香港出現本土主義和港獨主張所凸顯的一些政治問題，實際上有其經濟問題的根源。有時候，社會上有些人會有一種感覺，就是香港的基層和中產階層，沒有像另一些階層般，能夠從經濟政策中得益，某程度上這可能是正確的。

刺激經濟政策 大企業最受惠

就拿2003年沙士(SARS)疫情後出台，目的為支持香港疲弱經濟的政策「個人遊計劃」（IVS）為例，通過計劃，無論零售銷售、酒店入住率和餐飲業務都得到顯著增長。但在客觀上，「個人遊計劃」無疑令某些由大企業主導的行業更加受惠。 儘管窮人也受惠「個人遊」，但其份額少得不成比例。這些受惠企業的員工，如銷售代表、酒店員工和餐廳員工，有些並沒從計劃中顯著受益。 香港一直致力保存資本主義制度，而這個城市亦已取得了巨大的經濟成就，但大部分的經營利潤卻由地產發展商和業主獲得，他們總是利用租賃條款來分薄商戶的利潤；商戶賺得愈多，應付租金便愈高。這或許就是奉行資本主義經濟的自由市場普遍認為「高風險，高回報」觀點的一部分。與此同時，僱主上調僱員的工資，往往只是為了追及通脹，而企業的資本回報率一直超過工資增長率。因此，員工幾乎感覺不到成功經濟政策的直接帶來的效益。 資本主義制度的本質，使弱勢群體在法律上成為被剝削的一群。由於多年來放任的資本主義，香港貧富差距明顯擴大，基尼系數之高徘徊全球排名前列。財富不均已經導致社會分化，並造成了一些深層次的問題或矛盾。 要糾正這種經濟失衡和深層次矛盾，政府的財政和稅收政策能起到顯著作用。許多人覺得，前任特區政府沒有採取足夠措施來糾正經濟失衡。

增企業利得稅 優於徵富人稅

有助糾正財富不平衡的其中一種可行解決方法，是讓富人繳納更高的稅率或累進稅率。額外的收入可用於補貼窮人和較低收入的中產階層。長和系主​​席李嘉誠早前建議政府增加企業利得稅，但不同意徵收「富人稅」，他說得有道理。 徵收「富人稅」會被證明是阻礙經濟活動和製造混亂之舉，反而大企業繳納多幾個百分點的稅款，不會是一個太大的政治問題。公司利得稅率現時定為16.5%，而2014-15財政年度政府共徵收1,378億元利得稅。截至2013年，共有102萬人生活在貧困線之下，要把他們的生活水準提升到貧困線之上，將需要148億元。基於這個數字，若在2014-15財政年度增加2%利得稅，就會帶來額外167億元收入，足以令每一個香港人擺脫貧困。

要助在職窮人 勿派免費午餐

以行政長官梁振英為首的現任特區政府，已積極推出措施糾正經濟失衡，例如通過設立扶貧委員會和社區關懷基金，令社會保障網之外的窮人直接受惠。然而，必須採取可持續的和積極的財政措施，以保證經濟利益可以直接惠及在職貧窮和有需要的人手中，而不是提供「免費午餐」。無論如何，本屆和下屆特區政府都必須繼續糾正經濟失衡所造成的放任資本主義，並優先考慮社會的整體利益。 經濟利益分配不平衡造成的社會不滿，令本港滋生港獨主張和相關論述──尤其是在弱勢群體和基層中。在這個意義上，當一帶一路倡議為香港帶來各種機遇，特區政府最好找到方法，以確保窮人和弱勢群體能夠從中公平受惠。 *原載2016年7月5日英文《中國日報》，HKG報翻譯，內容以英文版本為準。   Proactive fiscal policy is needed to redress unchecked capitalism Lawrence Ma The emergence of localism and separatist ideas in Hong Kong has highlighted some political problems that actually have their roots in economic problems. There is a feeling among some quarters of the community that Hong Kong's grassroots and middle class have not benefited from some economic policies as much as other quarters; and to some extent this might be true. Take for example the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS), a policy introduced after the 2003 SARS epidemic to support Hong Kong's ailing economy. Retail sales, hotel occupancy and restaurant businesses have been significantly boosted by the scheme. But the IVS has benefited certain sectors - which are dominated by big businesses - much more than others. The poor did benefit from the scheme but their share was disproportionately small. The employees of these beneficiary businesses such as sales representatives, hotel staff and restaurant servants have not benefited significantly from the scheme. Under the capitalist system which Hong Kong has strived to preserve, the city has achieved great economic success but most of the business profits have been reaped by property developers and landlords, who always factor commercial tenants' profits into their rental formula. The more the commercial tenants earn, the more rent they pay to the landlords. This is supposed to be part of the "high risk, high return" notion popularly held in a free market capitalist economy. In the meantime, while salaries of employees have every now and then been raised to beat inflation, returns on capital have always outrun salary increments. The employees therefore barely feel the direct impact of successful economic policies. The capitalist system intrinsically allows the disadvantaged groups to be legally exploited. As a result of years of unchecked capitalism,the wealth gap in Hong Kong has widened considerably, with a Gini coefficient hovering on the top of the global rankings. The polarization of wealth has led to social divides and caused some deep-seated problems or conflicts. The government’s fiscal and taxation policies can play a significant role in redressing such economic imbalance or deep-seated conflicts.Many feel that the previous government has not done enough to redress the economic imbalance. One possible solution that can help correct the wealth imbalance would be to tax the rich at higher rates or progressive tax rates. The additional revenues would be used to subsidize the poor and the lower middle class. Li Ka-shing, chairman of CK Hutchison Holdings, suggested a few days ago that the government would do better to raise the profits tax rates rather than impose a tax on the rich alone. He has a point. Imposing a tax specifically targeting the rich could prove to be a disincentive to economic activities and create chaos; whereas big companies paying a few extra percentage points of tax would not be much of a political issue. Corporate profits tax has been set at 16.5 percent and for the fiscal year 2014-15 the government collected HK$137.8 billion in revenue from profits tax. As at 2013, there were 1.02 million people who lived below the poverty line; and for them to be lifted above the poverty line, HK$14.8 billion would be needed. Based on the figures for fiscal year 2014-15, a 2 percent increase in the profits tax rate would bring in an extra HK$16.7 billion of revenue, which would be more than enough to lift every Hong Kong person out of poverty. The current administration under Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has introduced serious measures to redress the economic imbalance, e.g. by establishing the Commission on Poverty and the Community Care Fund to directly benefit the poor that fall outside the social security net. However, a continuous and proactive fiscal approach must be taken to ensure direct financial benefits reach the hands of the working poor and the needy, rather than giving out “free lunches”. In any event, the incumbent and the next administration must continue to redress the economic imbalance caused by unchecked capitalism and prioritize the overall interests of society. The separatist ideas and discourse in Hong Kong arose from social discontent — particularly from the underprivileged and grassroots — over the imbalance in the distribution of economic benefits. In this sense,when the Belt and Road Initiative benefits Hong Kong in any way, the SAR government had better find a way to ensure that the poor and the underprivileged get a fair share of it. The author is a barrister and chairman of China-Australia Legal Exchange Foundation. *轉載自 China Daily, Tuesday, July 5, 2016 圖：大公報 http://news.takungpao.com/hkol/topnews/2013-01/1409796.html

投票已截止，多謝支持