財政學問題（其實是看不太懂英文） - 經濟

※ 引述《shefans0530 (就是我)》之銘言：
: 以下是財政原文課本的兩個段落，這個章節主要在講「美國的移轉支付」的問題（公共選
: 擇的觀點下），其中其實有五六個段落是老師要求我們自己讀，基本上是希望我們理解「
: 人們為什麼會從自私到願意捐錢給社會福利機構」的問題，我打的是比較難懂也比較重要
: 的兩個段落，老師要我們讀的範圍我大概還ok，[ ] 的部份還好， ” ”的部份則是幾乎
: 無法理解，如果各位大大能整體提一下我將會非常感激，若沒有很多時間的大大，能夠幫
: 助我引號的部份我也萬分感謝！！！
: 這是期中考考題...老師目前堅持不公佈答案...只好求救於...各位大大...T^T
: Q：詳細比較公共選擇觀點（public choice perspective）與主流觀點（mainstream
: view）對社會保險（social security）與社會救濟（social assistance）的看法的異同
: 。
: The Public Choice Perspective on Public Assistance（這是課本那段標題）
: 下面取三段
: People may be self-interested, but they also clearly have altruistic or
: charitable impulses that contribute to their own utility. We know this

人們可能會投資自己 , 但也很清楚地有利他及慈善的動力來做奉獻

: because many people contribute to private charities and their contributions
: are entirely voluntary. These contributions obviously increase the donor’s

我們知道這是因為很多人奉獻在私底下的愛心而且出於完全自願


: own utility or they would not be given. Public assistance can be viewed as an
: extension of private charity – the free-rider problem.

這些奉獻明顯地增加捐助者的功能價值或者他們未受人施予
公開的救助可以視為私底下愛心的延續 --自由供述的問題

: Before looking at the free-rider problem associated with charitable giving,
: note the subtle difference in the mainstream and public choice views of
: public assistance. [[[ The mainstream, social welfare view of public assistance

在看待關於慈善捐助自由供述問題之前 , 註記副標題的差異於主流和公共選擇的公開
救助觀點

: sees it as a win-lose proposition. When wearing their other-interested hats

主流 , 社會福利觀點視它為輸贏的支持論點


: and thinking about distributive justice, people conclude that public
: assistance is appropriate. """They would rather not pay the taxes to support

當戴著其它感興趣的帽子想著捐贈的正義 , 人們對公共救助的結論是適當的

: public assistance from their narrow self-interested economic perspective, but

從狹義的經濟觀點來看, 他們甚至在做此事時不用繳稅 , 但支持這樣的公共投資
最後的平等性

: they reluctantly do so to support the public interest in end-results equity.
: Under this line of thought, public assistance is viewed as a win-lose
: proposition: the poor beneficiaries of public assistance gain utility but the
: nonpoor lose utility when they pay their taxes. Not so under the public

在這條思想線上 , 公共救助的輸贏支持論點 :
窮者在公共救助功能上獲得利益 , 但當非窮人繳其他稅時卻失去功用


: choice perspective.""" Voluntary gifts to private charities are clearly a
: win-win proposition: the donors gain utility along with the beneficiaries of

並非在公共選擇觀點之下 "自奉願奉獻慈善顯然是雙贏的支持論點

: their gifts. Since public assistance is just an extension of private charity,
: it too is a win-win proposition. ]]]

捐贈者在他們的奉獻中得到好處 . 即使公共救助只是私底下愛心的延續
但它仍是雙贏的

: Win-win proposition sound more like issues of efficiency than of equity.
: Recall that inefficiencies place society below its utility possibilities
: frontier. Correcting an inefficiency and returning to the frontier leads to

雙贏聽起來比平等的議題更為有效
回應不足讓社會功能的可能性界限往下降
修正不足而返回界限讓這可能性是每個人可以得到的

: the possibility that everyone gains. In contrast, the mainstream view of
: redistributional policies is that they move society along the utility
: possibilities frontier, with the result that some people gain and others lose.

反之, 主流觀點的政策移動了社會的界限
隨著這結果讓一些人得到而其他人卻失去



--