Posted: April 16th, 2009, 12:55 pm
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Anyone Can Be a Tax Cheat!</span>
_____________________________________
Apr 15 2009, 3:39 pm by Conor Clarke
I suppose it was inevitable that someone would write this story today: Americans are upset that they have to pay their taxes today when Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, who is the putative head of the IRS, did not. Or at least he didn't pay them when he was supposed to pay them.
But I don't think there's really a double standard here (at least if you're not an employee of the government). Americans get away with this all the time! In fact, as Chris Beam reports:
That doesn't mean Geithner's tax hiccup was justified. But I think Geithner is a symptom, not a cause. It's not that he can get away with it while the little people get stuck with the bill; it's that just about anyone who wants to get away with it can get away with it.an estimated 7 million Americans fail to file their taxes every year, and in 2008 the IRS examined only 158,000 such cases. That comes out to a roughly 2 percent chance of getting caught.
Update: I should add that I do think there is a big double standard in how government officials and nominees get treated. One problem is how the government treats Tim Geithner versus, say, an employee of the IRS. (The article quoted above says such employees can be fired just for filing their taxes late.) That seems crazy.
A second problem is how the administration has treated Geithner versus, say, Nancy Killefer. (Remember her?) The sense I got from the that whole episode was that Congress had a finite appetite for scandal, not a consistent theory for how to treat scandal. I think consistency is importnat and, for that reason, thought the whole Geithner episode was embarrassing for Congress.
But there are a number of possible consistent theories from which we can choose. One is to have a zero-tolerance policy across the board. I find this appealing for reasons for vegeance/schadenfrede. But I think it's ulitmately a bad idea -- mostly because the tax code is legitimately complicated and some people (e.g., Killefer) should not be barred from public life because of small errors that seem legitimately unintentional.
I would much rather see a theory that tried to distinguish between cases using consistent standards. (Was it intentional? Was it forgivable?) I just never got the feeling that congress or the administration tried to do this.
permalink
<a href='http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04 ... _cheat.php' target='_blank'>http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04 ... eat.php</a>
_____________________________________
本文是The Atlantic Monthly Group的专栏作者<a href='http://business.theatlantic.com/author/conor_clarke/' target='_blank'>Conor Clarke</a>撰写的一篇评论性文章（文中出现了个别细节语汇失误，应是录入时的笔误），从其选词、遣句等方面对了解西方人看待避税、逃税等问题有一定作用。
背景词汇
Tim Geithner，即Timothy F. Geithner，前纽约联邦储备银行首席执行长，目前是美国财政部长
IRS，全称是the Internal Revenue Service(the department of the US government that collects national taxes)，即美国国内税务局，负责对国内征收税款
文章标题即指明，人人都可能逃税舞弊。cheat这个词的意思是欺、瞒，尤其是通过一种不忠诚、违反既定规则的方式达成满足私利的行为，标题中使用该词为全篇评论定下了基调，税务方面的舞弊是违反法律规则的，其根本目的在于满足私利，从而破坏了整个社会的运作体系。
第一自然段是说美国人对缴税很重视，甚至到了因缴税而心烦意乱的地步(upset)。美国人通常会开玩笑的说，只有死亡和税款是逃不掉的。但是这样一个普遍认同的观点(inevitable, putative, supposed)却出现了例外：财长盖纳未缴应缴之税！
西方社会中的民主头牌公认是美国，那么在这样的一个制度下，财长作为国税的领导人，怎么可能不缴个税呢？无疑这会使人联想到美国的税务是否执行着双重标准(double standard)，即针对普通民众是严格的一套体制，而针对政府公务员们又是另一套体制。但是评论员马上写道，美国人是本性如此，一直千方百计的做着这种不忠诚的事(get away with this all the time)，并在其后罗列了一系列的数据，称个中原因是机会成本太小（引用部分的原文称仅有约百分之二的被逮机率）。
既然美国人的逃税是本性使然，那么盖纳的作为又是否可以原谅了？评论员用了一个很巧妙的词hiccup，在牛津词典中的解释是暂时性的小问题、不合常见现象的小故障(temporary small problem or stoppage)，也就是说，盖纳的行为即使只是一个不足道的瑕疵，也是没有理由原谅的！评论员在此并没有将盖纳逃税门事件视作一个“根源”(cause)，而是一个现象(symptom)。后句对这两个词进行了解释：并非盖纳能逃税，而小民（little people在此解释为美国普通群众，没有政治权力的百姓）受困于重税之下（get stuck with指困于不欲之事、之境），事实上只要是个人，想逃都逃得掉（get away with表达了这种耍小聪明摆脱制裁的优越感）。
评论员随后又在补记中改变了看法，认为双重标准是存在的，随后列出了两方面的对比：
1）盖财长与普通公务员的对比，小公务员会因为迟交税就被炒，而盖财长不交税照样挥斥方遒；
2）施政者在同一个问题上对盖财长和南茜（麦肯锡董事、白宫前绩效官，税务问题后淡出视野）的不同处理说明政府当局并没有一碗水端平，处理问题并不公正（此处并未用unfair或类似的词，而是使用了一个较委婉的consistent theory，此处theory不解释为理论的意思）。行为学理论认为，当行为不可预测时，则代表不可信任。但评论员并未称美当局不可信任，而是说盖纳事件令国会很难堪(embarrassing)；另外，文中用的另一个词episode（意为戏剧的片断、小插曲）也表示盖纳逃税事件仅是冰山的一角，与前文呼应。
西方的思维似乎对结构化的东西比较在意，如果结构有问题，那么是否可以修补？评论员由处理逃税事件的“不连续/不连贯”问题展开去，试图探讨如何选择“连贯”、“一致”的做法。其一是严格律法、从严治罪(zero-tolerance)、一视同仁(across the board: affecting everyone or everything in a situation or organization)，然而此一来产生的副产品就是南茜事件，因无心之过而仕途尽毁(barred from public life because of small errors that seem legitimately unintentional)——法律规则、条款的复杂和死板是负面因素。其二是重区分而非裁决，在判断方式上采用一致标准，但国会和施政者却不屑于此(not...tried to do this)。