prohibitive tax

简明释义

禁止性税收

英英释义

例句

1.The government imposed a prohibitive tax on luxury cars to discourage excessive spending.

政府对奢侈汽车征收了禁止性税收以抑制过度消费。

2.Many small businesses are struggling to survive due to the prohibitive tax on their earnings.

许多小企业因其收入的禁止性税收而苦苦挣扎。

3.The new prohibitive tax on plastic bags has led to a significant reduction in their usage.

对塑料袋的新禁止性税收导致其使用量显著减少。

4.Investors are hesitant to enter the market because of the prohibitive tax on foreign investments.

由于对外国投资的禁止性税收，投资者对进入市场持谨慎态度。

5.The city council proposed a prohibitive tax on sugary drinks to combat obesity.

市议会提议对含糖饮料征收禁止性税收以对抗肥胖问题。

作文

In recent years, the concept of a prohibitive tax has gained significant attention in discussions surrounding economic policy and social equity. A prohibitive tax is defined as a tax rate that is so high that it discourages individuals or businesses from engaging in certain activities or making specific purchases. This type of tax can be applied to various sectors, including luxury goods, tobacco, alcohol, and even carbon emissions. The primary intention behind implementing such a tax is often to deter consumption of products deemed harmful or non-essential, thereby promoting healthier lifestyles or protecting the environment.One of the most notable examples of a prohibitive tax is the high taxation on tobacco products. Governments around the world have imposed steep taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco-related items to reduce smoking rates and improve public health. Studies have shown that as the price of tobacco rises due to these taxes, fewer people, especially young individuals, are likely to start smoking. This demonstrates how a prohibitive tax can effectively alter consumer behavior and lead to positive societal outcomes.However, the implementation of prohibitive taxes is not without controversy. Critics argue that such taxes disproportionately affect lower-income individuals who may find it more challenging to absorb the increased costs of taxed goods. For example, while wealthier individuals may be less affected by high taxes on luxury items, lower-income families might struggle with the increased prices of essential goods. This raises important questions about the fairness and equity of prohibitive taxes in addressing social issues.Moreover, the effectiveness of prohibitive taxes can vary depending on the context and the specific product being taxed. In some cases, consumers may find ways to circumvent these taxes, such as purchasing goods from black markets or opting for cheaper alternatives. This can undermine the goals of the tax and lead to unintended consequences. For instance, if a government imposes a prohibitive tax on sugary beverages to combat obesity, consumers might simply switch to other unhealthy options that are not taxed, thus failing to achieve the desired health benefits.Furthermore, the revenue generated from prohibitive taxes can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, this revenue can be utilized to fund public health initiatives, education campaigns, or environmental projects. On the other hand, there is a risk that governments may become overly reliant on these taxes, leading to a lack of comprehensive strategies to address the underlying issues at hand. Instead of solely focusing on taxation as a solution, it is crucial for policymakers to consider a holistic approach that includes education, community engagement, and access to healthier alternatives.In conclusion, while prohibitive taxes can serve as a powerful tool for influencing behavior and promoting public welfare, they must be carefully designed and implemented to avoid negative repercussions. Policymakers need to strike a balance between discouraging undesirable behaviors and ensuring that their strategies do not disproportionately burden vulnerable populations. Ultimately, the success of a prohibitive tax lies not only in its ability to generate revenue but also in its capacity to foster a healthier, more equitable society.

近年来，‘禁止性税收’这一概念在经济政策和社会公平的讨论中引起了广泛关注。‘禁止性税收’被定义为一种税率过高，以至于使个人或企业不愿参与某些活动或进行特定购买的税种。这种税收可以应用于各个领域，包括奢侈品、烟草、酒精，甚至碳排放。实施这种税收的主要目的是通常是为了遏制被认为有害或非必要产品的消费，从而促进更健康的生活方式或保护环境。一个最显著的‘禁止性税收’例子是对烟草产品的高额税收。世界各国政府对香烟和其他烟草相关商品征收高额税款，以降低吸烟率并改善公共健康。研究表明，随着烟草价格因这些税收而上涨，吸烟的人数会减少，尤其是年轻人。因此，这表明‘禁止性税收’可以有效地改变消费者行为并带来积极的社会结果。然而，‘禁止性税收’的实施并非没有争议。批评者认为，这种税收对低收入人群的影响过大，因为他们可能更难以承受增加的税负。例如，虽然富裕的个人可能不会受到奢侈品高税收的影响，但低收入家庭可能会因基本商品价格上涨而苦苦挣扎。这引发了关于‘禁止性税收’在解决社会问题时公平性和公正性的重大疑问。此外，‘禁止性税收’的有效性可能会因情境和被征税的特定产品而异。在某些情况下，消费者可能会找到规避这些税收的方法，例如从黑市购买商品或选择更便宜的替代品。这可能会削弱税收的目标，并导致意想不到的后果。例如，如果政府对含糖饮料征收‘禁止性税收’以应对肥胖问题，消费者可能会简单地转向其他未被征税的不健康选项，从而未能实现预期的健康益处。此外，‘禁止性税收’所产生的收入也可能是一把双刃剑。一方面，这些收入可用于资助公共健康项目、教育活动或环境项目。另一方面，政府可能会过于依赖这些税收，从而导致缺乏全面的策略来解决根本问题。政策制定者不仅要关注税收作为解决方案，还必须考虑包括教育、社区参与和获取更健康替代品在内的整体方法。总之，尽管‘禁止性税收’可以作为影响行为和促进公共福利的强大工具，但它们必须经过仔细设计和实施，以避免负面影响。政策制定者需要在遏制不良行为与确保其策略不会对弱势群体造成过大负担之间取得平衡。最终，‘禁止性税收’的成功不仅在于其产生收入的能力，还在于其促进更健康、更公平社会的能力。