誰是Workforall ？
WorkForAll is a pluralistic and politically independent think-tank.  We investigate social models and structures on their efficiency in achieving the social objectives.  WorkForAll is neither a leftist nor a rightist group.  With no ideological attachments, we examine the success of different policies in their achievement of employment, prosperity, solidarity and individual freedom.  Workforall 是一個多元化且政治中立的智囊團體，為達成社會目標; 他們著手調查社會模式和社會結構的運作效率。 Workforall 既不是左翼，也不是右翼集團，沒有任何意識形態。他們專注研究在 "就業、繁榮、團結和個人自由" 等議題的各類成功政策。

Why this initiative?    為何要討論此一議題？
Citizens and even our politicians are seldom aware of the efficiency of different government policies.  Figures of prosperity growth or job creation in countries with an alternative policy are generally unknown.  Citizens form their opinion based on sentiments, vague intuitions or even rigid ideology.  Our leaders often select their policies based on the very same motives, and rather than based on scientific or empirical evidence. 一般民眾、甚至是我們的政客往往都不知道，不同的政策有不同的效率。那一種政策是能夠促進 "社會繁榮" 或者是 "創造就業機會"是很難斷定的。 一般民眾對於以上的議題的判斷往往也只是憑藉著當時的情緒、直覺, 甚至是意識形態的判斷。我們的政治領袖往往也像一般民眾一樣， 不是基於科學證據或經驗來決定國家政策的。

Since the collapse of the long praised Dutch Polder Model a new hype has now arisen around the Scandinavian model. Scandinavians are now supposed to have the stone of wisdom. Nonetheless, it appears from the figures that Denmark, Sweden and Finland have performed very poorly in the last decades in wealth growth, job creation, and have developed very few new solidarity initiatives. Such irrational hypes are harmful.  One should not take example at the last pupil of the class. Policies based on ideology, intuition or fashionable hypes lead all too often to political initiatives that are counterproductive to our prosperity, freedom, solidarity or employment. 當荷蘭的 "波爾德經濟模式" 式微以後，"Scandinavian 社會福利型的經濟模式" 是目前歐洲政府的圭皋。儘管如此，丹麥、瑞典和芬蘭這些 "Scandinavian 社會福利型的經濟模式" 的信奉者卻在過去幾十年中，在 "財富的增長" 以及 "創造就業機會" 上面表現非常差，並極少制訂一致性的政策; 這種不理性的 "經濟模式崇拜" 是有害的。我們想要學習的對象， 不應該是課堂裡面的後段生吧。 政策的制定如果是基於意識形態、直覺或時興炒作，將會傷害我們的繁榮、自由、團結及就業機會。

How did it come to that initiative?  我們如何面對此議題？
It started from the observation that there were remarkable growth rate differences between the European countries, although these countries have a very similar state of development, and similar labour ethics. We noticed for example that Denmark grew only with 35% in the 18 years period from 1984 to 2002. Ireland's wealth on the other hand rose by no less then 167% over the same period. In barely half a generation Ireland evolved from the second poorest to the second richest country of Europe. We found similar differences in job creation. This raised the question as to what causes these remarkable growth differences.  We were wondering if other countries could achieve the same economic and social performance like Ireland or Luxembourg. 我們開始注意此議題，是因為我們觀察到歐洲各國家之間出現顯著的經濟成長差異，儘管這些國家有非常類似的經濟發展狀況、以及類似的勞資結構關係。可是我們卻注意到，丹麥在過去18年期間財富僅增長35％;但從1984年至2002年，愛爾蘭的財富則上升約167 ％。在短短的時間裡，愛爾蘭從歐洲倒數第二窮的國家，變成今日歐洲第二富有的國家。即使在 "創造就業機會" 這項指標上, 我們也發現了類似的差異。到底是什麼原因造成這些差異呢? 我們不禁要問，其他國家是否能夠師法 "愛爾蘭" 或 "盧森堡"， 在經濟和社會方面都達到同樣的表現。

On what evidence was your research based?  此項研究的證據基礎.

A number of factors that boost prosperity are known from the economic literature.  It is known for long that there is a robust negative relation between tax burden and prosperity growth.  Gwartney and also Laffer and Armey have performed pioneering investigation on this subject.  Gwartney examined the causes of growth differentials between the OECD countries over a long period of 1960 until 1996.  He found that in countries and periods in which government spending was smaller than 25% of GDP rose on average with 6.6%.   Countries with government spending over 60% realized growth rates of 1,6% only.  In his research, he found strong evidence of the robust negative relationship between government spending -and therefore indirectly tax burden - and prosperity growth. This relationship appears also evidently from the spreadsheet between growth and public spending in the EU-countries.  A yet stronger negative relationship appears on the spread diagram between prosperity growth and taxation on wages: the higher the tax burden, the lower the growth.  從經濟學的文獻當中， 我們了解到 "刺激景氣繁榮" 是需要有多種條件的; 而 "租稅負擔" 與 "繁榮成長" 卻是永遠互相牴觸的 (負相關)。 Gwartney "格瓦特尼"、Laffer "也拉弗" 和 Armey "阿米" 他們已經開始了研究這個未曾研究過的課題。 "格瓦特尼" 研究 "OECD國家的經濟成長差距" 有相當長的時期 (1960年到1996年) 。他發現政府支出小於 GDP 25 ％ (國內生產總值) 的國家， 其經濟成長率平均達到6.6％; 而政府開支超過GDP 60% 的國家，其經濟成長率僅有1.6％。 在他的研究當中，他發現了強有力的證據指出，"政府支出" (間接稅負) 與 "繁榮成長" 間互相牴觸的關係。 這種關係似乎可明顯從圖表中看出，在歐盟國家中 "公共支出" 與 "繁榮成長" 的負相關係： 高稅負 => 低成長。

These abstract calculations do not mean very much to our readers.    這些抽象的數據，對一般的讀者來說是沒有太大意義的。

It is however the standard scientific procedure to resolve such a problem.  Unfortunately, one cannot illustrate a line in 25-dimensional space by means of 2-dimentional graphics.  One simply has to rely on mathematics for that. In order to illustrate our findings we have therefore compared two countries with totally opposite economic and fiscal policies: Belgium and Ireland.  但是，讓大家能夠瞭解這些抽象的數據卻是一個標準的科學程序，因為我們不能在一個二維平面上顯示一個25維度的空間圖形，所以我們必須依靠數學分析來說明我們的調查結果。因此，WorkForAll 比較了兩個經濟政策和財政政策完全相反的國家：比利時和愛爾蘭。

In 1985, Ireland's economical situation was dramatic, and much worse than Belgium's: excessive budgets deficits, weak growth performances, and a wealth that amounted to only 65% of the Belgian level. 1985年， In addition, Irish unemployment outfigured the Belgian one by 17% to 10%.  Until 1985 both countries followed similar Keynesian policies and let government spending derail.  In 1983 Belgian public spending exceeded the psychological cape of 50% of the GDP...  1985 年, 愛爾蘭的經濟形勢是很戲劇化的，她的經濟表現遠不如當時的比利時：過度的財政赤字、疲軟的經濟成長、而且全國財富只有比利時的65％。此外，愛爾蘭當時的失業率高達17％ (比利時是10％)。 在1985年之前，這兩個國家皆採取了類似 "凱恩斯主義" 的財經政策，讓政府支出嚴重脫軌。1983年, 比利時的公共支出超過了國內生產總值 (GDP) 的50 ％.

This excessive spending was accompanied by a continuous increase of the tax burden, state debt, and much unproductive public spending.  The negative spiral was initiated.  On the graphics one notices that until 1980 Irish public spending evolved approximately similarly with the Belgian, and growth performances of both countries also paralleled.  In 1985 Ireland however changed policies dramatically.  They drastically lowered the tax burden.  All superfluous government spending was dropped, and in three years time the public spending was lowered with no less then 20%.  In this way Ireland gave the start to a period of explosive wealth growth averaging 5.6% in the period 1985 until 2002.  This is roughly the triple of the Belgian growth rate.  這種過度支出伴隨而來的是不斷增加的租稅負擔、國家債務、和大量非生產性的公共開銷，就像是個急速下沉的漩渦。從上圖可看出, 在1980年，愛爾蘭的政府公共支出大約與比利時相當，而且這兩個國家經濟成長率也相去不遠。 但在1985 年, 愛爾蘭戲劇性地改變政策，大幅降低了租稅負擔，政府開支下降; 並在三年的時間內, 公共支出下降了20％。 因為如此，1985年至2002年之間, 愛爾蘭展開了爆炸性的財富成長; 平均
經濟成長率為5.6 ％。這大約是比利時經濟成長速度的三倍。

Belgium chose for a very different policy.  Belgium barely lowered the tax burden at all, but tried to boost the economy with all sorts of micro-measures. Even under favorable cyclical conditions, public spending remained above the 50% GDP level.  Under these policies, growth stagnated around the 1,9%.  In 2003 the authorities still took 51.4% of the Bealgian wealth creation. In the meantime Irish Authorities had had pushed back public spending to  35.2% of GDP. 比 利時選擇了一個完全不同的政策，政府只願作一些個體政策來刺激經濟，從不降低人民的租稅負擔。即使是在景氣循環的有利條件之下，政府的支出仍高於 GDP (國內生產總值) 的50％。在這些政策的影響下，比利時的經濟成長率停滯不前, 大概在1.9％左右。在2003年，政府當局的支出竟然佔了全國新增財富的51.4％。然而在同一期間，愛爾蘭卻已將政府的支出壓低到了GDP 的35.2％。

Today Belgian public spending is 46% larger than the Irish is, and the growth rate differential is accordingly. Although the Irish prosperity in 1970 was barely half Belgium's, today it is significantly larger.  As consequence of unequaled wealth growth Irish authorities today have large margins for all sorts of social, cultural and environment-initiatives as in absolute terms Irish government disposes of more resources than the Belgians do. However, the Irish wealth is still felt best in purses of its citizens.  The increase of the BNP/head by 167% in a 17-year period with an additional drop in the tax burden of one-third amounts to a multiplication of disposable income with no less than a factor 3.5. Can you imagine what this means?  直到今日, 比利時政府支出仍多出愛爾蘭的46%, 兩者經濟成長率的差距也剛好如此. 雖然在1970年, 愛爾蘭的繁榮幾乎只有比利時的一半水準，但今天愛爾蘭卻是顯著地繁華無比。愛爾蘭驚人的財富成長，比起比利時, 無論在社會、文化和環境等公共議題方面都有更多的預算支出. 可是，愛爾蘭當局覺得還是 "藏富於民" 比較好。 愛爾蘭人民過去的17年間, 每人平均的 BNP 提高了167 ％. 可是， 個人的租稅負擔卻下降了的三分之一, 個人的稅後"可支配所得" 是17年前的3.5倍。 你能想像這意味著什麼呢？

One notices this wealth explosion when one visits Ireland in all aspects of daily life; one notices the unequaled optimism.  Around Dublin, a forest of tower cranes limits the skyline. In the countryside new houses everywhere, the newest car models, modern factories and offices.  One also notices it in the reorganization of people's neighborhoods, and in the care they spend at the environment.  The wealth is visible in the absence of criminality and in the view of unclosed cars. One reads also luck in the eyes of people, in the birth rate, and in the welfare-ranking.  In this ranking Ireland has ed to number one as the most pleasant country in the world to live in. 愛爾蘭財富爆炸的現象，您只要來拜訪這裡就能夠體會出他們樂觀的情緒。 都柏林附近，像叢林般高聳的起重機， 遮蓋了天際。 在農村中; 新房屋處處可見，最新型的汽車，現代化的工廠和辦公室大樓. 另外, 街坊的情誼也改變了，花費在環境維護上的錢也增加了。財富的增加也意味著零犯罪; 車輛都不用上鎖。而在世人眼中最令人稱羨的，在於它的人口出生率和社會福利的排名. 愛爾蘭被譽為是全世界最適合居住的地方。  

However, tax cuts mainly profit the rich is it not?  但是，減稅主要還是有錢人受益最多, 是嗎？
　

However,  many countries still face a huge public debt, their policy margin is very limited.  然而，許多國家仍面臨著巨大的公債，對國家整體預算造成了擠壓作用。
 
The gigantic state debt in many countries is the logical consequence of years of fruitless "deficit spending" and sterile Keynesian policies. In Belgium this has culminated under the disastrous administration of socialist minister of budget MATHOT, who went so far as to state publicly that deficits had come by themselves, and would go the same way. Of course, building up such a debt was economic insanity, and a moral injustice to the coming generations. One must get rid of these state debts.  The only question is how. 許多國家在龐大的債務壓力，就是過去不斷地執行毫無成效的"擴大赤字支出" 以及奉行 "凱恩斯主義" 的結果。 在比利時，社會主義的內閣執行了災難性的社會福利政策 MATHOT , 將災害帶到了頂點. 赤字已經龐大到已經可以左右政府的預算政策。 當然了，累積出這種龐大的債務是經濟上的瘋狂舉措，在道義上也是對自己後代子孫不公平的。 這些國家的債務一定要大幅銷減。唯一的問題是, 要如何去作?

One can of course try to reimburse it as fast as possible.  In Belgium, even with their huge savings rate of 14% this would take 8.85 years when they spend all savings on debt reduction. But then nothing remains to invest.  Not a single machine, not a single house.  They could also spread it over 17.7 years, but also then they would need to halve investment with disastrous consequences for the competiviness and the prosperity.  Paying back public debt in this manner is much too slow, and always goes at the expense of investment.  當然, 政府可以嘗試盡速的來償還公債。在比利時，雖然民眾有著高達 14% 的儲蓄率， 但這仍然將花費8.85年的時間，用盡每年的積蓄，來償還債務。 但是，如果這樣做, 國內就沒有任何新興的投資了。到時, 全國將沒有一部新的機器來從事生產, 看不到一間新造的房子。 他們也可以用17.7年來攤還帳務，但所有的投資都必須減半，等於拿國家競爭力與繁榮 來做賭注。償還公共債務是個緩慢的過程，而且總得犧牲掉 "投資" 才行。

An alternative manner to reduce the proportion Debts/GDP is to focus on the denominator of this fracture, and not on the counter.  In other words, one must aim at a serious growth.  This is exactly what the Irish have done.   另一種方式，就是降低 (公債) / (國內生產總值 GDP) 的比值， 但是, 要把重點放在分母上，而不是 分子。換句話說，我們必須著眼於高速的經濟成長 (增加GDP )，這也正是愛爾蘭所做到的。

In 1986, Irish public debt amounted to 111% of GDP, almost just as bad as in Belgium with 124%.  The Irish tax cuts however boosted growth to an average 5.6% between 1985 and 2002.  Belgium focused on the counter of the fracture: handing in on almost everything to pay off public debt.  This policy had a deflationary effect and their growth stagnated at 1,9%.  在1986年，愛爾蘭的 "公共債務總額" (Debt) 是 "國內生產總值" (GDP) 的111 ％; 比利時也相去不遠，它的比例是124 ％。但是愛爾蘭實行減稅政策，在1985年和2002年間經濟成長率大幅提高為每年平均5.6 ％; 但比利時卻著重在分子上面 (償還公債)：他們幾乎動用了全部的資源來償還公共債務。這一政策也連帶產生了通貨緊縮效應, 經濟成長率就停滯在1.9 ％ 。  

After 17 year an exponential growth rate differential of over 3% works out to a gigantic difference: Ireland raised its GDP by a factor 2.67; Belgium with a factor 1.42.  In other words Ireland increased the denominator of the fracture public debt / GDP with that factor 2.67, Belgium with that factor 1.42. This way Irish debt will be reduced to 30% GDP in 2005.  With much effort and many new taxes, the Belgian government debt will still be at 98% of the GDP. 經過十七年的高速經濟成長， 雖然兩國每年的經濟成長率只差3 ％而已 ，但卻產生了巨大的差異。 愛爾蘭將 "國內生產總值" GDP 增長到 2.67倍 ; 比利時卻只有1.42倍 。換句話說, 愛爾蘭將 "公共債務" /"國內生產總值" 的分母增加到2.67倍 ，比利時的分母才增加1.42倍。 因為這樣，愛爾蘭的債務 比例在2005年減少到"國內生產總值" 的30 ％而已, 比利時政府嘗試了各種努力並增加了新的稅目，債務仍然佔 "國內生產總值" 的 98 ％。

 What about unemployment under a offer-boosting policy ?  增加就業機會對於"失業率"的影響是什麼？
　

Yet it appears contradictory that social spending can rise when tax burden decreases.  "稅負降低" 反而能增加 "社會福利的支出"。這不是挺矛盾的嗎?   
　

An other idea of yours is to shift the tax burden from direct taxes to consumption.  另外有個想法是將稅負從"直接稅" 轉向 "消費稅"。
　

This is not is just another idea!  This also is one of the main conclusions from our regression-analysis.  We found that countries with higher consumption taxes grow much faster than countries with a higher share of direct taxes.  We therefore fully applaud the basic ideas of the Belgian political party VIVANT who made it one of its prime objectives, and also the recent European initiative of Belgian Prime Minister Verhofstadt. 這不僅僅只是其中的一種想法而已，其實這也是 WorkForAll 做的回歸分析研究中的最主要結論。我們發現，"高消費稅" 的國家, 它的經濟成長速度遠遠超過 了 "高直接稅" 的國家。因此，我們非常讚賞 比利時政黨 Vivant 將以上的議題當做他們的主要政見之ㄧ。同時，我也要對最近一直提倡此議題的 比利時首相 "蒙合思塔" (Verhofstadt) 致敬。

The problem is that government expenditures grew explosively since the sixties.  Direct taxes and taxes on business profits have taken the entire burden of this growth.  Family income taxes in Belgium doubled since 1965; taxes on consumption barely changed at all.  問題是，自從六十年代起, 比利時政府的支出就呈現爆炸性的成長。直接稅和營利事業所得稅都拿去支應政府支出的成長。從1965年至今, 比利時 家庭(綜合)所得稅幾乎翻了一番，但 "消費稅" 卻幾乎沒有任何改變。  

When our social security model was designed, the proportion between direct and indirect tax was balanced. However, in the course of the time, the structure of tax receipts is complete distorted.  Much too high direct taxes de-motivate productive contribution to the system, and relatively low consumption taxes boost consumption to the disadvantage of investment.  An additional advantage of a consumption tax is that the domestic production no longer bears the whole burden of the social security system, but also products produced abroad are bearing an equal share in the burden.  根 據比利時社會福利規劃的模式，直接稅與間接稅的比例是要互相平衡的。 但是，過去這段時間，租稅的整體結構已經完全被扭曲。過高的直接稅 讓老百姓不想投入生產的行列，而偏低的消費稅卻刺激了消費，但不利於投資。 高消費稅還有一項好處, 國內的產業不必再完全承擔社會福利體系的重擔，而舶來品也要承擔同樣比例的稅負。

A shift of the tax burden can indeed help to boost growth, but the main objective must remain a substantial lightening of the total tax burden.  The IMF comes to the same conclusions in their study of July 2004.         http://www.fma  租稅負擔的項目調整確實能刺激經濟成長; 但最主要的，還是必須繼續大幅度地減輕總體租稅負擔。國際貨幣基金會 (IMF) 在他們2004年7月的研究中也得到了同樣的結論。 http://www.fma