tax dirigism

简明释义

干预经济的税收政策

英英释义

例句

1.In countries with strong tax dirigism, businesses often face higher taxes that are used to fund public services.

在强烈实施税收导向主义的国家，企业通常面临更高的税收，这些税收用于资助公共服务。

2.The government's approach to economic recovery involved a significant amount of tax dirigism, which refers to state intervention in tax policies.

政府的经济复苏方法涉及大量的税收导向主义，即国家对税收政策的干预。

3.Supporters of tax dirigism believe it can lead to more equitable economic outcomes.

支持税收导向主义的人认为，这可以导致更公平的经济结果。

4.The new policy introduced by the government is an example of tax dirigism aimed at redistributing wealth.

政府推出的新政策是旨在重新分配财富的税收导向主义的一个例子。

5.Critics argue that tax dirigism can stifle innovation by placing too much burden on entrepreneurs.

批评者认为，税收导向主义可能会通过给企业家施加过多负担来抑制创新。

作文

In recent years, the concept of tax dirigism has gained attention in economic discussions. 税收干预主义 refers to the idea that government can and should use tax policies to direct economic activity and influence social outcomes. This approach contrasts with more traditional laissez-faire economic principles, where minimal government intervention is preferred. Proponents of tax dirigism argue that targeted tax incentives can promote investment in crucial sectors, reduce inequality, and encourage sustainable practices. For instance, governments may offer tax breaks to companies that invest in renewable energy or provide subsidies for low-income families. These measures aim to create a more equitable society while fostering economic growth.Critics, however, caution against the potential downsides of tax dirigism. They argue that excessive reliance on tax incentives can lead to market distortions, where resources are allocated based on government preferences rather than genuine market demand. This can result in inefficiencies and hinder overall economic performance. Furthermore, there is a risk that such policies may favor larger corporations that have the means to navigate complex tax codes, leaving smaller businesses at a disadvantage.The debate surrounding tax dirigism also raises questions about the role of government in the economy. Should governments take an active role in shaping economic outcomes, or should they focus on creating a level playing field and allowing market forces to determine success? Supporters of tax dirigism believe that proactive tax policies are necessary to address societal challenges, such as climate change and income inequality. They argue that the government has a responsibility to guide economic activities towards socially beneficial outcomes.On the other hand, opponents advocate for a more hands-off approach, suggesting that market mechanisms are often the best way to drive innovation and efficiency. They contend that government interference can stifle competition and entrepreneurship, ultimately harming consumers. This ongoing debate highlights the complexities of economic policy-making and the need for a balanced approach.As we consider the implications of tax dirigism, it is essential to analyze real-world examples. Countries like Sweden and Denmark have successfully implemented tax policies that align with the principles of tax dirigism. Their high taxation rates are coupled with robust social welfare systems, which have contributed to lower income inequality and higher standards of living. Conversely, nations that have shunned government intervention often face stark disparities in wealth and opportunity.Ultimately, the effectiveness of tax dirigism depends on how well these policies are designed and implemented. A thoughtful approach that considers both the benefits and drawbacks of government intervention can lead to positive societal outcomes. As we move forward, it is crucial to engage in open discussions about the role of tax policy in shaping our economy, ensuring that we strike the right balance between intervention and freedom. In conclusion, tax dirigism presents a compelling framework for understanding the interplay between taxation and economic direction, prompting us to rethink how we approach fiscal policy in the modern world.

近年来，‘税收干预主义’这一概念在经济讨论中引起了关注。‘税收干预主义’是指政府可以并且应该利用税收政策来引导经济活动和影响社会结果的理念。这种方法与更传统的自由放任经济原则形成对比，后者更倾向于最小化政府干预。支持‘税收干预主义’的人认为，针对性的税收激励可以促进关键领域的投资、减少不平等并鼓励可持续实践。例如，政府可能会向投资可再生能源的公司提供税收减免，或为低收入家庭提供补贴。这些措施旨在创造一个更公平的社会，同时促进经济增长。然而，批评者警告过度依赖‘税收干预主义’可能带来的潜在缺点。他们认为，过度依赖税收激励可能导致市场扭曲，资源的分配基于政府偏好而非真正的市场需求。这可能导致效率低下，并妨碍整体经济表现。此外，这些政策可能使拥有能力应对复杂税法的大型企业受益，从而使小型企业处于不利地位。围绕‘税收干预主义’的辩论也引发了关于政府在经济中角色的问题。政府应该积极塑造经济结果，还是应该专注于创造一个公平竞争的环境，让市场力量决定成功？‘税收干预主义’的支持者认为，积极的税收政策对于解决气候变化和收入不平等等社会挑战是必要的。他们认为，政府有责任将经济活动引导到社会有益的结果上。另一方面，反对者提倡一种更加放手的方式，认为市场机制往往是推动创新和效率的最佳途径。他们主张，政府干预可能会抑制竞争和创业精神，最终损害消费者。这场持续的辩论突显了经济政策制定的复杂性以及平衡方法的必要性。在考虑‘税收干预主义’的影响时，分析现实世界的例子至关重要。像瑞典和丹麦这样的国家成功实施了与‘税收干预主义’原则相一致的税收政策。他们的高税率与强大的社会福利体系相结合，促进了较低的收入不平等和更高的生活水平。相反，那些拒绝政府干预的国家往往面临财富和机会的明显差距。最终，‘税收干预主义’的有效性取决于这些政策的设计和实施的质量。考虑到政府干预的好处和缺点的周全方法可以带来积极的社会结果。随着我们向前发展，进行关于税收政策在塑造我们经济中的作用的公开讨论至关重要，以确保我们在干预和自由之间找到正确的平衡。总之，‘税收干预主义’为理解税收与经济方向之间的相互作用提供了一个引人注目的框架，促使我们重新思考在现代世界中如何处理财政政策。