The Economist 翻譯系列 NO. 3

原文摘自The Economist雜志，AUG3RD-9TH 2017

The outrageous cost of housing constrains the economy and poisons politics

高房價限制了經濟發展并危害到政治。

ON EVERY side, Britain’s politicians are grappling with problems of immense scale and nightmarish complexity. How to manage the departure from the European Union? How to help a crumbling health service cope with an ageing, weakening population? How to deal with persistent regional deprivation? Yet one national scourge that holds back the economy and poisons politics is readily solvable—politicians just need to be brave enough to act. That scourge is the cost of housing.

在每一個方面，英國的政治家們都在與大量噩夢般復雜的問題掙扎。如何管理好脫歐？如何幫助破碎的保健事業面對日益老齡化和衰弱的人口？如何處理持續的地區性貧困？但是有一個阻礙經濟發展和危害政治的全國性的問題已經能夠解決了---政治家們只需要敢于采取行動就行。這個問題就是住房。

Through the roof

猛漲

The ratio of median house prices to earnings in England hit 7.7 in 2016, its highest recorded level. In the past four decades house prices have grown by more in Britain than in any other G7 country. Home ownership has been falling for more than a decade, after rising for most of the past century. In London housing is outlandishly dear: before the Brexit vote sent the pound tumbling, it was the priciest city in the world for renters.

2016年，英格蘭的平均房價收入比達到了7.7，創歷史最高記錄。過去40年中，英國的房價漲得比任何其它G7國家都多。在上個世紀的大部分時間一直上漲之后，自有住房數量已持續下跌了十多年。倫敦的房價貴得離譜。在脫歐選舉使得英鎊大跌之前， 倫敦是世界上租金最貴的城市。

The cost of housing has knock-on effects across the economy. As people are forced out to the suburbs, cities become less dynamic. Workers waste time on marathon, energy-sapping commutes. People from the regions cannot afford to move to cities where they might find work. Businesses cannot clear land to build. It is perhaps no coincidence that Britain’s growing housing mess has coincided with stagnant productivity.

住房成本對經濟有沖擊效應。由于人們不得不住到郊區去，城市的活力降低了。打工者們把大量時間浪費在馬拉松式、令人精疲力竭的上下班穿梭中。鄉下的人們無法搬到他們可能找到工作的城市。企業也無法清空土地來造房子。也許英國日益嚴峻的住房問題與遲滯不前的生產力并非巧合。

All this has fostered a growing sense of inequity. Britons over the age of 65, a fifth of the population, own over 40% of the housing wealth held by owner-occupiers. Youngsters with rich parents can buy their first house thanks to the “Bank of Mum and Dad”. Everyone else must resign themselves to renting small properties for life, or to continuing to pay off their mortgage long after retirement. At the election in June half of all private renters voted for Labour and Jeremy Corbyn, up from a third who supported the party in 2010. As home-ownership declines, the Conservatives, in particular, are beginning to worry —as indeed they should.

所有這些產生了一種持續的不公平感。65歲以上的英國人占人口的1/5，卻擁有自有住房40%的房產財富。擁有有錢父母的年輕人買得起他們的第一套房，歸功于“爸媽銀行”。而其他所有人不得不委屈自己一輩子租個小房子，或者每月還貸款直至退休很久以后。在六月的選舉中，半數的私人租房者投票給工黨和Jeremy Corbyn,，而2010年只有1/3的人支持工黨。隨著自有住房數的下降，值得注意的是，保守黨開始擔心了---實際上他們也確實應該擔心。

What makes Britain’s housing squeeze maddening is that, unlike many other problems, something can easily be done about it. Britain needs to get building. The consensus is that, to keep prices in check, it must put up 300,000 houses a year, double what it erected in 2015-16. Mr Corbyn says the answer is a huge expansion of public housing, like the one in the Wilson and Callaghan governments in the 1970s. This would be expensive, especially if such housing was let at below-market rates. And few Britons aspire to rent from the council for life.

令英國的住房困境瘋狂的，不像其它問題那樣，只是一些可以輕易解決的原因。英國需要開始造房子。調查顯示，為了約束房價，每年必須造30萬套住房，相當于2015-16投放量的兩倍。Corbyn先生說，解決的方法是大規模擴大公共住房，就像70年代的Wilson和Callaghan政府那樣。這么做很貴，特別是如果這些房子以低于市場價出租的話。并且，大多數英國人不愿余生都從議會租房子。

Better would be to unleash the market. A change to regulations on green-belt land, which surrounds cities and which is designed to block construction, is long overdue. Far from being a bucolic retreat, much of the green belt is intensively farmed. By one estimate, more of Surrey is devoted to golf courses than houses. Within Greater London enough green-belt land languishes to build 1.6m houses at average densities.

更好的方法是放開市場。環繞城市周邊的、用于阻隔建筑的綠色地帶，人們期待它的政策變更已經期待了很久。許多綠色地帶被集中耕種著，而遠遠不是田園牧歌式的安靜的地方。據統計，Surry被用于建設高爾夫球場的地塊多于建造住房的。而大倫敦范圍內，有足夠的綠色地帶躺著可用于建造160萬套普通密度的住房。

The government should also cut stamp duty, a land tax levied on property transactions. Over the long term the burden has risen, which is one reason why the rate of transactions has slumped. Abolishing or replacing stamp duty would help more young families live in decent homes. Oldies could downsize at less cost, freeing up more of Britain’s 25m or so empty bedrooms.

政府也應該減少對于不動產交易征收的土地印花稅。長期來說，稅負增加也是交易量下跌的一個原因。廢除或者變更印花稅有助于年輕的家庭住上體面的家。老房子可以更低的成本改建縮小，以釋放出英國所需的250萬個左右的空房間。

And Westminster needs to do away with the perverse incentives arising from local-government taxation, in particular the out-of-date system of council tax, which is levied on housing. Councils miss out on much of the extra local tax revenue from new houses, because it is hoovered up and redistributed by central government. But they are lumbered with the cost of providing local services for newcomers. That should change. Councils should be allowed to charge taxes that reflect the true values of properties—and keep the proceeds.

英國議會需要廢除各種反常刺激，這些刺激通常來自地方政府的稅收，特別是過時的針對房產的地方議會稅收系統。由于新建住房是由中央政府管理和分配的，地方議會們錯失了許多征收額外地方稅的機會。于是他們開始通過為新來的人提供地方服務而征收費用。這種狀況需要改變。地方議會應該有權征收反應房產實際價值的稅，并保留這份收益。

Economically straightforward is not the same as politically easy. Even so, Theresa May, the prime minister, has so far failed to show any mettle over housing. Her government has proposed nothing more than tweaks to a broken system. This lack of leadership feeds a crisis that is entirely unnecessary.

經濟上的直截了當并不等于政治上的簡便。即便如此，到目前為止，梅姨，英國首相，還沒有展現出任何在住房問題上的勇氣。她的政府除了在這個支離破碎的系統中做了少量微調之外，再沒有提出任何別的方案。這種領導力的缺乏，將助長一場完全沒必要的危機。

本譯文僅供個人研習、欣賞語言之用，謝絕任何轉載及用于任何商業用途。本譯文所涉法律后果均由本人承擔。本人同意簡書平臺在接獲有關著作權人的通知后，刪除文章。