Konka: Obviously, the central authorities are emphasizing the guiding spirit of * * * and prosperity. The concepts of * * * and wealth are not new concepts. Deng Xiaoping has long emphasized that the essence of our socialism is * * * and affluence, which is one of the core concepts of the central decision-making level. At present, the basic feature of the central government's guidance is that the expression is more systematic, and a series of expressions are logically related, that is to say, we should better understand the systematic thinking of the central government guiding the whole modernization development. This is a new example of systematic thinking. So many words, strung together is very organized and logical, and the main points of all aspects are reflected in these words. In fact, in the previous general time, this was also foreshadowing-for example, the central government has recently issued a special document to determine Zhejiang as a demonstration area for prosperity and development, which also paved the way for this.
Q: Is there any special significance at this time?
Konka: Of course. Any guiding spirit given by the Central Committee has special significance, that is, it is meaningful under the "problem-oriented" that the Central Committee particularly emphasizes. In the main contradiction of our society-the contradiction between people's need for a better life and unbalanced development, the central government obviously attaches great importance to the problem that the per capita income index seems to be still rising and the income distribution is obviously disparity. This problem is mainly structural, which is also in line with the internal logic of the statement that supply-side structural reform is the main line to promote the modern economic system.
Q: What are the main features of this structural problem you mentioned?
Konka: The so-called structural problem of income distribution is that the per capita income is still rising, so we should pay special attention to the widening income gap. This has been discussed for a long time. Some people claim that there is polarization, at least the income gap is undeniable.
Q: Yes.
Konka: In terms of related social contradictions, the word "",which was hotly discussed on the Internet some time ago, reflects the obvious entanglement and dissatisfaction of young people and members of low-end society. After this kind of pressure is formed, I heard that there are internal instructions on the propaganda mouth. Under the guidance and supervision of the propaganda mouth, the word ""cannot be expressed in these media. This shows that this problem cannot be ignored!
Q: Well, that's right. In addition, we see that in the manuscript issued by Xinhua News Agency, it is required to distribute the excess income for the third time.
Konka: The third distribution is a concept mentioned in this respect, not just the third distribution to solve the problem of excessive income.
Q: First of all, how do you define excessive income?
Konka: Yes, in the specific policy design, it is necessary to determine some values that can be controlled by the actual management. What do you mean "high" and "too high"? When I was interviewed by Time Weekly, I gave an example: in previous years, there was a quantitative limit on personal income tax, that is, people whose annual income exceeded 1.2 million yuan had to declare it themselves. Isn't the logic behind it that1.20,000 should be treated specially? Then, can you think that above this line at that time, it belonged to the concept of high income? I think it can actually be understood that there is such an order of magnitude limit. After 20 18 personal income tax reform, there is now a perfect mechanism. The adjustment of the excess progressive tax rate accepted in the comprehensive mechanism is weak at first, and then rises to 10%- 15% with the income level. It was later observed that this 15% was actually a correction. For expert groups (Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao are for foreigners, Hainan is for all experts, regardless of domestic and international), 15% is regarded as a ceiling of special policies, then it has some symbolic significance, at least above 15%, which seems to be regarded as the income part that can be adjusted to the marginal tax rate of 45%, belonging to the high and excessive part. However, under special consideration, we should also note that if the tax is too high, we will not recognize it, but we must remove it. How can we call it an appropriate adjustment? Why do these two places have to introduce a special policy of 15% tax cap soon after the reform in 20 18? There is something wrong with this. Excessive tax rate suppresses the labor income and innovation enthusiasm of experts and intellectuals, which actually forms tax discrimination against labor income, which is especially unfavorable for high-tech enterprises to stabilize their expert team.
Q: That's right.
Konka: These things must be discussed in detail. The guiding spirit given by the Central Committee is principled and thoughtful, or it also involves some key and essential contents. How to actually grasp the specific policy design? This requires more thorough and detailed discussion, and grasp the dynamic optimization in policy practice.
Q: We also see that this time it is also proposed to protect legitimate income according to law and rationally adjust excessive income.
Konka: I remember there is another sentence in this regard-protecting property rights. This concept of "property rights" also includes intellectual property rights, which are included in it. This aspect is also very important.
Q: The most talked-about point of reasonably adjusting excessive income includes the so-called primary distribution, secondary distribution and tertiary distribution. What do you think is the specific implementation path of reasonably adjusting excessive income?
Konka: This set of understanding involved in the three distributions is a system theory, which can't be explained clearly in a few words. I can only say briefly: judging from the more important role of primary distribution in market regulation, my consistent view is that we must first ensure that we have the motivation to make the cake bigger. On the premise of protecting property rights in this respect, we should maintain the fairness of starting point, rules and processes. The so-called initial distribution should give consideration to efficiency and fairness, which has been emphasized in the past, but there are some misunderstandings that need to be corrected. The fairness of rules and processes, including the fairness of the starting point of "a starting line", is not contradictory to efficiency, and there is no trade-off relationship. How can we say "both"? Government regulation should also be added to the initial distribution, but government regulation is mainly reflected in increasing the income (neutral orientation) needed by the government to perform its duties in a more equal way. In addition, the special consumption tax here has a certain regulatory effect, and the largest tax value-added tax in the turnover tax emphasizes its neutrality. When it comes to secondary distribution (redistribution), the key point is to mobilize the enthusiasm of producers and operators for entrepreneurial innovation on the premise of protecting immediate property rights. After encouraging big cakes, we should also pay attention to the equalization of adjustment results. At this time, the so-called "contradiction between efficiency and fairness" is actually a balance between "efficiency" and "equalization of results" in the secondary distribution, that is, if the distribution results are too different for various reasons, the gap between the situation of vulnerable groups and the high-end will widen, which will bring social disharmony factors and eventually the distribution results will be too uneven, so economic problems may be socialized or even politicized, thus threatening overall stability. But here, if we go to the other extreme and make the results particularly average, we will return to another bad state that we have learned in the past, that is, equalitarianism, and even eat the same pot with absolute equalitarianism as the orientation. So there is indeed a trade-off relationship here. Here, the real contradiction is not "fairness and efficiency", but "appropriate balance adjustment and efficiency of results", and there must be a trade-off between the two. Moreover, if this relationship is well balanced, it does not violate efficiency, that is, it seems that there is a pullback in stimulating the enthusiasm of micro-entrepreneurship and innovation, while in terms of overall macro-comprehensive performance, the fundamental interests and overall interests of all members of society are safeguarded by ensuring high-level comprehensive performance. So when it comes to comprehensive performance, it is time to give a positive concept. My point of view is straightforward: China's ideological circles have not clearly defined the relevant concepts of this matter for many years, so our understanding has actually fallen into a state of "chaos". Everyone is talking about dealing with the contradiction between fairness and efficiency. People are used to it, and they are not sure about the real substantive issues. The pseudo-issues cover up the real problems.
Q: Can you summarize this substantive question again?
Konka: Let me repeat the substantive question: how to make a big cake is the main purpose of the initial distribution. There is no contradiction between the fairness of rules, the fairness of process and the fairness and efficiency of the starting point of "a starting line" There is no need to make any trade-offs, but it is also necessary to add some appropriate structural adjustments such as consumption tax. When it comes to secondary distribution, we should pay more attention to the problem that the government forms a reasonable balance between the average state of the results and the micro-interests through redistribution-it conforms to the fundamental interests of all members of society and the overall comprehensive performance. This is the real picture of the so-called "relationship between fairness and efficiency", and we can't talk about how fairness and efficiency are contradictory in general.
Q: I saw that when you were interviewed by Time Weekly, you also put forward a suggestion to actively consider starting the legislation of real estate tax first, so as to optimize the distribution by this means?
Konka: This is an important policy tool for redistribution. In the field of redistribution, it mainly relies on transfer payment, social welfare and basic social security; In order to reduce the high end, we must mainly rely on direct taxes.
Q: Is this real estate tax a very direct way to adjust the wealth of high-end high-income groups?
Konka: Yes, because the tax burden cannot be passed on. So it's called direct tax.
Q: Can you talk about starting the real estate tax reform again?
Konka: The interview of Time Magazine involves some key points. If you want to discuss this problem, you don't have enough time today. You can search many of my papers and articles in this field online, all of which are thousands of words and tens of thousands of words to discuss related issues. If you have any special questions after reading it, I can respond specifically.
Q: OK. Let's move on to the next question, because after the news of "* * * getting rich together" came out these two days, it caused a lot of discussion. Some people may worry about the existence of "big pot rice" at the macroeconomic level in the future, including restraining the enthusiasm of entrepreneurs including middle-income groups, whether it will affect their enthusiasm for business and entrepreneurship. Do you have such concerns?
Konka: In our previous discussion, this was actually included. When I say that I can't think that talking about * * * and prosperity can be understood as returning to that egalitarian state. The road of equalitarianism cannot be modernized, and we have had many years of experience and lessons in this field under the traditional system. Now it is really necessary to prevent "one tendency covers up another", saying that * * * like the rich, it seems that these subjects who got rich first are all blamed on them, as if they all have serious problems, which will cause bad understanding confusion. If you get rich by your honest labor, hard work, the creation and application of scientific research results, and the successful entrepreneurial behavior of seizing market opportunities and taking risks, you should still give strong support in general. Support does not rule out appropriate redistribution adjustment, but if this redistribution adjustment is understood as making the distribution result too average, it will go to another wrong extreme. Therefore, this is a systematic project under the guidance of central system theory. In this system engineering, we have already talked about the first allocation and the second redistribution, and the third allocation is very clear. All developed economies have the same experience, and we need to learn from it. In terms of the role of charity and volunteer organizations, China has seen more and more practical actions in the society in recent years, which are in line with the development process and the process of "getting rich". However, how to handle and guide these things well should not only draw lessons from international experience, but also combine with the reality of China, involving many related issues such as system construction, policy optimization, and civilization cultivation.
Q: Now that the central government has proposed to adjust excessive income, will it bring some pressure to these high-income groups or entrepreneurs?
Konka: So we need correct guidance now. There is no denying that people's understanding will be under a little pressure at present, especially in China, where people often have a low degree of rationality for a while. For example, some people say that these enterprises have "ten major sins" when the state is rectifying high-tech enterprises, especially the head enterprises that started with "internet plus", and they can't wait to make them useless, so they will slide into irrationality. The basic spirit of the central government is to let their entrepreneurship continue to develop healthily and sustainably with the efforts of rectification. This is the original intention of the central government, but it may be distorted when it is implemented in real life. Now talking about this "* * * with prosperity" does not rule out the possibility of similar distortions. The "hatred of the rich" that everyone said a few years ago can be clearly felt in society. If you generally hate the rich, there must be something wrong. It is absolutely necessary to crack down, punish and put an end to corruption and ill-gotten gains, but it is wrong to say that all people who get rich need to crack down, which leads to another dangerous extreme. We should review Deng Xiaoping's golden sentence: "Poverty is not socialism", so we need to get rich, and pay attention to the fact that the law allows us to actively guide ourselves to get rich together in the unbalanced process of getting rich.
Q: We also see that this meeting of the Central Committee emphasizes that * * * prosperity means that people are rich in both material and spiritual life.
Konka: This involves a lot of content. Richness is not only related to material indicators, but also has a sense of harmony, acquisition and happiness. This time, the Central Committee said it all: both material and spiritual.
Q: So, this also corrects many people's understanding of the so-called "wealth".
Konka: In social science, this is in line with the general understanding that people's needs are hierarchical. After eating and wearing warm clothes, you should go up, continue to pursue all-round development, enrich and sublimate into physical and mental harmony. The enrichment of spiritual life is on the rise, which is an indispensable content. Coupled with this aspect, it will indeed be a comprehensive concept. This special guidance of the central government well reflects this comprehensiveness.
Q: Next question, this meeting also proposed to open up the circulation channels and create opportunities for more people to get rich. what do you think?
Konka: This is very important. In recent years, a big problem involved in everyone's discussion is how the channels and ways of social upward mobility seem to be getting narrower and narrower. We don't have to avoid some research results. For example, there is a dissertation written strictly based on sociological methods, which outlines the rising channel formed by the actual intertwined relations in some county-level fields, which is an empirical case. To sum up, this ascending channel seems to be basically controlled by 20 early families.
Q: I have read relevant papers. ...
Konka: How did the specific management department and policy design department know about this matter? There may still be a lot to discuss, but at least the problems reflected in it show that this is a rather complicated matter. How can this ascending channel be better widened?
Q: I also want you to talk about how to expand middle-income groups. Middle-income groups are actually the biggest cornerstone for the whole society to achieve prosperity and social stability. How to treat this expansion?
Q: I want to ask a supplementary question about the third distribution, because this is a question that people are generally most concerned about this time, that is, according to the current information, the third distribution is voluntary and public welfare, and there is no compulsion. Since this adjustment is such an attribute, how to ensure the effectiveness of distribution?
Konka: Then we need guidance and encouragement. Guidance and encouragement measures, in addition to some typical demonstrations. From the perspective of China's system construction, we should learn from international experience and cooperate with inheritance tax and gift tax. Because the standard charitable foundation has formed a great social influence in developed economies such as the United States, it is an inevitable "alternative" for these rich people from the system: in fact, as a result of guidance, they might as well independently design a charitable goal and set up a standardized foundation in their lifetime, which can also reflect many personal preferences and locate the purpose of the foundation according to their most concerned charitable goal. Setting up a foundation has a full set of legal guarantees-you can set up a particularly grand project, such as promoting world peace, and you can set up a very specific public welfare goal, such as supporting research on lung cancer treatment. Then according to the operating rules, you can give yourself a name, your parents, your family, you can, forever. Under normal circumstances, people who do charity will get credit and preferential treatment on personal income tax. These, on the basis of the voluntary principle, give some institutional promoting factors.
Q: What should our country do to achieve this goal?
Konka: Our country's system construction in this respect has just started, and some things can't even be said now. For example, Mr. Wang himself tried out the preferential tax policies for charitable donors a few years ago, but it was obviously unreasonable that more than a dozen links could not be done in half a year. And China's inheritance and gift tax. Only the Central Committee talked about "research characteristics" a few years ago, but in fact there are not many research trends. Everyone is often secretive about this matter and basically walks around. This is the reality in China.
Q: Do you have any suggestions?
Konka: When I put forward these opinions, I actually brought some suggestions: what I said in an interview with Time Weekly and what we said today have been followed by many places, that is, we should pay close attention to the research and design of relevant institutional mechanism optimization and policy optimization: the guiding spirit of the central government should be implemented, all sectors of society should be encouraged to express more opinions and suggestions, and relevant management departments should brainstorm as soon as possible and come up with some operational work plans and essentials, instead of just talking and not practicing, and be serious.
Q: For example, will the specific operation suggest levying inheritance tax?
Konka: This is under the concept of direct tax. This direct tax actually involves the secondary distribution, and it also affects and guides the tertiary distribution, as we have discussed before. There are also transfer payments in secondary distribution. How to do it better and how to improve the social security system? These are all involved.
Q: Apart from these aspects, what about our charity-related organizations and personnel?
Konka: We should give some necessary guidance and training. We can learn from international experience, but we should also study, sum up and communicate with China's situation and intentionally promote some good experiences.
Q: There may be a problem now. Rich people want to donate money for three distributions, but there is no place and no way to implement it.
Konka: There are some methods, but maybe everyone still feels that the credibility is not high. For example, the Red Cross was originally an institution that accepted charitable donations, but in recent years, Guo Moumou was involved in it, and the negative sequelae could not be completely eliminated for a long time.
Q: Including the money donated by the flood in Henan, there are also questions later.
Konka: Some donations after the closing of Wuhan last time have also been criticized by people. After the donation, the management was unclear and it was delayed. After people delivered things so actively, for a while, they said they couldn't handle and distribute them in time, which hurt people. System innovation should be closely combined with management innovation and technological innovation.
Q: So there is still a lot of work to be done and a long way to go after the central authorities put forward the three distributions.
Konka: Yes, the whole process of * * * becoming rich is something that China must constantly deal with during the whole historical period of becoming a modern power. But we can't say that the "continuity" of the future will be so long that we are doing nothing now, just talking. The central government is now increasingly emphasizing seriousness. The essence of this spirit is very clear, and we should work hard to implement it.
Konka: I'll contact you later. Thank you!
Konka jianjie
He is a member of the 11th and 12th CPPCC National Committee. He is currently a distinguished expert in the CPPCC's talent pool for participating in politics, the president of Huaxia Institute of New Supply Economics, a researcher and doctoral supervisor of China Academy of Fiscal Science. Long-term director of the Institute of Fiscal Science of the Ministry of Finance. Peking University, China Renmin University, National School of Administration, Central Institute of Socialism, Nankai University, Wuhan University, Xiamen University, etc. 1988 was selected as a Heinz foundation project and went to the University of Pittsburgh as a visiting scholar for one year. 1995 Enjoy the special government allowance of the State Council. 1997 was rated as a high-level discipline leader of the National Million Talents Project. Invited by leading comrades of the party and the state for many times to discuss economic work. 2065 438+00- 1.8 Served as one of the keynote speakers in the 18th collective study "Reform of fiscal and taxation system" in the Political Bureau of the Central Committee. Sun Prize in Economics, Huang Da-Mundell Prize in Economics, China Prize in Soft Science. Member of the "Eleventh Five-Year", "Twelfth Five-Year" and "Thirteenth Five-Year" expert committees, and member of the expert committee of PPP expert database of the National Development and Reform Commission. 20 13 edited "new supply: innovation of China's economic theory" and initiated the establishment of "Huaxia Institute of New Supply Economics" and "50-person Forum on New Supply Economics" (the first dean, the first secretary-general, and the chief economist during the second Council). 20 15-20 16 co-published New Supply Economics, Supply-side Reform: A Concise Reader of New Supply, and China Kan: How to Overcome the "Middle Income Trap" (rated as "20 16 China Good Book" by China Book Criticism Society and CCTV). After 20 17, he wrote and published many monographs such as Theoretical Model and Practical Path. According to the statistical analysis of more than 7 million articles published in 6,268 academic journals of philosophy science in China in 2006 and 20 15, the number of articles published by Mr. Konka (398 articles) is the total cited frequency (423 1 times) and the total downloaded frequency (2041/.