在经济动荡时期，财富往往会成为政治化议题。
在特朗普2.0时代，这意味着会围绕谁应纳税、税额多少、怎样界定“富裕阶层”以及如何调动私人资本以解决公共财政问题展开争论。
美国国会预算办公室（CBO）估算显示，白宫推出的“大而美法案”存在争议：该政策将致使最贫困的美国人每年损失约1600美元，而最富有家庭的年收入则平均增加1.2万美元。
这得益于政策调整，例如将遗产和赠与免税额度提升至1500万美元，以及将州和地方税（SALT）抵扣上限从1万美元提升至4万美元。
瑞银集团首席经济学家保罗·唐纳文指出，在当下围绕财富税展开的辩论里，存在一个关键问题：美国那些较为富裕的选民，常常并未意识到自己属于富裕阶层。
上周在一次圆桌讨论中，唐纳文解释道：“我们在讨论财富税和遗产税等议题时，愈发察觉到一个饶有趣味的现象……即人们对财富的认知与实际情况之间存在差距。”
“人们会说，‘没错，我们该对百万富翁征收财富税，可我不属于百万富翁之列’，而事实上，如果你在曼哈顿拥有一套两居室公寓，从定义上讲，你已然是百万富翁。”
唐纳文继续指出，社交媒体也在扭曲人们对财富的认知。他表示，即便财富不平等状况并未发生改变，人们也会因网上分享的奢侈生活而感觉自己处境愈发糟糕。
“因此，人们或许再度陷入对自身财富的认知与现实状况的混淆之中。”唐纳文补充道。
“许多人虽家境富裕，却自感处于劣势，只因他们未能过上社交媒体网红那般奢华的生活。”
奢侈品羞耻
随着财富日益成为引发社会分歧的话题——甚至富裕阶层也在偏离自身实际处境——消费者已开始抑制对具有身份象征意义的商品和体验的购买行为。
贝恩公司上周发布的奢侈品行业春季报告显示，该行业，尤其是个人用品业务，呈现出萎缩态势。
报告合著者克劳迪娅·达尔皮齐奥向《财富》杂志透露，“奢侈品羞耻”这一概念首次出现在2008年金融危机期间，彼时数百万美国人失去住房和工作，财富被视为庸俗之物。
达尔皮齐奥补充称，奢侈品商店开始广泛使用白色纸袋，以便让消费者将所购商品带走，原因在于人们不愿被人看到拎着印有设计师品牌的购物袋。
“在美国，这一现象是自我驱动的；人们出于羞耻感而修正自身行为。”
达尔皮齐奥补充道，对于这种社会紧张情绪，奢侈品牌应弱化对“精英形象”的渲染，转而聚焦于成为文化与创新的堡垒。
富者愈富
不过，仅仅因为富裕阶层要么不愿承认自身财富，要么尚未意识到自身所拥有的财富，并不意味着推动其资产增长的引擎会放缓。
唐纳文在回答《财富》杂志提问时表示：“我们需要考虑两个相互独立的驱动因素，且它们并不会对财富增长的驱动要素产生影响。首当其冲的便是经济民族主义的抬头。”
只需看看特朗普的“美国优先”倡议便可知一二，但唐纳文补充说，这种行为在其他国家也普遍存在。
唐纳文补充说，影响富人消费模式的第二个因素在于，他们的重心从商品转向享乐。
“常有人问我：经济学家口中的享乐指的是什么？答案是任何能在Instagram上分享的事物，”唐纳森对《财富》杂志说。“比如出国旅行，外出用餐，泰勒·斯威夫特（Taylor Swift）的演唱会。公平来讲，这也包括服装，因为如果你要在Instagram分享最新餐食，显然需要身着新衣出镜。”
“这些与财富创造无关的趋势……我们必须将其纳入考量范畴，因为它们可能会营造‘奢侈品羞耻’的表象，而实际上，这只是由于其他原因导致消费模式发生变化。”（*）
译者：中慧言-王芳
在经济动荡时期，财富往往会成为政治化议题。
在特朗普2.0时代，这意味着会围绕谁应纳税、税额多少、怎样界定“富裕阶层”以及如何调动私人资本以解决公共财政问题展开争论。
美国国会预算办公室（CBO）估算显示，白宫推出的“大而美法案”存在争议：该政策将致使最贫困的美国人每年损失约1600美元，而最富有家庭的年收入则平均增加1.2万美元。
这得益于政策调整，例如将遗产和赠与免税额度提升至1500万美元，以及将州和地方税（SALT）抵扣上限从1万美元提升至4万美元。
瑞银集团首席经济学家保罗·唐纳文指出，在当下围绕财富税展开的辩论里，存在一个关键问题：美国那些较为富裕的选民，常常并未意识到自己属于富裕阶层。
上周在一次圆桌讨论中，唐纳文解释道：“我们在讨论财富税和遗产税等议题时，愈发察觉到一个饶有趣味的现象……即人们对财富的认知与实际情况之间存在差距。”
“人们会说，‘没错，我们该对百万富翁征收财富税，可我不属于百万富翁之列’，而事实上，如果你在曼哈顿拥有一套两居室公寓，从定义上讲，你已然是百万富翁。”
唐纳文继续指出，社交媒体也在扭曲人们对财富的认知。他表示，即便财富不平等状况并未发生改变，人们也会因网上分享的奢侈生活而感觉自己处境愈发糟糕。
“因此，人们或许再度陷入对自身财富的认知与现实状况的混淆之中。”唐纳文补充道。
“许多人虽家境富裕，却自感处于劣势，只因他们未能过上社交媒体网红那般奢华的生活。”
奢侈品羞耻
随着财富日益成为引发社会分歧的话题——甚至富裕阶层也在偏离自身实际处境——消费者已开始抑制对具有身份象征意义的商品和体验的购买行为。
贝恩公司上周发布的奢侈品行业春季报告显示，该行业，尤其是个人用品业务，呈现出萎缩态势。
报告合著者克劳迪娅·达尔皮齐奥向《财富》杂志透露，“奢侈品羞耻”这一概念首次出现在2008年金融危机期间，彼时数百万美国人失去住房和工作，财富被视为庸俗之物。
达尔皮齐奥补充称，奢侈品商店开始广泛使用白色纸袋，以便让消费者将所购商品带走，原因在于人们不愿被人看到拎着印有设计师品牌的购物袋。
“在美国，这一现象是自我驱动的；人们出于羞耻感而修正自身行为。”
达尔皮齐奥补充道，对于这种社会紧张情绪，奢侈品牌应弱化对“精英形象”的渲染，转而聚焦于成为文化与创新的堡垒。
富者愈富
不过，仅仅因为富裕阶层要么不愿承认自身财富，要么尚未意识到自身所拥有的财富，并不意味着推动其资产增长的引擎会放缓。
唐纳文在回答《财富》杂志提问时表示：“我们需要考虑两个相互独立的驱动因素，且它们并不会对财富增长的驱动要素产生影响。首当其冲的便是经济民族主义的抬头。”
只需看看特朗普的“美国优先”倡议便可知一二，但唐纳文补充说，这种行为在其他国家也普遍存在。
唐纳文补充说，影响富人消费模式的第二个因素在于，他们的重心从商品转向享乐。
“常有人问我：经济学家口中的享乐指的是什么？答案是任何能在Instagram上分享的事物，”唐纳森对《财富》杂志说。“比如出国旅行，外出用餐，泰勒·斯威夫特（Taylor Swift）的演唱会。公平来讲，这也包括服装，因为如果你要在Instagram分享最新餐食，显然需要身着新衣出镜。”
“这些与财富创造无关的趋势……我们必须将其纳入考量范畴，因为它们可能会营造‘奢侈品羞耻’的表象，而实际上，这只是由于其他原因导致消费模式发生变化。”（*）
译者：中慧言-王芳
In times of economic volatility, wealth is often a subject that becomes politicized.
Under Trump 2.0, that means debates over who should be taxed and by how much, what constitutes ‘wealthy’, and how that private capital should be mobilized to address public finance concerns.
The Oval Office’s ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill’ has divided opinion, after estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found the policies would cost the poorest Americans roughly $1,600 a year while increasing the income of the wealthiest households by an average of $12,000 annually.
This is courtesy of policy tweaks such as an increased exemption threshold for estates and gifts to $15 million, as well as changing the cap amount on deductions for state and local taxes (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000.
One issue with current debates about wealth taxes, says UBS’s chief economist Paul Donovan, is that often, America’s wealthier voters don’t realize they are rich.
Speaking on a roundtable last week, Donovan explained: “A rather interesting issue that we’re starting to see come up more and more in discussions … about things like wealth taxes and inheritance taxes is that increasingly there is a gap between the perception of wealth and the reality of wealth.
“So people will say, ‘yes, we must be doing a wealth tax for millionaires, but not me, I don’t count as a millionaire’ when in fact, you own a two-bedroom apartment in Manhattan. You are by definition, a millionaire.”
Donovan continued that social media also distorts wealth. Even if wealth inequality hasn’t changed, he said, people feel worse off because of the extravagance shared online.
“As a result, people are perhaps again getting more confused between their perception of their wealth and the realities of their wealth,” Donovan added.
“Many people are wealthy but they perceive themselves as somehow being disadvantaged because they’re not living the best life of a social media influencer.”
Luxury shame
With wealth becoming an increasingly divisive topic socially—with even the well-off distancing themselves from the reality of their situation—consumers are already curbing their status symbol buys and experiences.
Bain&Co’s spring update on the luxury sector, released last week, shows the industry’s personal goods business in particular has shrunk.
Claudia D’Arpizio, one of the authors of the report, tells Fortune the phrase ‘luxury shame’ was first coined during the 2008 financial crisis when wealth was perceived as gauche given the millions of Americans who had lost their homes and jobs.
D’Arpizio added that luxury stores more widely stocked white paper bags to send consumers off with their purchases because individuals didn’t want to be seen with designer carrier bags.
“In the U.S., that was self-induced; people were correcting their behaviors because they were ashamed,” D’Arpizio continued. The trend now, led by Chinese consumers, is governmental.
This social tension is spreading West, added D’Arpizio, meaning luxury brands should focus less on the perception of being elite and more on being a bastion of culture and innovation.
Rich get richer
That being said, just because the wealthy either don’t want or don’t realize they are rich, that doesn’t mean the engines generating their assets are moving any slower.
“There are two independent drivers that we need to consider, which have no impact on the driver of wealth growth,” Donovan said in response to a question from Fortune. “The first of these is the rise of economic nationalism.”
One need only look at Trump’s America-first initiative, but Donovan added the behavior is also prevalent in nations like China.
Donovan added that a second factor shaping the wealthy’s approach to consumption is that their focus is less on goods and more on fun.
“A question I’m often asked is: What does an economist mean by having fun? The answer is anything you can post about on Instagram,” Donovan tells Fortune. “So it’s foreign travel, it’s meals out, it’a Taylor Swift concerts. To be fair, it is also clothing because obviously, if you’re Instagramming your latest meal, you need to do so in a new outfit.
“These trends which are independent of the whole wealth creation … we’ve got to factor in because they can give the appearance of shame about wealth when in actual fact it’s simply changing consumption patterns for other reasons.”