regressive tax rate

简明释义

递减税率

英英释义

例句

1.Implementing a regressive tax rate 累退税率 on essential goods can place a heavier burden on the poor.

对基本商品实施regressive tax rate 累退税率可能会对穷人造成更大的负担。

2.Many economists argue that a regressive tax rate 累退税率 can worsen income inequality in society.

许多经济学家认为，regressive tax rate 累退税率可能会加剧社会中的收入不平等。

3.Some states have adopted a regressive tax rate 累退税率 for sales taxes, which affects lower earners more significantly.

一些州采用了对销售税的regressive tax rate 累退税率，这对低收入者的影响更为显著。

4.The government has been criticized for implementing a regressive tax rate 累退税率 that disproportionately affects low-income families.

政府因实施对低收入家庭影响不成比例的regressive tax rate 累退税率而受到批评。

5.Critics of the current tax system claim it relies too heavily on a regressive tax rate 累退税率, harming the most vulnerable populations.

批评当前税制的人声称，它过于依赖于regressive tax rate 累退税率，伤害了最脆弱的人群。

作文

In the realm of economics and taxation, understanding different tax structures is crucial for both policymakers and citizens. One such structure that often sparks debate is the regressive tax rate. A regressive tax rate is a tax system where the tax rate decreases as the income of the taxpayer increases. This means that lower-income individuals pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes compared to wealthier individuals. The implications of this type of tax system can be profound, affecting economic equality and social justice.To illustrate how a regressive tax rate works, consider a simple example involving sales tax. Suppose a state imposes a sales tax of 10% on all purchases. For a person earning $20,000 a year who spends all their income on taxable goods, they would effectively pay $2,000 in sales tax, which constitutes 10% of their income. In contrast, a person earning $200,000 a year, spending the same proportion of their income on taxable goods, would also pay $20,000 in sales tax. However, for the wealthier individual, this tax represents only 10% of their income, while for the lower-income individual, it constitutes a much larger share of their earnings, highlighting the regressive nature of the tax.Critics of regressive tax rates argue that they disproportionately burden low-income families, leading to greater financial strain and exacerbating poverty. This can create a cycle of disadvantage, where lower-income individuals have less disposable income to invest in education, healthcare, or savings, ultimately hindering their ability to improve their economic situation. Furthermore, regressive tax rates can widen the gap between the rich and the poor, as wealthier individuals benefit from a lower relative tax burden.On the other hand, proponents of regressive tax rates may argue that such systems can encourage consumption and economic growth. By taxing consumption rather than income, they suggest that individuals are incentivized to save and invest more, potentially driving economic development. Additionally, some argue that regressive tax rates can simplify tax administration and compliance, making it easier for governments to collect revenue.Despite these arguments, many economists advocate for progressive tax systems, where higher earners pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes. This approach aims to redistribute wealth more equitably and provide essential services that benefit society as a whole. It is believed that a progressive tax system can help mitigate the negative effects of income inequality, providing a safety net for those in need.In conclusion, the concept of a regressive tax rate raises important questions about fairness, equity, and the role of government in addressing economic disparities. While there are arguments on both sides regarding the effectiveness and impact of regressive tax rates, it is essential for societies to critically evaluate their tax structures to ensure that they promote not just economic growth, but also social justice and equality. Understanding the implications of a regressive tax rate is vital for informed discussions about tax policy and its effects on different segments of the population.

在经济和税收的领域，理解不同的税制对政策制定者和公民来说都是至关重要的。其中一个常引发争论的税制是累退税率。累退税率是一种税制，税率随着纳税人收入的增加而降低。这意味着低收入个人支付的税款占其收入的比例高于富裕个人。这种税制的影响可能是深远的，影响经济平等和社会公正。为了说明累退税率的运作方式，可以考虑一个简单的销售税例子。假设一个州对所有购买征收10%的销售税。对于年收入为2万美元的人来说，如果他们将所有收入用于可征税商品，他们实际上将支付2000美元的销售税，这占其收入的10%。相反，年收入为20万美元的人，如果将相同比例的收入用于可征税商品，也将支付2万美元的销售税。然而，对于富裕的个体来说，这笔税款仅占其收入的10%，而对于低收入个体来说，这笔税款则占其收入的更大份额，突显了税制的累退性质。累退税率的批评者认为，它对低收入家庭造成不成比例的负担，导致更大的经济压力，加剧贫困。这可能造成一个劣势循环，低收入个体在教育、医疗或储蓄上的可支配收入更少，最终阻碍了他们改善经济状况的能力。此外，累退税率还可能扩大富人和穷人之间的差距，因为富裕个体受益于相对较低的税负。另一方面，累退税率的支持者可能会辩称，这种体系可以刺激消费和经济增长。通过对消费而非收入征税，他们建议个人被激励去更多地储蓄和投资，从而推动经济发展。此外，一些人认为，累退税率可以简化税务管理和合规，使政府更容易收集收入。尽管有这些论点，许多经济学家提倡渐进税制，即高收入者支付更高比例的税款。这种方法旨在更公平地重新分配财富，并提供对整个社会都有益的基本服务。人们相信，渐进税制可以帮助缓解收入不平等的负面影响，为需要帮助的人提供安全网。总之，累退税率的概念引发了关于公平、公正和政府在解决经济差异方面角色的重要问题。虽然关于累退税率的有效性和影响存在两方面的论证，但社会必须批判性地评估其税制，以确保促进经济增长的同时，也促进社会公正和平等。理解累退税率的影响对于进行有关税收政策及其对不同人群影响的知情讨论至关重要。