You know, half the country pays almost nothing in income tax, 3% and it is not the half you think. The bottom 50% pay only 3% of all the tax collected. There are 349.2 million people in the United States.
你知道，全国有一半的人几乎不缴纳所得税，只有3%，而且这还不是你所想的那一半。底层50%的人只缴纳了所有税收的3%。美国有3.492亿人口。
If you take away the children, retirees, seniors, and people on welfare, and non-working adults, you're left with 154 million individual taxpayers as of 2026. The bottom 77 million people put together contribute only 3% of the total tax collected.
如果去掉儿童，退休人员、老年人和领取福利的人，以及不工作的成年人，截至2026年，就只剩下1.54亿个人纳税人。最底层的7700万人加起来只贡献了税收总额的3%。
The other half covers the rest. 97% of the money that pays for everything from education, war, schools, roads, parks, salaries of everyone working for the government like policemen, firefighters, emergency staff, and any other form of government spending, it all comes from the top half.
另一半人承担了其余部分。支付从教育到战争、学校、道路、公园以及所有为政府工作的人，比如警察、消防员、急救人员以及其他任何形式的政府开支的资金的97%，全都来自收入最高的那一半人。
If you actually bother to look at the data, it's very eye-opening. And we've already established that the top 50% contributes 97% of all individual income taxes. But it doesn't stop there.
如果你真的花点时间看看数据，会非常令人大开眼界。我们已经确认，前50%贡献了97%的所有个人所得税。但事情不止于此。
So let's break the top 50 down and see who actually pays. Remove another 10% and you realize the top 40% is paying about 94.4% of taxes. This slice of the population was 2.6% almost as much as the bottom half.
那么让我们细分前50%，看看究竟是谁在缴税。再减去10%，你就会发现前40%的人缴纳了约94.4%的税款。这部分人口占2.6%几乎与后一半人缴纳的一样多。
The top 30 about 90.1% of all collected taxes. The top 20% 83.6%. Now if you've heard of Pareto's law, this is incredibly evident in who contributes via taxes. 20% of the population is responsible for 83.6% of all taxes collected.
前30%的人缴纳了所有已征税款的约90.1%。前20%贡献了83.6%。如果你听说过帕累托法则，这一点在纳税贡献者身上体现得极为明显。20%的人口贡献了所有税收的83.6%。
Well, shall look at that. And it gets even more concentrated the further up you go. The top 10% of the population contributes 72%. The top 5% contributes 61%. So what about the 1% Alex?
嗯，看看这个。而且越往上走，集中度就越高。前10%的人口贡献了72%。前5%贡献了61%。那么最富有的1%呢，亚历克斯？
The rich, what do they pay? Well, what we consider to be rich, the 1% of the population, contributes a staggering 40.4% of all individual tax collected. And the super rich, the 0.1%, they cover half of that.
富人，他们交多少？嗯，我们所认为的富人，也就是人口中1%的那部分人，贡献了惊人比例的40.4%占所有征收的个人所得税。而超级富豪，那0.1%的人，他们承担了其中的一半。
20.6% of all the individual income taxes the government gets every year to keep the country running comes from 0.1% of people. That's around 150,000 people. Now, bear in mind the total beneficiaries of these taxes are all 350 million people living in this country.
占所有个人所得税的20.6%政府每年收到的用于维持国家运转的税收有0.1%的人贡献。这大约有15万人。现在，请记住，这些税收的总受益人是生活在这个国家的3.5亿人。
So, it's easy to talk about concentration of wealth without looking at the concentration in funds collected. But, how do we make the bottom half richer so that the contributions are more evenly spread out?
所以，谈论财富集中很容易而不去关注所征收资金的集中情况。但是，我们如何才能让底层的一半人更富裕从而使贡献更均匀地分布？
Well, the answer is not to tax them more. It's actually quite the opposite. Now, here's a wild idea. What if we didn't tax them at all? The data shows that they barely pay anything either way.
嗯，答案不是向他们征收更多的税。实际上恰恰相反。现在，有个大胆的想法。如果我们完全不向他们征税呢？数据显示，无论如何他们都几乎不缴什么税。
So, going tax-free on over half the population wouldn't have a measurable negative impact on the tax collected. But, look, okay, it would allow for upward mobility. If you're in the bottom 50% of the eligible population, you shouldn't have to pay tax because you've got bigger things to worry about.
所以，对超过一半的人口免税不会对税收产生可衡量的负面影响。但是，你看，好吧，这会允许向上流动。如果你属于合格人口中底层的50%，你就不应该纳税因为你有更重要的事情要担心。
A country shouldn't measure its wealth by the outliers. No, it should be measured by the living standards of the bottom half of the population. Raise that and everyone does well. The system should give you a chance at success if you want it.
一个国家不应以少数例外来衡量其财富。不，应该以生活水平来衡量底层半数人口的生活水平。提高这个水平，所有人都会受益。如果你想要的话，这个体系应该给你一个成功的机会。
We could take it even further with a second wild idea. What if, no matter who you are, the first $250,000 you earn is tax-free? This would allow the younger generation to reinvest in themselves, in new businesses, and to stretch their earnings more.
我们还可以用第二个大胆的想法把它推得更远。如果不管你是什么人，你赚到的第一个250,000美元都免税，会怎样？这将使年轻一代能够重新投资于自身，投资于新业务，并更大程度地扩展他们的收入。
And then, once you cross that $250,000 threshold, you're eligible to contribute at that point. Now, what most of you don't know is that income tax or property taxes, they weren't really a thing in the new world until the war.
然后，一旦你跨过25万美元的门槛，你在那时就有资格供款。现在，你们大多数人不知道的是所得税或财产税，在战争之前，它们在新世界里并不真正存在。
What was supposed to be only a temporary solidarity tax on the rich at that time, a 1% tax on those earning the equivalent of half a million dollars per year in today's money, opened up the door for a permanent tax collection.
当时本应只是一项临时性的团结税针对富人的，对收入达到按今天货币计算每年五十万美元水平的人征收1%的税，却为永久性的税收征收打开了大门。
Now, most of the country paid nothing, but World War I pushed rates up to fund one war. And once the government saw just how much money they were making, well, they never came back down.
当时，全国大部分人都不用缴税，但第一次世界大战推高了税率，为一场战争筹措资金。而一旦政府看到他们赚了多少钱，好吧，他们就再也没降下来过。
By the 1940s, the tax reached almost every paycheck in the country. And this is why conversations on a wealth tax become tricky, because there's already a wealth tax happening. Remember that top 10% already pay 72% of all the money the government gets, while the bottom 50% pay almost nothing?
到了20世纪40年代，这项税收几乎触及了全国每一份薪水。这就是为什么关于财富税的讨论变得棘手，因为财富税其实已经在征收了。请记住，最富有的10%已经缴纳了72%政府获得的所有资金中，而底层50%几乎不缴税？
Well, a wealth tax would do two bad things. First of all, it would tax for a third time money that's already been taxed when earned, and that's already re-taxed when it gets spent.
嗯，财富税会带来两个坏处。首先，这将是第三次征税那些在赚取时已被征税的钱，而且在消费时又会被再次征税。
And secondly, it would create the need for a surveillance agency that has full autonomy to determine how much what you have is worth. Not only that, but this is where it gets really problematic.
其次，这会造成对一个监视机构的需求该机构拥有完全自主权来决定你所拥有的价值多少。不仅如此，而且这才是真正有问题的地方。
Let's simplify things, okay? So, let's say you earn $50,000 a year in income after tax, and 10 years ago you bought your house for $300,000. COVID happened or market booms, and now the agency determines your house is worth $1 million by today's standard.
让我们简化一下，好吗？那么，假设你的税后年收入是5万美元，而10年前你以30万美元买下了你的房子。新冠疫情暴发或是市场繁荣，如今机构认定你的房子价值100万美元按今天的标准。
Well, since you're a millionaire now, you have to pay the wealth tax. To you, though, it's the same $300,000 house. No other bedrooms have been added, and you didn't grow more land, nor do you earn 10 times more than you did back then.
那么，既然你现在是百万富翁了，你就必须缴纳财富税。不过对你来说，这仍然是那栋30万美元的房子。没有增加其他卧室，你也没有多出更多土地，你的收入也没有比那时多10倍。
So, 5% of $1 million is 50,000. A 5% wealth tax would require you to either pay all of your $50,000 income to the state in order to keep living in the house you've already paid for, like a subscription, or to sell it and move.
所以，100万美元的5%是5万。5%的财富税将要求你要么把你全部5万美元的收入上缴给州政府才能继续住在你已经付清房款的房子里，就像订阅一样，要么卖掉房子搬走。
Now, you might say things like, "But, it's only going to be on billionaires and it'll probably be less than 5%." Well, I mean, it would still require that surveillance agency to measure to the cent what everything you own is worth, not to mention tax money that's already been taxed, creating a terrible precedent.
现在，你可能会说，“但这只会针对亿万富翁，而且可能不到5%。”嗯，我的意思是，这仍然需要那个监控机构精确到分来衡量你拥有的一切价值，更不用说那些已经被征过税的税款了，开创了一个可怕的先例。
History has taught us that governments are in the habit of starting with the rich before expanding to the middle class. Remember the earlier split? As of 2026, there are just under 1,000 billionaires in the US.
历史告诉我们政府习惯于先从富人开始，再扩展到中产阶级。还记得之前的分歧吗？截至2026年，美国仅有不到1000位亿万富翁。
Out of a population of 350 million people, billionaires account for roughly 0.00029%. These 1,000 billionaires pay an estimate of $40 per year in personal income taxes. Billionaires pay the highest tax rate in the country, 23 to 26%.
在3.5亿人口中，亿万富翁大约占0.00029%。这1000名亿万富翁每年缴纳约40美元的个人所得税。亿万富翁缴纳了全国最高的税率，23%到26%。
A fair argument to make here is that if you take into account their unrealized gains, meaning their wealth that has grown but hasn't been liquidated yet, their effective tax rate is still between 8 to 12% or so.
这里有一个合理的论点如果你把他们的未实现收益考虑在内，也就是他们已经增长但尚未变现的财富，他们的有效税率仍然在8%到12%左右。
So, let's look at the entire bucket. The total tax collected is $5.2 trillion. Approximately 2.6 trillion is individual income taxes, with the rest being payroll and other corporate taxes.
所以，让我们看看整个部分。征收的总税额为5.2万亿美元。大约2.6万亿是个人所得税，其余是工资税和其他公司税。
So, those 1,000 billionaires are only 1.5%
所以，那1000位亿万富翁只占所有个人所得税的1.5%。
The bulk of the money, approximately 96%, comes from people who are not billionaires, and the governments will use a wealth tax on billionaires as a foot in the door to expand this type of wealth tax to everyone because that is where the money actually is.
大部分的钱，大约96%，来自并非亿万富翁的人，而政府将利用对亿万富翁征收的财富税作为敲门砖将这种财富税扩大到所有人因为钱实际上就在那里。
So, I mean, what's the alternative here? Is communism or socialism the way to go? Well, historically, communism hasn't really worked because it disincentivizes creators from creating when hardwork brings no additional reward.
所以，我的意思是，这里的选择是什么？共产主义或社会主义是可行之道吗？嗯，从历史上看，共产主义并没有真正成功过因为它抑制了创造者的创作积极性当努力工作不能带来额外回报时。
Communism does a really good job at making sure everyone is equal. Equally poor. But this might present an unlikely opportunity for an upgrade. Well, trends are pretty much clear here.
共产主义确实做得很好确保了每个人都是平等的。平等地贫穷。但这可能带来一个不太可能的机遇来实现升级。嗯，这里的趋势已经相当明显了。
The rich are getting richer while everyone's social hierarchy basically remains the same. You've got more stuff, but you don't feel richer. Quite the contrary actually. As of 2026, the top three companies in the S&P 500 carry 20% of its weight.
富人变得越来越富而每个人的社会阶层基本上保持原样。你拥有的东西更多了，但你并不觉得更富有。实际上恰恰相反。截至2026年，标普500指数中排名前三的公司占据了其20%的权重。
If we count the top 10 companies, they're 40% of the entire basket. So as Anthropic, Nvidia, Tesla, and the likes continue to concentrate power and replace the middle-class workforce with robots and software, well, it's not really a stretch to say that within 20 years, 5 to 10% of companies would be generating most of the tax revenue this country runs on.
如果我们看排名前十的公司，它们占整个投资组合的40%。所以随着Anthropic、英伟达、特斯拉等公司继续集中权力，并用机器人和软件取代中产阶级劳动力，那么，说在20年内，5%到10%的公司将创造这个国家赖以运转的大部分税收收入，也并不夸张。
At that point, a modern updated form of socialism is probably the only way to go. As capitalists ourselves, even we think it's pretty inevitable. These companies will be taxed 50% of their profits and those taxes will be distributed to the bulk of the population in the form of universal basic income.
到那时，一种现代化的、更新形式的社会主义很可能是唯一的出路。作为资本家 ourselves，就连我们也认为这几乎是不可避免的。这些公司将被征收其利润50%的税而这些税收将被分配给大部分人口以全民基本收入的形式。
80% of the population will be supported by this type of recurring government handout and live a middle-class lifestyle. If you're an entrepreneur and climbing to the top 20 or top 10% of society, you shouldn't receive it because you're able to be competitive in the marketplace and drive innovations across industries.
80%的人口将得到支持通过这种周期性的政府救济，并过上中产阶级的生活方式。如果你是一名企业家，正在攀升到社会顶层20%或10%，你就不应该领取它因为你能够在市场上具有竞争力并推动各行各业的创新。
Now, if this idea sounds shocking to you and societally divisive, just know that this is pretty much how society is already structured. And while some people might not agree with this, at least in the western world, we do have equality of opportunity.
现在，如果这个想法让你感到震惊并且在社会上引起分歧，只需知道这几乎就是社会已经构建的方式。虽然有些人可能不同意这一点，至少在西方世界，我们确实拥有机会平等。
If you want to succeed and you work hard at what society values based on laws of supply and demand, you do get wealthy. It's asking for equality of outcome that is how everyone ends up poor.
如果你想成功，并且在社会所看重的事情上努力工作基于供需法则，你确实会变得富有。它要求的是结果平等这就是所有人最终都变穷的原因。
If your goal is to be part of the 10% that will thrive in this new world, the work starts right now. This entire video is based on just one of the thousands of frameworks and coaching sessions that we're discussing in the Alux app about how the members of our community will navigate the future.
如果你的目标是成为那10%在这个新世界中蓬勃发展的人，那么工作从现在就开始。整个视频仅仅基于一个我们正在讨论的数千个框架和辅导课程之一在Alux应用中关于我们社区的成员将如何驾驭未来。
So, go to alux.com/start and don't get left behind.
所以，请访问 alux.com/start，不要被落下。
