美国总统特朗普在竞选时允诺的减税计划，新近已在美国众参两院分别通过了其法案框架，一俟两院版本经相互协商得出最终版本后，将经投票和总统签字而生效。此事再次引起全球瞩目、各方热议。
美国作为头号强国，此减税举措的“外溢性”及对中国将带来的外部冲击影响，是不言而喻的。但在全球化国际合作与竞争场景中，中国完全可以“变压力为动力”，更为积极地“做好自己的事情”，在与美、日、欧等主要贸易伙伴的互动中，推动“人类命运共同体”式的双赢、多赢发展。具体分析，应指出如下几个方面的基本认识：
一、减税是中美的共同选项，并都有原已积累的理性认识和经验
美国早有上世纪80年代“里根经济学”指导的减税实践，中国也自那时推进改革开放以来力行“减税让利，搞活企业”的方略，都取得了积极的成果。当下，在进一步消除世界金融危机负面影响的背景下，美国要以减税促使其“重新强大”，中国要以减税深化供给侧结构性改革引领“新常态”，这是两大经济体的共同取向，内含的学理均认同于“拉弗曲线”揭示的“减税-激励-优化经济运行”的逻辑。在此大方向上，两大经济体并无歧见。
二、中美的税制结构和税改进度不同，优化税制的方略必各有侧重
特朗普的减税主要是显著降低企业所得税负担，并简化和削减个人所得税。就此对应地比较中国情况，企业所得税早已在多年前把标准税率降为25%，并一向对高科技企业优惠至15%，近年又明确规定中小企业减半征收即实际税率降为12.5%，还有地方政府的“三免两减”等优惠，这些举措都走到了美国的前面。
至于个人所得税，中国在前一轮个税改革提高“起征点”之后，此税的收入已降至税收总收入的6%左右，即已明显边缘化，与美国个税占联邦政府总收入47%左右的格局完全不可同日而语。
中国在“正税”概念下的进一步减税，企业所得税方面可能的空间已不大，个人所得税方面则是需考虑走向“综合与分类相结合”新框架的税制改革。另外，中国的税制结构是以间接税为主体，与美国的直接税为主体迥然不同，中国在业已全面推出“营改增”的间接税减税改革之后，为优化税制还不能不考虑在税改中逐步提高直接说比重，以使自己的税制与经济生活现代化。
因此，中美两方优化税制的方略必然各有侧重、各不相同，中国无法对美国的税改“照猫画虎”。
三、中国需在减税、税改的同时做好“全景图”概念下的企业减负
中国的实际特点是企业“正税”之外的非税负担名目、种类繁多，可降低的空间可观，但涉及一系列“攻坚克难”的改革问题，经多年努力后，这些非税负担的总和水平，仍明显高于国际上其他经济体的一般情况。市场主体选择“要素流动”方向而“用脚投票”的压力下，特朗普减税冲击对此可给中国带来的正面效应在于：正好可以促使中国在企业负担“全景图”视野之内，以推进改革来寻求实质性地促成境内企业非税负担的减降。
其中特别包括：1.以社保体系改革促成企业“五险一金”的降低；2.以行政系统配套改革减少仍名目繁多的几百种行政性收费的种类与降低负担标准；3.以整顿吏治的配套改革减降企业处关系“打点”而形成的隐形负担和审批环节“为官不为”拖延不办带来的实际损失负担。
四、中国还应做好“自己事情”中的两件改革大事
前面考察分析已表明，中国如想按美国减税方案来照猫画虎地在本国实施，必成邯郸学步、东施效颦，中国针对自己的实际情况而“问题导向”地“做好自己的事情”，还应积极抓好如下两件改革大事：
一是政府精简机构，压低行政成本开支。这是涉及“大部制”、“扁平化”的政府机构“消肿减肥”的“啃硬骨头”之举。如能变压力为动力地把此事做好，将带来政府职能的进一步合理化转变和政府运行绩效水平的实质性提高，财政的运行则能够既减收也减支，对冲赤字压力。
二是大力推进PPP创新，以融资合作使政府“少花钱、多办事、办好事”。PPP的机制创新近年正在中国积极推行，如能变压力为动力把此事做得更规范、更专业、更有声有色，将使中国在减税的同时，更好地引导政府体外的民间资本、企业资金以与政府合作的方式，来从事公共工程、基础设施建设乃至产业新城的建设和运营，既显著缓解政府收支矛盾，又能以PPP带来的投资绩效升级机制，更好地满足改进民生、服务公众的社会目标。
总之，面对“特朗普减税冲击”，中国完全可以也确实应该“变压力为动力”，以供给侧改革更好地满足人民群众对美好生活的需求。
（文章来源：《中国日报》，以下为英文版）
US tax cut can be turned into an opportunity
The United States Senate has approved a bill toreduce taxes for businesses and the rich as part of the promises US PresidentDonald Trump made during his presidential campaign, which will have a bigimpact on many economies, especially China's.
But given the global trend of cooperation andcompetition, China could transform the challenges created by the US tax cutinto a driving force for the economy. Through interactions with its major tradepartners, including the US, Japan and the European Union, China could promotewin-win development to build a community of shared future for humankind.
Many economies, including China and the US,use tax cuts as a tool to boost the economy. But the US' tax cut policy isguided by "Reaganomics", or the economic policy president RonaldReagan followed in the 1980s. China, too, used tax cuts to propel reform andopening-up in the 1980s, and they have yielded positive results.
Trump wants to make "America great again"by using, among other economic tools, tax cuts, whereas China has cut taxes todeepen supply-side structural reform in line with its economic "newnormal". The world's two largest economies have a common orientation－they believethat "tax cut leads to inspiration and further optimizing of economicoperation", as proved by the Laffer curve, which shows the theoreticalrelationship between rates of taxation and the resulting levels of governmentrevenue.
But the two countries' tax reforms aredifferent. Trump's tax cut is aimed at greatly reducing the tax burden ofenterprises and individuals, while in China, the standard rate of income taxfor enterprises was reduced to 25 percent many years ago, and high-techcompanies can enjoy a preferential tax rate of 15 percent. And for the past fewyears, small and medium-sized enterprises have been paying 12.5 percent incometax, and some local governments have offered even more preferential tax ratesto attract enterprises.
Besides, China raised the threshold of individualincome tax in the last round of individual income tax reform; in fact,individual income tax accounts for only about 6 percent of China's overall taxrevenue, whereas in the US it accounts for about 47 percent of the federalgovernment's total tax income.
Therefore, China has less room to reduceenterprises' income tax, and the individual income tax reform will focus moreon building comprehensive and classified tax systems.
Moreover, unlike in the US where mainlydirect taxes are imposed, China's tax revenue comes mainly from indirect taxes.As China is reforming the indirect taxation system, by replacing business taxwith value-added tax, the ratio of direct tax will gradually increase tooptimize the taxation system.
This means China's tax system optimizationwill be different from the US', because in China it is important to reduce thevarious non-tax burdens of enterprises, which are still high in China comparedwith the international level in general. In this regard, Trump's tax cut islikely to help China reduce the non-tax burdens of enterprises. For instance,the premiums enterprises pay for their employees' social insurance and publichousing reserve fund could be reduced, and so could other nontax burdensthrough administrative approval.
So China should not follow the US' example;instead it should promote reforms in two areas based on its actual condition.The first is to reduce administrative costs and improve administrativeefficiency. And the other is to promote public-private partnerships, which arebetter equipped and more efficient in attracting private capital for theconstruction and operation of public projects and infrastructure. This turn mayeffectively ease the government's financial burden and help improve people'slivelihoods.
In other words, China is in a position totransform the challenges brought about by the US tax cut into an opportunity tofacilitate economic development, in order to expedite the supply-sidestructural reform and better serve the people.
