外文翻譯--能源，稅收和增長（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　3700漢字，2000英文單詞，11000英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Weinstein B L. Energy, taxes and growth[J]. Society, 1984, 22(1):41-47.</p><p>　　Energy,Taxes and Growth</p><p>　　Bernard L Bernstei

2、n</p><p>　　Conflicting concerns of energy producing and energy consuming states will occupy center stage in the regional arena during the 1980s. The popular press speaks of “energy haves” and “energy have-n

3、ets.” Politicians from consuming states bemoan the “unfair windfalls” to producing states while those in producing states claim their economic future is being sacrificed to heat homes in Minneapolis or to provide electri

4、city to Detroit. Legislation has been introduced in the United States Congress that </p><p>　　My first objective is to review some earlier interregional conflicts and the Sunbelt-Frostbelt controversy in pa

5、rticular, and my second is to explain how and why state energy taxation has emerged as a political and fiscal issue. A third objective is to examine the economics of the severance tax with particular attention to who pay

6、s, who benefits, what are the impacts on production, and what are some approaches for resolving the issue.</p><p>　　The economic history of the United States during the nineteenth century is replete with co

7、nflicting regional interests. The Civil War can be understood in strictly economic terms. Slaves represented the bulk of the South’s productive capital, and a large portion of the region’s in- come was attributable to th

8、e productivity of this peculiar institution. Southern slaveowners felt threatened by the election of a Republican president and saw secession as a means of protecting their economic interest</p><p>　　almost

9、a century, the North and South differed over tariff policy. The South favored free trade because much of its agricultural production was exported. Southern businessmen and politicians feared retaliation by other countri

10、es if United States tariffs were set too high. The North was anxious to protect its growing industries and saw high tariffs as a means of restricting manufactured imports until domestic industries could achieve economie

11、s of scale. High tariffs remained long after economie</p><p>　　Sunbelt-Frostbelt Wars</p><p>　　On February 8, 1976 the New York Times discovered the Sunbelt. For a full week, the Times described

12、 in a series of articles the phenomenal growth occurring in the South and West and contrasted it to the sluggish economic performance of the Northeast and Midwest. Ac- cording to the reports, the major cause of Sunbelt p

13、rosperity and northern decline was an inequitable balance of federal funds—that is, the Sunbelt states received more from Washington in federal outlays than they sent to Washington </p><p>　　In response to t

14、he alleged shortchanging of the Frostbelt, a host of political coalitions was formed to represent regional interests. The Coalition of Northeastern Governors and the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition have been th

15、e primary spokesgroups for the Frostbelt states while the Southern Growth Policies Board and the Western Governors’ Policy Office have represented the South and West before Congress and the executive branch. In early 198

16、1, a new congressional coalition called the </p><p>　　Since the mid- 1970s, most of the regional battles have nvolved attempts to change federal grant formulas to the benefit of one region or another or to r

17、equire the targeting of federal procurement to distressed areas. The northern coalitions appear to have been more successful than the southern and western groups since the measured “balance-of-payments” deficits with Was

18、hington have narrowed considerably in recent years.</p><p>　　That discriminatory federal policies have been responsible or the relative economic decline of the Northeast and Midwest is difficult to substanti

19、ate. While it is true, for example, that New York, the state with the lowest rate of economic growth in the seventies, got back slightly less in federal disbursements than it paid in taxes, the “payback ratio” was about

20、 the same or higher than that of many fast-growing states such as Nevada, Texas, and New Hampshire.</p><p>　　Any a priori expectation of balances between spending and taxes would totally ignore the significa

21、nt distributional aspects of federal fiscal policy. Progressive in- come taxes take more from wealthy persons (and states) than they do from poor persons (and states). Similarly, many federal expenditure and transfer pro

22、grams have been specifically designed to raise the income of the nation’s lowest socioeconomic groups. Per capita incomes in the South Atlantic, South Central, and Mountain regions a</p><p>　　The contributio

23、n of federal spending to the economic development of the Sunbelt has been overstated. People and industry have been moving to the South and West for decades. To a large extent, this migration is occurring in response to

24、 economic forces affecting the cost and efficiency of production. As the London Economist point out recently, the raise of the Sunbelt has helped America’s international competitiveness, increased investment by capturing

25、 firms that might otherwise have gone abroad,</p><p>　　By 1980, the Sunbeltfrostbelt wars had quieted down, and in retrospect it is easy to see why. The controversy really began in the aftermath of the reces

26、sion induced by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1973-75, the most severe national economic downturn since the Great Depression. The industrial heartland of the Northeast and Midwest was hit es

27、pecially hard, and unemployment rates climbed to their highest levels in thirty five years. With gross national product dropping</p><p>　　Haves vs. Have-Nets</p><p>　　Over the past several years

28、, taxes levied by states on energy resources, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, have become the center of growing controversy between energy producing and energy consuming states. Although many of these taxes have bee

29、n around for decades—Texas has taxed oil for over seventy -five years—they first began to attract attention when the federal government freed oil from price controls in 1979 and instituted the phased decontrol of natural

30、 gas prices.</p><p>　　As oil and gas prices began to rise, severance tax collections by major producing states rose in tandem. For example, revenue from Texas’s oil tax alone jumped from $435 million in l978

31、 to $1.3 billion in 1982, a 200 percent increase. In 1974, severance tax collections in the nation amounted to only $1. 2 billion; but by 1962 the taxes were producing $7. 8 billion, with Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, and Ok

32、lahoma capturing 72 percent of the total. A widely circulated, although unpublished, U.S. Treas</p><p>　　Some of the energy consuming states are complaining of severe economic consequences from escalating en

33、ergy costs and the attendant revenue gains to energy producers. They also worry that the producing states will use their energy wealth to fuel even more economic growth at the expense of the energy have-nots. For example

34、, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, in a recent publication, The United American Emirates, argues that higher severance tax collections will enable energy states to keep other tax</p><p>　　Concern has also be

35、en voiced that higher severance tax collections by energy producing states will seriously distort the intergovernmental fiscal system. Several intergovernmental grants include a tax-effort factor in the allocation formul

36、a, and growing severance tax yields will allegedly give rise to a false measure of actual tax effort since a portion of the tax is exported.</p><p>　　The recently enacted federal budget cuts have also height

37、ened regional tensions. Consuming states believe adjustment to the parameters of the New Federalism will be difficult for them and relatively easy for the energy producing states whose rising severance tax receipts will

38、more than compensate for the federal revenue losses. The energy producing states counter that the increased revenues are justifiable in that they compensate the state for the economic costs of production. These include d

39、ire</p><p>　　We learned a big lesson from our own history. Anaconda Copper took billions of dollars of copper out of Montana and left nothing behind. So our governor demanded that we get the revenue so that

40、when the coal is gone, something will be left behind in Montana.</p><p>　　Continuing controls on natural gas pricing are also a source of irritation to Texas, Louisiana, and other important gas producing sta

41、tes. Under the 1978 Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA), thirty price categories were established for natural gas with periodic price adjustments for each. The intent of these adjustments was to close the gap between oil and g

42、as prices and to phase out most controls by 1985. The NGPA's price escalation provisions did not anticipate the rapid increase in oil prices that o</p><p>　　Gas producers would like to see the decontrol

43、process accelerated. One of the arguments frequently made in support of speedy decontrol is that it would boost production and reduce the nation's dependence on imported oil. Decontrol would also be a step toward end

44、ing the dual natural gas market perpetuated by the NGPA. Opponents argue that immediate decontrol would be costly to consumers and would speed up the transfer of wealth and economic power from consuming to producing stat

45、es. Opponents of d</p><p><b>　　能源，稅收和增長</b></p><p>　　Bernard L Bernstein</p><p>　　能源生產(chǎn)和能源消費(fèi)大國之間的矛盾沖突問題將會(huì)占據(jù)20世紀(jì)80年代區(qū)域舞臺(tái)的中心。如今大眾媒體談到了“能源富國”和“能源無產(chǎn)者”這兩個(gè)概念。 在消費(fèi)國的政客哀嘆那些“不正當(dāng)暴利

46、”的生產(chǎn)國，而那些生產(chǎn)國們聲稱他們的經(jīng)濟(jì)前景被犧牲在了為明尼阿波利斯提供家庭供暖或是在為底特律提供電力上。美國國會(huì)已經(jīng)出臺(tái)了一個(gè)法案，該法案將加入一項(xiàng)聯(lián)邦限制州征收能源稅的條例，而且商業(yè)周刊以及東北中西部的國會(huì)聯(lián)盟一直都贊成國家征收能源資源稅。</p><p>　　本文的第一個(gè)目標(biāo)就是回顧一些早期的區(qū)域間的沖突，特別是南部的陽光地區(qū)和霜凍地區(qū)的爭議沖突，第二個(gè)目標(biāo)是解釋如何以及為什么國家能源稅已經(jīng)成為一個(gè)政治和財(cái)

47、政問題。第三個(gè)目標(biāo)是要調(diào)查經(jīng)濟(jì)遣散稅，尤其注意以下幾個(gè)方面，誰支付了這筆費(fèi)用，誰能獲得利益，什么方面會(huì)對(duì)生產(chǎn)產(chǎn)生影響，用什么方法能夠解決這些問題。</p><p>　　十九世紀(jì)的美國經(jīng)濟(jì)史充滿了區(qū)域利益的沖突。這場內(nèi)戰(zhàn)可以用嚴(yán)酷的經(jīng)濟(jì)條件來理解。以奴隸代表了大部分的南方的生產(chǎn)資本主義，而這地區(qū)的大部分地區(qū)都?xì)w功于這一特殊機(jī)構(gòu)的生產(chǎn)力。南方奴隸主受到共和黨總統(tǒng)選舉的威脅，看到國家分裂于是采取了這種手段來保護(hù)自己的經(jīng)

48、濟(jì)利益。在十九世紀(jì)末發(fā)生的“民粹主義”運(yùn)動(dòng)也有強(qiáng)烈的地域色彩。民粹主義對(duì)農(nóng)村和南部大平原，以及一些不參與工業(yè)革命的地區(qū)吸引力最大。因?yàn)槊翊庵髁x政治家們承諾保護(hù)“小人物”，不受“北方壟斷”的剝削。</p><p>　　近一個(gè)世紀(jì)以來，北方和南方實(shí)行不同的關(guān)稅政策。南部贊成自由貿(mào)易，因?yàn)槠浯蟛糠洲r(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)用于出口。如果美國的關(guān)稅被設(shè)置得太高，南方的商人和政客們擔(dān)心會(huì)被其他國家報(bào)復(fù)。而北方急于保護(hù)其不斷增長的產(chǎn)業(yè)，并將高

49、關(guān)稅作為一種限制生產(chǎn)進(jìn)口的手段，直到國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)一定的經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)模。高關(guān)稅在經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)模實(shí)現(xiàn)之后仍然需要實(shí)行很長的時(shí)間。</p><p>　　陽光地帶霜凍地帶的戰(zhàn)爭</p><p>　　1976年2月8日，紐約時(shí)報(bào)報(bào)道發(fā)現(xiàn)陽光地帶。在一周內(nèi)，紐約時(shí)報(bào)報(bào)道了一系列文章，文章中描述了南部和西部的經(jīng)濟(jì)出現(xiàn)驚人的增長，并與東北部和中西部的低迷的經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn)做對(duì)比。據(jù)報(bào)道，陽光地帶的繁榮和北部衰弱的主要原因

50、是聯(lián)邦資金的分配不公平，也就是說，陽光地帶的國家收到來自華盛頓的聯(lián)邦的財(cái)政支出多于他們送往華盛頓的稅收支出。而北方各州支出的稅收比他們獲得還要多。這種說法在5月17日進(jìn)一步發(fā)展，于是1976年商業(yè)周刊封面文章將其命名為“州之間的第二次戰(zhàn)爭”。</p><p>　　為響應(yīng)被政府欺騙的霜凍地帶，許多政治聯(lián)盟紛紛成立來代表和維護(hù)各自的區(qū)域利益。東北各州州長聯(lián)盟和東北中西部國會(huì)聯(lián)盟一直是霜凍地帶國家的主要發(fā)言組，但南部發(fā)

51、展政策委員會(huì)和西部州長的政策辦公室代表的南部和西部優(yōu)于國會(huì)和行政部門。于是到了1981年初，一個(gè)新的國會(huì)聯(lián)盟成立了并稱該聯(lián)盟的成立是為了對(duì)抗東北中西部聯(lián)盟。</p><p>　　自20世紀(jì)70年代中期以來，大部分區(qū)域性戰(zhàn)役都試圖改變聯(lián)邦政府對(duì)一個(gè)地區(qū)或另一個(gè)地區(qū)的利益，或者要求聯(lián)邦政府針對(duì)貧困地區(qū)進(jìn)行采購支出。北方聯(lián)盟似乎一直比南部和西部群體更有優(yōu)勢(shì)，因?yàn)樽罱鼛啄陙?，“國際收支平衡”使華盛頓的財(cái)政赤字已經(jīng)大幅度縮

52、小。而東北地區(qū)和中西部地區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì)相對(duì)衰退是否與這種歧視性的聯(lián)邦政策有關(guān)很難得到證實(shí)。雖然這是事實(shí)，例如，紐約，在70年代是經(jīng)濟(jì)增長率最低的國家，如果聯(lián)邦支出回到略低于它支付的稅收，那么它的“投資回收率”將會(huì)相同或高于許多快速增長的州，如內(nèi)華達(dá)州，德克薩斯州和新罕布什爾州。</p><p>　　支出和稅收之間的平衡的任何先驗(yàn)預(yù)期都將完全無視聯(lián)邦財(cái)政政策的分配問題。累進(jìn)所得稅從富裕人士（和州）那比來自貧窮的人（和州）那

53、獲得的多。同樣，許多聯(lián)邦支出和轉(zhuǎn)移支付計(jì)劃經(jīng)過特別設(shè)計(jì)，以此來提高全國最低的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)群體的收入。在南大西洋，南部和中部的人均收入，以及山區(qū)均遠(yuǎn)低于全國平均水平，新英格蘭，大西洋，和五大湖地區(qū)的人均收入高于全國平均水平。因此，在南部和大多數(shù)的山區(qū)國家，一般納稅的人數(shù)都比北方的人少。稅收差異反映了區(qū)域的相對(duì)收入地位。州與州或區(qū)域與區(qū)域之間的聯(lián)邦稅收和支出比較也會(huì)對(duì)其他地區(qū)造成誤導(dǎo)。一些聯(lián)邦計(jì)劃被引導(dǎo)到個(gè)人，而不是地方政府或私人，一些社會(huì)保障

54、金、聯(lián)邦退休和軍隊(duì)退休金是從高流動(dòng)人口處獲得的。盡管許多退休人員帶著他們的養(yǎng)老金搬到了陽光地帶，但這并不是一個(gè)特定的公共政策所導(dǎo)致的結(jié)果。</p><p>　　聯(lián)邦支出在陽光地帶經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的貢獻(xiàn)被夸大了。人類和工業(yè)已遷移到南部和西部幾十年了。在很大程度上，這種遷移的發(fā)生影響了經(jīng)濟(jì)力量的成本和生產(chǎn)效率。近日倫敦經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家指出，陽光地帶有助于提升美國的國際競爭力，通過抓住那些上市公司來增加投資，來提高所有美國人的生活水平

55、。</p><p>　　到1980年，陽光地帶與霜凍地帶的戰(zhàn)爭已經(jīng)平息了，回顧歷史就很容易明白這是為什么。此項(xiàng)爭論開始于石油輸出國組織（歐佩克）引起的經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退，這是1973年到1975年以來發(fā)生德爾最嚴(yán)重的國際經(jīng)濟(jì)大蕭條。東北部和中西部地區(qū)的工業(yè)中心受到嚴(yán)重了打擊，尤其是在近三十五年里，失業(yè)率攀升至最高水平。隨著國民生產(chǎn)總值急劇下降，該地區(qū)開始爭奪經(jīng)濟(jì)萎縮餡餅。1977至1960年間，經(jīng)濟(jì)恢復(fù)，全國各地區(qū)公布了經(jīng)

56、濟(jì)收益。在公共政策領(lǐng)域，區(qū)域關(guān)注的問題就變得不那么重要了。近年來，真正的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長有助于減少陽光地帶與霜凍帶的沖突。東部與西部在上世紀(jì)60年代在能源利用上引起的沖突也起到了一個(gè)教訓(xùn)。</p><p>　　“能源富國''和“能源無產(chǎn)者”</p><p>　　過去幾年，國家對(duì)能源資源，如煤炭、石油和天然氣征收的稅收，已成為能源生產(chǎn)和能源消費(fèi)國之間日益激烈的爭論的中心話題。雖然許多

57、這些稅已經(jīng)存在了數(shù)十年，例如，德克薩斯州已有超過七十年的征收石油稅收的歷史，當(dāng)聯(lián)邦政府把石油從1979價(jià)格控制和制定天然氣價(jià)格逐步放開時(shí)，他們才第一次引起了人們的注意。</p><p>　　隨著石油和天然氣價(jià)格開始上升，主要生產(chǎn)國的遣散稅也隨之上漲。例如，僅德克薩斯的石油稅收入，1978年的4億3500萬到了1982年就上漲到了30億美元，增加了百分之200。在1974年，遣散稅的國家征收總額僅為1.2億美元；但

58、是到了1962，稅收總額就達(dá)到7.8億美元，占德克薩斯，阿拉斯加，路易斯安那和奧克拉荷馬的總額的72%。一組廣為流傳，但未公開的關(guān)于美國財(cái)政部在1979年的研究數(shù)據(jù)估計(jì)，來自石油管制產(chǎn)生的增加國家和地方的收入金額將達(dá)到128億美元超過了20世紀(jì)60年代財(cái)政收入。雖然這些估計(jì)的準(zhǔn)確度受到了廣泛的質(zhì)疑，但“超級(jí)美元”使得能源富國和能源無產(chǎn)者之間的潛在的財(cái)政差異受到了人們的關(guān)注。</p><p>　　一些能源消費(fèi)國抱怨

59、能源成本上升以及隨之而來的能源生產(chǎn)者收入增加帶來的嚴(yán)重經(jīng)濟(jì)后果。他們還擔(dān)心，生產(chǎn)國將利用其能源財(cái)富，以犧牲能源匱乏者為代價(jià)，推動(dòng)更多的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長。例如，美國東北部中西部研究所最近發(fā)表的一份出版物《聯(lián)合酋長國》指出，征收更高的遣散費(fèi)將使能源州能夠降低其他稅收，從而增強(qiáng)它們吸引新產(chǎn)業(yè)的能力。來自東北和中西部的政治家和專家將這些稅收收益稱為“不公平的意外收獲”，并預(yù)測(cè)了一種“分離稅戰(zhàn)爭”的情景，即能源擁有者在減輕地方稅收負(fù)擔(dān)的同時(shí)向能源擁有者出

60、口稅收。他們擔(dān)心，看到產(chǎn)油國巨額財(cái)政盈余，其他礦產(chǎn)豐富的國家將試圖提高自己的稅收。這場“戰(zhàn)爭”甚至可能超越礦物，擴(kuò)展到木材和谷物等資源。</p><p>　　也有人擔(dān)心，能源生產(chǎn)國征收高額遣散費(fèi)將嚴(yán)重扭曲政府間財(cái)政制度。幾項(xiàng)政府間贈(zèng)款在分配公式中包含了稅收努力因素，而且由于部分稅款出口，增加的遣散費(fèi)收益據(jù)稱會(huì)導(dǎo)致實(shí)際稅收努力的錯(cuò)誤衡量。</p><p>　　最近頒布的聯(lián)邦預(yù)算削減也加劇了地

61、區(qū)緊張局勢(shì)。消費(fèi)國認(rèn)為，調(diào)整新聯(lián)邦制的參數(shù)對(duì)他們來說將是困難的，而對(duì)能源生產(chǎn)國來說則相對(duì)容易，因?yàn)檫@些國家不斷增加的遣散費(fèi)收入將足以彌補(bǔ)聯(lián)邦收入的損失。能源生產(chǎn)國反駁說，增加收入是合理的，因?yàn)樗鼈冄a(bǔ)償了國家的生產(chǎn)經(jīng)濟(jì)成本。其中包括直接影響，如污染和環(huán)境破壞，以及額外的間接成本，如教育、道路和其他與能源開發(fā)有關(guān)的公共工程項(xiàng)目。能源生產(chǎn)國也以實(shí)際資源枯竭為由證明征稅是合理的。因?yàn)槟茉词遣豢稍偕模运鼈兊拈_采是一次性的收入來源。一旦儲(chǔ)量耗

62、盡，該國一度富有的地位可能就沒什么可炫耀的了。遣散費(fèi)有助于將礦產(chǎn)財(cái)富轉(zhuǎn)化為經(jīng)濟(jì)財(cái)富；收入不僅可以用來緩解與采掘行動(dòng)有關(guān)的混亂，而且可以促進(jìn)多樣化經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展，取代資源型經(jīng)濟(jì)。蒙大拿州聯(lián)邦與州關(guān)系主任狄恩哈特最近為該州30 %的煤稅辯護(hù)時(shí)指出:</p><p>　　我們從自己的歷史中學(xué)到了很大的教訓(xùn)。蟒蛇銅從蒙大拿州帶走了數(shù)十億美元的銅，什么也沒有留下。所以我們的州長要求我們獲得收入，這樣當(dāng)煤用完了，蒙大拿州就會(huì)留下

63、一些東西。 對(duì)天然氣定價(jià)的持續(xù)控制也是對(duì)德克薩斯州，路易斯安那州和其他重要天然氣生產(chǎn)國的刺激源。根據(jù)1978年的“天然氣政策法案”（NGPA），為天然氣確定了30種價(jià)格類別，并定期調(diào)整價(jià)格。這些調(diào)整的目的是縮小石油和天然氣價(jià)格之間的差距，并在1985年之前逐步取消大部分控制措施.NGPA的價(jià)格上漲規(guī)定并沒有預(yù)測(cè)1979 - 1980年間油價(jià)的快速上漲，因此雖然天然氣價(jià)格近年來大幅增加，但仍遠(yuǎn)低于同等油價(jià)。NGPA還將價(jià)格管制擴(kuò)展