这是美国经济学家，诺贝尔经济学奖得主Gary S. Becker 关于是否在美国给电子商务征税的观点，鉴于美国是全球电子商务起步最早，发展最快的国家，是否对其征税经济学家有他独有的，出于对电子商务自身全面健康发展出发而提出的观点。换言之，出于社会和经济发展的中立观点，这是一种社会责任的表现。而综观国内网络在这一方面的讨论，基本上是出于自身利益，或者出于某一方的利益出发，两相对比，请大家思考。
      请大家注意一个事实，这是美国人在15年前对是否对电子商务是否征税的讨论和结论。
      本文译文可参阅《一个经济学家的良知和社会责任》，樊林洲译，商务印书馆，2011。

The Hidden Impact of Not Taxing e-Commerce

Gary S. Becker. Business Week. (Industrial/technology edition). New York: February 28,

2000. Iss. 3670; pg. 26.

A federal commission is badly split over whether to allow states to tax interstate commerce conducted on the Internet. The supporters of a moratorium on taxation, including Senator John McCain, former Presidential candidate Steve Forbes, and to some extent Vice-President Al Gore, believe that Web sales should not be taxed in order to encourage the growth of this revolutionary new medium for commerce. This argument is weak, but there is a much stronger case for excluding Internet commerce that relies on political-economy considerations. Let's begin with the 150 American tax economists, conservatives as well as liberals, who are supporting a petition against continuing the moratorium on taxation of cybershoppers. They argue that the growth of e-commerce should be driven by its convenience and competitive advantage, not by special subsidies. To make collections easier, they want taxes to be based on where consumers live, not on the location of e-commerce producers.
The argument for taxing Web sales relies on the concept of economic efficiency. When Internet commerce is exempt from sales taxes, some consumers buy over the Web simply because it it cheaper, not because it is more efficient or convenient. They use the Internet only because tax advantages artificially lower the cost of Internet purchases compared with traditional retailers. This is why the petition favors the same sales tax rate on Internet and brick-and-mortar retailers.
FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee shows that the rapid growth in e-commerce is in good part due to the tax factor. He finds that Internet sales have grown more rapidly in states and localities that have higher sales taxes on retail shopping.
My economist colleagues are correct in their analyses of the efficiency effects of exempting e-commerce from taxes. But their perspective is too narrow and they do not go far enough. Their recommendations are crucially dependent on the assumptions, never made explicit, that both other taxes and government spending are independent of whether the Internet is taxed. Yet one does not have to be a cynic about governments to recognize that these assumptions are false. For their analysis of the effects of Internet taxes on revenues and spending is static, and ignores the dynamic changes these taxes have on the behavior of individuals, businesses, and politicians at the state and local level.
If Internet sales are permitted to be taxed at a lower rate than brick-and-mortar retailers, these retailers are likely to put strong pressure on politicians to greatly lower, perhaps even eliminate, taxes on their sales as well. If they are politically successful, tax rates on conventional and Web sales would become more equal, but at much lower levels than at present. By contrast, the tax economists' petition advocates equal treatment at the present high tax rates imposed on conventional  merchandisers.
SMALLER GOVERNMENT. A more relevant analysis would also incorporate the common sense belief that public spending rises when governments can tax more readily. If the Internet continues to receive special exemption from all sales taxes, it should slow the increase in overall tax revenues and also slow government spending. Once this effect is recognized, the case for taxing Internet sales would not be persuasive, especially to persons who are concerned about the size of governments.
Clearly, the link between taxes and public spending is not unique to Internet taxation. A colleague, Casey Mulligan, and I have shown that public spending in most democracies does in fact grow faster when governments have easier access to more efficient taxes, such as sales, value added, and social security taxes. According to our analysis, it is not surprising that both the Republican-dominated Congress and President Clinton have proposed sizable increases in federal government spending in response to the almost $2 trillion surplus in the federal budget anticipated during the coming decade. This is why I continue to maintain a prediction in an earlier BUSINESS WEEK column that most of the surplus will be spent on government programs such as medical care and social security rather than remitted to individuals and businesses through tax reductions.
Of course, not everyone will like these implications of Web tax exception. But surely these effects on overall tax policy and the size of government must be included in any complete evaluation of whether e-commerce should continue to be exempt from sales and other taxes.