治性选择。至于英国脱欧，这个问题可能是卡梅伦提出来的，但他真的更希望公众不要投票去搬起石头砸自己的脚（结果玩脱了）。公众也支持紧缩措施，而且可能还会投票支持更多的紧缩措施。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
They're both not being honest are they?
Labour have said repeatedly the country is in crisis. They have said repeatedly they are being seriously hamstrung in their manifesto commitments by the need to maintain fiscal responsibility in the face of such a finance crisis. They have said repeatedly while what they currently offer is quite low-ball, if and only if the economy improves they can make commitments to more. And the fact they are doing this seems to have proper pissed off a lot of people and is really angering a lot of folks.
Meanwhile what are the Tories talking about? More tax cuts, more spending, country is doing absolutely great, just stick with the plan and we'll all be better off in 12 months time.
他们俩都没说实话，不是吗？
工党一再表示，国家正处于危机之中。他们一再表示，面对这样一场金融危机，必须保持财政责任，这严重削弱了他们在宣言中的承诺。他们一再表示，虽然他们目前提供的援助相当低，但如果且只有在经济改善的情况下，他们才能做出更多承诺。他们这样做的事实似乎惹恼了很多人，真的激怒了很多人。
与此同时，保守党在谈论些什么呢？更多的减税，更多的支出，国家做得非常好，只要坚持计划，我们将在12个月内变得更好。
Until the amount of millionaires and billionaires in this country decrease then I refuse to believe there are no other solutions than cutting public spending.
Tax rich people and spread the wealth
除非这个国家的百万富翁和亿万富翁的数量减少，否则我拒绝相信除了削减公共开支之外没有其他解决方案。
向富人征税，分散财富