The AUDACITY of HOPE, Chapter 5: Opportunity, pp.228, by BARACK OBAMA
....
Meanwhile, I've had corporate CEOs explain to me that it's easy for Warren Buffett to favor an estate tax—even if his estate is taxed at 90 percent, he could still have a few billion to pass on to his kids—but that the tax is grossly unfair to those with estates worth "only" $10 million or $15 million.
So let's be clear. The rich in America have little to complain about. Between 1971 and 2001, while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500 percent. The distribution of wealth is even more skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age. These trends were already at work throughout the nineties. Clinton's tax policies simply slowed them down a bit. Bush's tax cuts made them worse.
I point out these facts not—as Republican talking points would have it—to stir up class envy. I admire many Americans of great wealth and don't begrudge their success in the least. I know that many if not most have earned it through hard work, building businesses and creating jobs and providing value to their customers. I simply believe that those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success. And perhaps I possess a certain Midwestern sensibility that I inherited from my mother and her parents, a sensibility that Warren Buffett seems to share: that at a certain point one has enough, that you can derive as much pleasure from a Picasso hanging in a museum as from one that's hanging in your den, that you can get an awfully good meal in a restaurant for less than twenty dollars, and that once your drapes cost more than the average American's yearly salary, then you can afford to pay a bit more in taxes.
More than anything, it is that sense—that despite great differences in wealth, we rise and fall together—that we can't afford to lose. As the pace of change accelerates, with some rising and many falling, that sense of common kinship becomes harder to maintain. Jefferson was not entirely wrong to fear Hamilton's vision for the country, for we have always been in a constant balancing act between self-interest and community, markets and democracy, the concentration of wealth and power and the opening up of opportunity. We've lost that balance in Washington, I think. With all of us scrambling to raise money for campaigns, with unions weakened and the press distracted and lobbyists for the powerful pressing their full advantage, there are few countervailing voices to remind us of who we are and where we've come from, and to affirm our bonds with one another.
...
語言文字是人類溝通的管道，人類文明發展非它不可，不然任何訊息皆屬無可辨識的密碼符號；但因為它需要被解讀（不管是母語或外語），所以任何人皆可依其喜好而有其個人解讀（或不解讀），不管其間有多大差異，所以以下文字只是其中一種嘗試，自娛娛人也：
同時，我請教一些公司經理向我說明資產稅這回事容易獲得巴菲特之贊同──即使他的資產被課稅90%，他仍有數十億美元留給他的小孩－－但這個稅對那些「僅有」千萬資產之富豪仍不公平。
所以讓我們明白，美國富人沒有什麼可以抱怨的。從1971到2001年間，一般工人薪資之中位數並無增加，但百分之一頂尖富豪之收入卻增加500％。財富之分配更加傾斜，貧富差距比「鍍金時期」以來任何時期都大。這個趨勢充滿在90年代，柯林頓政府之稅賦政策只是減緩一些，布希政府之減稅政策則惡化此趨勢。
我指出這個事實並非要挑動階級妒忌。我欽佩許多美國富人的成功，也絲毫不羨慕他們的成功。我知道許多富豪之財富是經由勤奮工作，建構企業，創造工作，且提供價值給他們的顧客而來。我相信我們已從這些新經濟中獲得許多好處，且有能力支持一項確保每個美國小孩都有機會去達到相同成功的道義責任。也許我承襲一個來自我母親及其父母親的中西部感性，似乎也為巴菲特所共有，即在某個點，一個人已經擁有足夠多了，那裡你從博物館懸掛的畢卡索名畫中獲得的快樂如同你從自宅懸掛的畫作中獲得的快樂一樣多，那裡你可在一家餐廳中花不到20美元便可獲得滿意飮食，而一旦你的窗簾花費比一般美國人的一年所得還多時，你應可多繳一些稅。
更重要的是，這個不管我們財富差異多大，我們都要共同提升或沈淪的感性，讓我們不能失敗。當改變的腳步加快，使有些人提升而多數人沈淪時，這個同舟共濟的感性便變得難以維持。傑弗遜擔憂漢彌爾頓對這個國家未來的眼光並非全然錯誤，因為我們一直處在一種細微平衡中，在自我利益與共同利益，在市場經濟與民主制度，在金錢與權力集中與機會公平公開中。我想我們已在華盛頓政治圈失去這個平衡。當我們忙著為選舉募款，當工會減弱，媒體錯亂，有權勢者之說客日益明目張膽，我們便越來越少有抗衡的聲音提醒我們我們是誰及我們從何而來，並確認我們的共同利害關係。。。
....
Meanwhile, I've had corporate CEOs explain to me that it's easy for Warren Buffett to favor an estate tax—even if his estate is taxed at 90 percent, he could still have a few billion to pass on to his kids—but that the tax is grossly unfair to those with estates worth "only" $10 million or $15 million.
So let's be clear. The rich in America have little to complain about. Between 1971 and 2001, while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500 percent. The distribution of wealth is even more skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age. These trends were already at work throughout the nineties. Clinton's tax policies simply slowed them down a bit. Bush's tax cuts made them worse.
I point out these facts not—as Republican talking points would have it—to stir up class envy. I admire many Americans of great wealth and don't begrudge their success in the least. I know that many if not most have earned it through hard work, building businesses and creating jobs and providing value to their customers. I simply believe that those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success. And perhaps I possess a certain Midwestern sensibility that I inherited from my mother and her parents, a sensibility that Warren Buffett seems to share: that at a certain point one has enough, that you can derive as much pleasure from a Picasso hanging in a museum as from one that's hanging in your den, that you can get an awfully good meal in a restaurant for less than twenty dollars, and that once your drapes cost more than the average American's yearly salary, then you can afford to pay a bit more in taxes.
More than anything, it is that sense—that despite great differences in wealth, we rise and fall together—that we can't afford to lose. As the pace of change accelerates, with some rising and many falling, that sense of common kinship becomes harder to maintain. Jefferson was not entirely wrong to fear Hamilton's vision for the country, for we have always been in a constant balancing act between self-interest and community, markets and democracy, the concentration of wealth and power and the opening up of opportunity. We've lost that balance in Washington, I think. With all of us scrambling to raise money for campaigns, with unions weakened and the press distracted and lobbyists for the powerful pressing their full advantage, there are few countervailing voices to remind us of who we are and where we've come from, and to affirm our bonds with one another.
...
語言文字是人類溝通的管道，人類文明發展非它不可，不然任何訊息皆屬無可辨識的密碼符號；但因為它需要被解讀（不管是母語或外語），所以任何人皆可依其喜好而有其個人解讀（或不解讀），不管其間有多大差異，所以以下文字只是其中一種嘗試，自娛娛人也：
同時，我請教一些公司經理向我說明資產稅這回事容易獲得巴菲特之贊同──即使他的資產被課稅90%，他仍有數十億美元留給他的小孩－－但這個稅對那些「僅有」千萬資產之富豪仍不公平。
所以讓我們明白，美國富人沒有什麼可以抱怨的。從1971到2001年間，一般工人薪資之中位數並無增加，但百分之一頂尖富豪之收入卻增加500％。財富之分配更加傾斜，貧富差距比「鍍金時期」以來任何時期都大。這個趨勢充滿在90年代，柯林頓政府之稅賦政策只是減緩一些，布希政府之減稅政策則惡化此趨勢。
我指出這個事實並非要挑動階級妒忌。我欽佩許多美國富人的成功，也絲毫不羨慕他們的成功。我知道許多富豪之財富是經由勤奮工作，建構企業，創造工作，且提供價值給他們的顧客而來。我相信我們已從這些新經濟中獲得許多好處，且有能力支持一項確保每個美國小孩都有機會去達到相同成功的道義責任。也許我承襲一個來自我母親及其父母親的中西部感性，似乎也為巴菲特所共有，即在某個點，一個人已經擁有足夠多了，那裡你從博物館懸掛的畢卡索名畫中獲得的快樂如同你從自宅懸掛的畫作中獲得的快樂一樣多，那裡你可在一家餐廳中花不到20美元便可獲得滿意飮食，而一旦你的窗簾花費比一般美國人的一年所得還多時，你應可多繳一些稅。
更重要的是，這個不管我們財富差異多大，我們都要共同提升或沈淪的感性，讓我們不能失敗。當改變的腳步加快，使有些人提升而多數人沈淪時，這個同舟共濟的感性便變得難以維持。傑弗遜擔憂漢彌爾頓對這個國家未來的眼光並非全然錯誤，因為我們一直處在一種細微平衡中，在自我利益與共同利益，在市場經濟與民主制度，在金錢與權力集中與機會公平公開中。我想我們已在華盛頓政治圈失去這個平衡。當我們忙著為選舉募款，當工會減弱，媒體錯亂，有權勢者之說客日益明目張膽，我們便越來越少有抗衡的聲音提醒我們我們是誰及我們從何而來，並確認我們的共同利害關係。。。
