-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
One of the fundamental challenges of our time is building an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules.
And as many Americans rush to file their taxes this weekend, it’s worth pointing out that we’ve got a tax system that doesn’t always uphold the principle of everyone doing their part.
Now, this is not just about fairness. This is also about growth. It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs. And it’s about whether we as a country are willing to pay for those investments.
In a perfect world, of course, none of us would have to pay any taxes. We’d have no deficits1 to pay down. And we’d have all the resources we needed to invest in things like schools and roads and a strong military and new sources of energy – investments that have always bolstered2 our economy and strengthened the middle class.
But we live in the real world, with real choices and real consequences. Right now, we’ve got significant deficits to close. We’ve got serious investments to make to keep our economy growing. And we can’t afford to keep spending more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans who don’t need them and didn’t even ak for them.
Warren Buffett is one of the wealthiest men in the world. But he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. That’s just the way the system is set up. In fact, one in four millionaires pays a lower tax rate than millions of hardworking middle-class households.
As Warren points out, that’s not fair and it doesn’t make sense. It’s wrong that middle-class Americans pay a higher share of their income in taxes than some millionaires and billionaires.
This week, Members of Congress are going to have a chance to set things right. They get to vote on what we call the Buffett Rule.
It’s simple: If you make more than $1 million every year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do. On the other hand, if you make less than $250,000 a year -- like 98 percent of American families do -- your taxes shouldn’t go up.
That’s all there is to it. It’s pretty sensible. Most Americans support this idea. One survey found that two-thirds of millionaires do, too. So do nearly half of all Republicans.
We just need some Republican politicians to get on board with where the country is.
I know they’ll say that this is all about wanting to raise people’s taxes. They probably won’t tell you that if you belong to a middle-class family, then I’ve cut your taxes each year that I’ve been in office, and I’ve cut taxes for small business owners 17 times.
But the thing is, for most Americans like me, tax rates are near their lowest point in 50 years. In 2001 and 2003, the wealthiest Americans received two huge new tax cuts. We were told these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. Instead, we got the slowest job growth in half a century, and the typical American family actually saw its income fall.
On the flip3 side, when the most well-off Americans were asked to pay a little more in the 1990s, we were warned that it would kill jobs. Instead, tens of millions of jobs followed.
So we’ve tried this trickle-down experiment before. It doesn’t work. And middle class families have seen too much of their security erode4 over the past few decades for us to tell them they’re going to have to do more because the wealthiest Americans are going to do less. We can’t stop investing in the things that will help grow our economy and create jobs – things like education, research, new sources of energy – just so folks like me can get another tax cut.
So I hope you’ll ask your Member of Congress to step up and echo that call this week by voting for the Buffett Rule. Remind them that in America, prosperity has never just trickled5 down from a wealthy few. Prosperity has always been built by a strong, thriving middle class. That’s a principle worth reaffirming right now.
Thank you, God bless you, and have a great weekend.
当前我们所面临的最主要的挑战就是建立一个人人都享有公平的机会，人人都承担同等的义务，人人都遵从同样规则的经济体。
本周末当大量美国民众赶着去报税的时候，有必要指出的是我们的税制体系并不足以维持每个人都担负自己应该的责任这一原则。
当下，这不仅仅是关乎公平的事情。这也关乎经济的增长。关乎我们是否能够做出我们所必需的投资巩固我们的经济，创造就业。关乎我们国家是否有愿意做出这些投资。
当然，如果是在完美的世界，我们任何人都不需要缴税。我们也不需要抵消赤字。我们拥有我们所需要的各种资源来投资于建设学校、公路、强大的军队和研究新能源，正是这些投资一直以来支撑着我们的经济并维持着中产阶级的地位。
但是，我们生活在真实的世界里，面对着切实的选择和切实的影响。现在，我们有严重的赤字需要消除。我们还要做出重大的投资保持经济的增长。而且我们不能承受花费大量金钱继续为不需要也没有相应要求的最为富裕的美国人减免赋税。
沃伦?巴菲特是这个世界上最为富有的人士之一。但他缴税的税率却比他的秘书的还要低。这就是我们的税制的现状。实际上，有四分之一的百万富翁的缴税税率比数百万辛勤工作的中产人士的低。
正如沃伦所说的，这不公平也不合理。美国的中产阶级缴纳的税款占他们收入的比例要比一些亿万富翁们的还要高，这是不正常的。
这个星期，国会议员们将为纠正这一错误做出选择。他们将就《巴菲特条例》进行投票。
主旨很简单：如果你年收入超过100万，那么你至少应该承担与中产家庭一样所得税税率。另一方面，如果你与其他98%的中产家庭一样，年收入低于25万美元，那么你的税率将不会上调。
就是这样简单，非常合理。大多数的美国人都支持这一想法。一项调查报告显示2/3的百万富翁们也希望如此。因此，难道就没有一半的共和党人支持吗？
我们真的需要一些共和党政治家们与这个国家站一起，休戚与共。
我知道他们会说这项条例最终就是要提高人民的税率。他们也许不会跟你说，如果你属于中产家庭，自我主政以来，我每年都为你们减税，而且还为中小企业减税17次。
但实事是，对像我一样的美国人而言，我们的税率处在50年来的最低值。在2001年和2003年，美国最富裕的人得到了两项全新的巨额减税。我们被告知这些减税将加快就业增长。但我们的就业增长速度在这半个多世纪里却是最慢的，普通美国家庭都看到自己的实际收入的下降。
另一方面，当上世纪90年代最富裕的美国人被要求多缴税时，我们受到警告称这样会伤害就业。然而实事却相反，就业岗位新增了数千万。
我们之前尝试过了这种劫贫济富的试验，根本起不到相应的作用。过去几十年里，中产家庭眼睁睁看着他们有太多的安全感被侵蚀，而我们却告诉他们你们要担负更重的税率，因为富人们承担的少了。我们不能停止在教育、科研以及新能源等帮助我们实现经济增长和创造就业领域的投资，即便如此像我这样的人还是能因此获得额外的减税。
因此，我希望你们告诉你们的议员们站出来作出回应，在本周投票通过《巴菲特条例》。要告诉他们在美国，繁荣从来就不是依靠少数富裕人士获得的，繁荣总是基于一个强大而充满活力的中产阶级。这是当下需要重新确认的原则。
谢谢大家，上帝保佑你们，祝大家周末愉快。
收听单词发音 |
1
deficits
|
|
| n.不足额( deficit的名词复数 )；赤字；亏空；亏损 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
bolstered
|
|
| v.支持( bolster的过去式和过去分词 )；支撑；给予必要的支持；援助 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
flip
|
|
| vt.快速翻动；轻抛；轻拍；n.轻抛；adj.轻浮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
erode
|
|
| v.侵蚀，腐蚀，使...减少、减弱或消失 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
trickled
|
|
| v.滴( trickle的过去式和过去分词 )；淌；使)慢慢走；缓慢移动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
购买
在百度中搜索