全球视野 | 每捐赠1美元获得25美分政府配捐：为什么美国应该学习英国的捐赠援助计划？

全球视野

每周从全球各大与公益慈善或社会创新领域相关的媒体或专业网站，去浏览发现当下正在发生的案例和正在思考的观点，然后翻译整理成篇，传达第一手的新鲜资讯。栏目希望可以通过文章的视角或者表述，为会员伙伴们提供启发、打开视野。

文章《The charitable deduction is a complex, broken mess. There’s a better way.慈善扣除是一团复杂而混乱的烂摊子。有一个更好的解决办法。》发布在Vox.com上，这是一家美国新闻评论网站。文章作者Dylan Matthews是 Vox的Future Perfect栏目的资深记者和主笔。文章主张美国应借鉴英国的捐赠援助（Gift Aid）计划，以取代当前复杂且不公平的慈善扣除制度，从而提高慈善捐赠的激励效果，并简化税收系统。

Imagine a charity comes to you with an offer. If you give them a donation now, they’ll get it at least partially matched — so for every dollar you give, a wealthy benefactor will add 25 cents. Your giving has a higher bang for the buck than normal. 

想象一下，一家慈善机构向你提出了一个提议：如果你现在向他们捐赠，他们至少会得到部分匹配捐赠；所以你每捐出一美元，一位富有的捐赠人将额外捐出25美分。这样，你的捐赠，就会获得比普通捐赠更高的回报。 

Now imagine the charity instead tells you that your gift might help your taxes ... but it probably won’t. In fact, there’s a 90 percent chance it will do nothing to reduce your tax burden. But there’s a small chance it will help. How much will it help? Hard to say; you might get anywhere from 10 to 37 percent of the donation back on your taxes next year, depending on a ton of other factors that have nothing to do with charity. 

再想象一下，慈善机构告诉你，你的捐赠可能会帮助你的税务情况......但很可能不会。事实上，有90%的几率，它对减少你的税务负担没有任何帮助，但也可能小概率会有帮助。至于会有多大帮助？很难说。取决于许多与慈善无关的因素，你明年的税收减免可能会在捐赠金额的10%到37%之间。 

Which of these options sounds better to you? And more importantly: Which of them is more likely to spur you to donate? 

你觉得哪个方案更好？更重要的是：哪个方案更有可能激励你捐赠？ 

The second option is how the United States charitable deduction currently works. It’s only available to people who “itemize” their deductions, meaning they eschew the standard deduction for specialized benefits based on mortgage payments, state taxes, and other factors. But barely 9 percent of filers even did that in 2021, and they are disproportionately wealthy ones. 

第二种方案就是美国目前的慈善扣除方式，它只适用于逐项扣除的人，这意味着这些人避开了基于抵押贷款支付、州税和其他因素的特定福利的标准扣除。但在2021年，只有不到9%的申报者这样做，而且他们中大多数都是富人。 

How much the charitable deduction reduces your taxes, and thus benefits you, depends on your tax bracket, which means it could be worth as little as 10 percent of your gift or as much as 37 percent. It’s a complex, difficult-to-understand program, which surely limits how effective it can be at its main goal: encouraging Americans to give to charity. 

慈善扣税能减免多少税款，从而使你受益，取决于你的税级。这意味着它的价值可能只有你捐赠的10%，也可能高达37%。这是一项复杂、难以理解的计划。这无疑限制了这一方案在实现其主要目标（即鼓励美国人向慈善机构捐赠）方面的效果。 

The first option, the 25 cents on the dollar match? That’s what the United Kingdom does. When you donate to a charity there, you can check a box confirming you’re a UK taxpayer. The charity then gets a 25 percent match from the government on all donations from taxpayers. 

第一个选项，即每捐赠一美元获得25美分的配捐？那就是英国的做法。当你向慈善机构捐款时，你可以勾选一个框确认你是英国纳税人。然后，慈善机构会从政府那里获得捐赠的25%的配捐。 

The program is called Gift Aid, and it has helped the UK preserve its system of pay-as-you-earn income taxes, in which about two-thirds of Britons don’t have to file tax returns at all. Most things that would be deductions in the US instead exist outside the tax system in the UK, in programs like Gift Aid. It seems to work at making giving more popular: A recent global survey found that 71 percent of Britons donated to charity, compared to 61 percent of Americans, and a sharp contrast from the very low rates of giving in much of mainland Europe (37 percent in France, 42 percent in Italy). 

该计划被称为捐赠援助（Gift Aid）计划，它帮助英国保留了随赚随付的所得税制度，其中约三分之二的英国人根本不需要报税。大多数在美国可以扣除的项目，是在英国的税收制度之外，比如捐赠援助计划。它似乎使捐赠更受欢迎。最近的一项全球调查发现，71%的英国人向慈善机构捐赠，而美国人的这一比例为61%，这与欧洲大陆大部分地区捐赠率极低的情况，形成了鲜明对比（法国为37%，意大利为42%）。 

It’s a simpler way to incentivize charity, and as Tax Policy Center economist Robert McClelland explains in a new report, it’s a more effective way too. 

税收政策中心经济学家罗伯特·麦克利兰在一份新报告中解释说，这是一种更简单的慈善激励方式，也是一种更有效的方式。

In recent decades, economists and psychologists have taken to conducting studies trying to uncover biases in the way people respond to economic situations, a research program known as “behavioral economics.” For instance, people tend to be more sad about losing something they have than happy when gaining something of equivalent value (“loss aversion”); they tend to put undue weight on the first thing they hear about a certain subject (“anchoring bias”). 

近几十年来，经济学家和心理学家一直在进行研究，试图揭示人们对经济状况反应中的倾向性，这项研究项目被称为“行为经济学”。例如，人们往往对失去拥有的东西感到更加难过，而不是在获得同等价值的东西时感到更加高兴（“厌恶损失”）；他们往往会过分看重他们听到的、关于某个主题的第一件事（“锚定偏见”）。 

Partly due to this research program, a number of economists have conducted experiments to see whether matching grants or a “rebate” like the charitable deduction work better. McClelland reviews many of these experiments and finds that they overwhelmingly show matches are more effective. 

部分因为这项研究计划，许多经济学家进行了实验：以了解是配捐，还是像慈善扣税这样的“返还”更有效。罗伯特·麦克利兰回顾了其中的许多实验，发现绝大多数实验都表明配捐更有效。 

The team of Catherine Eckel and Philip Grossman conducted many of these trials. A paper of theirs in 2003 found that a match was about three times as effective as a rebate; a 2017 paper includes three experiments, all of which find matches are more effective if your goal is maximizing the ultimate resources of the charity. 

凯瑟琳·埃克尔和菲利普·格罗斯曼团队进行了许多这样的实验。他们在2003年发表的一篇论文发现，配捐的效果大约是“返还”的三倍；2017年的一篇论文包括了三个实验，都发现：如果你的目标是最大限度地利用慈善机构的最终资源，那么配捐会更有效。

The UK model has other advantages too. Gift Aid functions as a universal, refundable charitable credit of 20 percent, available to all of its residents regardless of their tax bracket or situation. It is not solely available to a minority of taxpayers who claim a special set of itemized deductions. It is available to all Britons regardless of income. That means a wider share of donors get their philanthropic preferences reflected. 

英国模式还有其他优势。捐赠援助计划作为一种普遍的、可退还的慈善抵免，其抵免额为20%，是所有居民均可享受的，无论其税级或情况如何。它并不只适用于那些申请了一组特定逐项扣除的少数纳税人。它适用于所有英国人，无论收入如何。这意味着更广泛捐赠人的慈善偏好得到了体现。 

The administration is also simpler than a credit because donors need not remember their donations when filing taxes. Administration for charities is also relatively simple, requiring only a report of eligible donations to His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. This is equivalent to the Form 990 reports already required of large charitable institutions in the United States. The additional reporting burden would be fairly minimal. 

这种模式的管理也比抵免简单，因为捐赠人在报税时无需记住自己的捐赠。慈善机构的管理也相对简单，只需向英国税务海关总署报告符合条件的捐赠。这相当于美国大型慈善机构需要提交的990表格。额外的报告负担相当轻微。 

What’s more, this kind of approach would make it easier for the US to eliminate its itemized deductions, a long-held goal of tax reformers. Economists generally believe the home interest deduction is a disaster that makes homes more expensive and encourages excessive debt; the state and local tax deduction is mostly a regressive transfer to wealthy people in high-tax states. Eliminating the charitable deduction in favor of a Gift Aid program would reduce the number of people using these deductions too, by making itemizing less attractive overall. 

更重要的是，这种方式将使美国更容易取消逐项扣除，而这正是税制改革者长期以来的目标。经济学家普遍认为，住房利息扣除是一场灾难，它使住房更加昂贵，并鼓励过度负债；州税和地方税扣除主要是向高税率州的富人，进行累退性转移。取消慈善扣税，转而实施捐赠援助计划，也会减少使用这些扣除的人数，因为这样总体上会使逐项扣除降低吸引力。 

If, as expected, Congress votes to continue the larger standard deduction passed as part of the Trump tax cuts in 2017 (and which is currently set to expire in 2025), these deductions will continue to be claimed by only a small share of taxpayers. Getting rid of the charitable deduction would make that share smaller still, and help shrink itemized deductions to a size where they might be junked entirely. 

如果美国国会如预期的那样，决定延续2017年特朗普税改中通过的较大标准扣除（目前该扣除将在2025年到期），那么只有一小部分纳税人将继续享受这些扣除。取消慈善扣除将使这一比例进一步缩小，并有助于将逐项扣除缩减到可能被完全废除的规模。 

A Gift Aid program would also eliminate certain key abuses of the charitable deduction. In recent years, wealthy donors have flocked to “donor-advised funds,” investment vehicles at financial institutions like Fidelity or Schwab Charitable that promise their proceeds will eventually be dispersed to charitable institutions. Donors receive immediate charitable deductions for their contributions to these funds, irrespective of when or even if their donations are actually dispersed (there is no time limit within which they have to spend the money). This has provoked attempts at reform meant to speed disbursement, but as of this writing, no reform has passed Congress. 

捐赠援助计划还将消除某些滥用慈善扣除的现象。近年来，富裕的捐赠人纷纷涌向捐赠人建议基金，这些基金是富达（Fidelity）或施瓦布慈善（Schwab Charitable）等金融机构的投资工具，承诺其收益最终将分配给慈善机构。捐赠人对这些基金捐款，将立即获得慈善扣除，无论他们的捐款何时或是否真正分配出去（没有必须用掉这笔钱的时间限制）。这引发了旨在加快拨款速度的改革尝试，但截至本文撰写之时，美国国会尚未通过任何改革。 

More daringly, some taxpayers have used the charitable deduction to subsidize what amounts to personal consumption. A number of wealthy art collectors have in recent decades claimed large deductions for donations to museums they themselves have created — and which are rarely, if ever, open to the public. The Brant Foundation Art Study Center, located close to the home of its benefactor Peter Brant in Greenwich, Connecticut, provided Brant with tax breaks for all the art he endowed it with, despite only being open to the public by appointment. 

更大胆的是，一些纳税人利用慈善扣除，来补贴个人消费。近几十年来，一些富有的艺术品收藏家，为他们自己创建的博物馆申请了巨额捐赠扣除，而这些博物馆很少向公众开放。布兰特基金会艺术研究中心位于康涅狄格州格林威治，靠近其赞助人彼得·布兰特的住所。该基金会为彼得·布兰特捐赠的所有艺术品提供了税收减免，尽管该中心只通过预约向公众开放。 

Without a charitable deduction, these kinds of abuses would not be possible, and they would not be possible under a Gift Aid regime either. While a billionaire-controlled nonprofit art museum would be eligible for Gift Aid reimbursement, it would be legally required to use that money to further its philanthropic mission. By contrast, money a taxpayer saves due to the charitable deduction could be legally used for any purpose. Donor-advised funds could give to charities that then in turn receive Gift Aid subsidy, but the subsidy would only come when the funds were actually dispersed. 

如果没有慈善扣除，就不可能出现这类滥用行为。而且这类滥用行为，在捐赠援助计划制度下也不可能出现。虽然由亿万富翁控制的非营利性艺术博物馆，有资格获得捐赠援助计划的补偿，但法律规定它必须将这笔钱用于推进其慈善使命。相比之下，通过慈善扣除节省下来的钱，纳税人可以合法地用于任何目的。捐赠人建议基金可以向慈善机构捐赠，而慈善机构又可以获得捐赠援助计划的补贴，但只有在资金实际发放时才会获得。

While much of the focus today is on this year’s taxes — get them in by the end of the day — next year is set to be one of the most consequential years in a long while for the federal tax code. 

虽然现在的重点是今年的税收，并在截止日期前提交。但对于联邦税法来说，明年将是很长时间以来最重要的一年。 

Most of the individual provisions of the 2017 Trump tax cuts — the rate cuts, the larger standard deduction and child credit, limits on the state and local and mortgage interest deductions — are expiring. With Trump wanting to defend his legacy and Biden refusing to raise taxes on people earning under $400,000 a year, both parties desperately want to preserve the bulk of these cuts. 

2017年特朗普税改政策的大部分个人条款，比如税率下调、更大的标准扣除和子女抵免、州和地方扣除限制以及抵押贷款利息扣除，即将到期。特朗普希望捍卫自己的遗产，而拜登则拒绝对年收入低于40万美元的人加税，因此两党都迫切希望保留这些减税措施的大部分。 

One of my biggest hopes is that they do this in a way that makes the code overall less, not more, complicated and reduces taxpayers’ burden in time and energy. Replacing the charitable deduction with a Gift Aid program would go a long way toward that, pushing the US further away from specialized deductions for this and that and toward a simpler system where everyone at a given income pays the same amount. 

我最大的希望之一是，他们在这样做的时候，能使法律的整体复杂程度降低，而不是增加，并减轻纳税人在时间和精力上的负担。用捐赠援助计划取代慈善扣税将有助于实现这一目标，使美国进一步远离针对特定事项的专项扣除，走向一个收入相同的人缴纳相同税款的简单系统。