2023年全國(guó)碩士研究生考試考研英語(yǔ)一試題真題(含答案詳解+作文范文)_第1頁(yè)
已閱讀1頁(yè),還剩10頁(yè)未讀, 繼續(xù)免費(fèi)閱讀

下載本文檔

版權(quán)說(shuō)明:本文檔由用戶提供并上傳,收益歸屬內(nèi)容提供方,若內(nèi)容存在侵權(quán),請(qǐng)進(jìn)行舉報(bào)或認(rèn)領(lǐng)

文檔簡(jiǎn)介

1、<p>  中文4000漢字,2200單詞,12000英文字符</p><p>  出處:Godar S, Paetz C, Truger A. Progressive Tax Reform in OECD Countries: Opportunities and Obstacles[J]. Ilo Working Papers, 2014, 245(2):346.</p><p&g

2、t;  Progressive tax reform in OECD countries: opportunities and obstacles</p><p>  S Godar,C Paetz,A Truger</p><p>  1 Taxation trends since the 1980s: Traditional standards of tax justice under

3、 pressure</p><p>  Traditionally, the aims of taxation in the industrialized countries in the area of distribution were (1) to avoid tax privileges for specific sources of income (comprehensive income approa

4、ch); and (2) to achieve a high degree of progressivity. However, these goals have come under increasing pressure since the 1980s. According to the OECD (2011), market incomes have become more unequal in most OECD countri

5、es since the mid-1980s. Additionally, redistribution by the State has on average become less</p><p>  On average, taxes on personal income used to be the most important source of revenues for OECD countries.

6、 They accounted for about 30 per cent of total tax revenues in the 1980s. Since then, their relative importance has declined to about 24 per cent while the weight of social security contributions has increased (OECD, 201

7、2a). In order to evaluate how progressive income tax systems are, top statutory tax rates can be used as an indicator for broad international trends and a proxy for the intend</p><p>  Recently, many Europea

8、n governments have deliberately broken with the comprehensive income approach by subjecting the capital income of individuals to a separate tax schedule with a single tax rate while retaining progressive taxation in the

9、area of labour income. In many OECD countries (for example Austria, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Spain and Sweden), certain types of capital income of individuals (such as interest, dividends and capital gains) are

10、excluded from progressive income taxat</p><p>  The taxation of corporate income (CIT) has witnessed nearly three decades of an international race to the bottom in terms of nominal corporate tax rates. If we

11、 examine the countries for which OECD data are available since 1981, the (unweighted) average combined corporate income tax rates declined by more than 20 percentage points – from 47.5 in 1981 to only 27.2 in 2012. The a

12、verage reflects the individual trends quite well as virtually all countries in the sample cut corporate tax rates signifi</p><p>  However, one should note that the falling tax rates are at first sight not r

13、eflected in the revenues generated: until 2007, corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP increased significantly in most OECD countries as compared to the levels of the 1970s and 1980s (figure 1). Despite declining conside

14、rably in 2008–09, the average level in 2010 was still higher than in the 1970s and 1980s. Part of the explanation of this puzzle may be that declining nominal rates were to some extent accompanied by meas</p><

15、p>  Compared to the 1970s, the revenues from property taxes as a percentage of GDP have on average remained fairly stable in the OECD countries. since 1970 the ratio of private wealth to national income has risen cons

16、iderably in many rich countries. Hence the development of property taxation has negatively affected both tax justice and income distribution.</p><p>  2 Current trends and policy proposals</p><p&g

17、t;  In the face of rising inequality and strong budgetary pressures in many OECD countries since the Great Recession, there are some signs that the downward trend in redistributive taxation may have come to a halt recent

18、ly. In the majority of the OECD countries, top statutory income tax rates were increased after the financial crisis (IMF, 2013). Since then, a number of countries have also increased their maximum tax rates on the capita

19、l income of individuals. Remarkably, since the economic crisis t</p><p>  While the developments mentioned are steps in the direction of greater tax justice, there also some steps in the opposite direction:

20、since 2009, many governments have raised their value added tax rates in order to generate additional revenues (EC, 2013a; IMF, 2013). In addition, there were numerous increases in excise taxes. As pointed out by the Euro

21、pean Commission (2013a), the revenue-generating measures since 2009 have heavily focused on consumption taxes, which are regressive in nature, cons</p><p>  In the last few years, many important internationa

22、l institutions have presented proposals on how to respond to the need for fiscal consolidation in terms of socially acceptable tax reforms (European Commission, 2012 and 2013c; ETUC, 2010; European Attac Network, 2013; E

23、uropean Council, 2012; ILO, 2011; IMF, 2013; ITUC, 2010; OECD, 2012c, 2012d and 2013b; Tax Justice Network, 2013; UNCTAD, 2012). While there seems to be a widely shared belief that combating tax evasion, limiting tax avo

24、idance and</p><p>  The conventional wisdom of the IMF (2013) lies in proposing consolidation on the revenue side, that is, focusing on broadening the tax base of the value added tax as well as of personal a

25、nd corporate income taxes, increasing recurrent taxes on residential property and extending environmental taxation. Their aim is to raise additional revenues without affecting low-income households too much – a view that

26、 is shared by the OECD (2012c). Both institutions suggest introducing additional transfers in</p><p>  Some of the proposed measures may lead to a reduction in income inequality or at least show a concern fo

27、r negative distributive effects of taxation, but the institutions in question do not consider more fundamental reforms: increasing personal and corporate taxation as well as the general taxation of wealth are not on the

28、agenda.5 Obviously, the main reason for the reluctance to propose fundamental changes consists in the perceived trade-off between equity and efficiency. As the OECD (2012d, p. </p><p>  3 Standard argum

29、ents against progressive taxation under scrutiny</p><p>  The standard arguments against progressive taxation rely on claiming that it creates negative incentives for private households and enterprises and r

30、einforces tax avoidance. However, it can be argued, on the basis of mainstream arguments (e.g. Rosen and Gayer, 2008; Salanie, 2011) and other literature that these effects need not be large. This suggests that the equit

31、y/efficiency trade- off is probably rather small. Furthermore, government spending financed with the additional revenue may offset </p><p>  Besides the real behavioural reactions to taxation, a much-debated

32、 issue today is the avoidance strategies of firms, which manipulate the tax base in a country without actually changing the level of economic activity. According to the OECD’s comprehensive report on base erosion and pro

33、fit-shifting (2013b), multiple opportunities exist for corporations to shift income among entities and thus to countries where lower tax rates or special exemptions are applied. Examples for such opportunities are </p

34、><p>  4 Conclusions</p><p>  Opportunities for a truly progressive reform of the tax system have developed in a rather favourable way over the last few years. There are some signs that the downwar

35、d trend in redistributive taxation may have come to a halt recently. At the same time, a number of international institutions have commented in a more or less progressive way on how to respond to the need for fiscal cons

36、olidation in terms of socially acceptable tax reforms. Against this background, there are at least two conclusion</p><p>  At the international level, the widespread consensus concerning the need to combat t

37、ax evasion, limit tax avoidance and to introduce a financial transaction tax should be used to promote the implementation of such reforms in the most ambitious way possible. The plan of the European Commission to revise

38、the Savings Directive in order to make it applicable to dividends, capital gains and all other forms of financial income (European Commission, 2013b), making them subject to an automatic exchange </p><p>  Q

39、uite independently of the success of measures at the international level, national tax policies should seek to achieve a substantially higher level of redistributive taxation even without international coordination. We h

40、ave demonstrated that there is considerable scope for redistributive tax policies at the national level, and that far more is possible than claimed by the mainstream view dominating the debates. There is no need for nati

41、onal tax policies to restrict their efforts to the rather f</p><p>  經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家累進(jìn)稅制改革的機(jī)遇和障礙</p><p>  1、20世紀(jì)80年代以來(lái)的稅收趨勢(shì):在壓力之下的稅收征收的傳統(tǒng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)</p><p>  傳統(tǒng)上,工業(yè)化國(guó)家分布地區(qū)的稅收目的是:(1)對(duì)收入的特定來(lái)源避免稅收優(yōu)惠(綜合收

42、益途徑);(2)實(shí)現(xiàn)高度的累進(jìn)稅。然而,這些目的來(lái)自于20世紀(jì)80年代以來(lái)持續(xù)增加的壓力。根據(jù)經(jīng)合組織(2011年)的統(tǒng)計(jì),在大多數(shù)經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家中,市場(chǎng)收入自20世紀(jì)80年代中期以來(lái)已經(jīng)變得更加不平等。此外,尤其是自20世紀(jì)90年代中期以來(lái),國(guó)家再分配也不再那么有效。建立稅務(wù)制度變化范圍來(lái)對(duì)這種事態(tài)負(fù)責(zé)是不可能的。然而,一般稅收趨勢(shì)是一些連接的重要指標(biāo)點(diǎn)的體現(xiàn)。最高邊際收入稅率、企業(yè)所得稅稅率的劇烈下降,以及所得稅的二元化增長(zhǎng)(即資本收

43、益特權(quán)的增加),證明了近幾十年來(lái)稅收正義的傳統(tǒng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)正面臨著嚴(yán)峻的壓力。</p><p>  通常地,個(gè)人所得稅曾經(jīng)是經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家收入的最重要的來(lái)源。其占據(jù)了20世紀(jì)80年代總稅收的30%左右。此后,隨著社會(huì)保障稅的比重增加,其相對(duì)重要性下降到大約24%(經(jīng)合組織,2012年a)。為了評(píng)估累進(jìn)所得稅制度,最高法定稅率可以作為廣泛國(guó)際趨勢(shì)的指標(biāo)和所得稅系統(tǒng)預(yù)期再分配效應(yīng)的代理。自20世紀(jì)70年代以來(lái),最高所得稅率在幾

44、乎所有經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家中有所下降。1981年,在經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家中,最高聯(lián)合法定個(gè)人所得稅(PIT)率平均為65.7%。如果我們只考慮1981年以來(lái)已經(jīng)包含在數(shù)據(jù)中的國(guó)家,那么這個(gè)平均比率在1990年會(huì)下降到50.7%,在2000年會(huì)下降到48.9%,在2010年會(huì)下降到45.8%(經(jīng)合組織,2012年b,第33頁(yè))。在此期間,其他國(guó)家也加入了經(jīng)合組織,如果包含他們?cè)趦?nèi)的話,那么這個(gè)平均稅率在2010年為41.7%。</p>&l

45、t;p>  最近,許多歐洲政府在保留勞動(dòng)收入領(lǐng)域的累進(jìn)稅的時(shí)候,通過(guò)使個(gè)人資本收益受制于擁有單一稅率的獨(dú)立稅率表的方式,故意與綜合收益方式打破關(guān)系。在許多經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家中(例如奧地利、芬蘭、德國(guó)、愛(ài)爾蘭、日本、西班牙和瑞典),某些類型的個(gè)人資本收益被排除在累進(jìn)所得稅之外(經(jīng)合組織,2013年a;Deloitte,2013年)。因?yàn)镸argit Schratzenstaller(2014年)指出,自20世紀(jì)80年代初以來(lái),許多西歐國(guó)家

46、已經(jīng)改革了其資本收益稅收,從綜合收益方式轉(zhuǎn)移向所得稅的二元化。資本收益稅率更加頻繁地低于個(gè)人邊際稅率。此外,多方面的稅收減免適用于不同類型的資本收益(Deloitte,2013年)。自1981年以來(lái),最大總體股息稅負(fù)擔(dān)顯著下降了(經(jīng)合組織,2013年a)。</p><p>  企業(yè)所得稅(CIT)見(jiàn)證了最近30年名義公司稅率國(guó)際比賽的底線。如果我們檢驗(yàn)1981年以來(lái)經(jīng)合組織數(shù)據(jù)可用的國(guó)家,那么(未加權(quán))平均聯(lián)合企

47、業(yè)所得稅稅率下降了超過(guò)20個(gè)百分點(diǎn)——從1981年的47.5到2012年僅有的27.2。由于幾乎樣本內(nèi)的所有國(guó)家顯著削減了公司稅率,這個(gè)平均數(shù)反映出的個(gè)體發(fā)展趨勢(shì)是相當(dāng)好的。</p><p>  然而,需要注意的一點(diǎn)是,乍一看下降的稅率并不體現(xiàn)于稅收:相比20世紀(jì)70和80年代的水平,直到2007年,在大多數(shù)經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家中公司稅收占GDP的比例明顯上升(圖1)。盡管其在2008-09年大幅下降,但是2010年的平

48、均水平仍然高于20世紀(jì)70和80年代。這個(gè)難題的一部分解釋可能是,下降的名義利率在某種程度上伴隨著擴(kuò)大稅基的措施。另一種解釋可能是“在一些國(guó)家,公司稅率可能遠(yuǎn)低于最高所得稅稅率,受其暴跌的刺激,公司化增長(zhǎng)以個(gè)人所得稅為代價(jià),已經(jīng)被企業(yè)所得稅收入推進(jìn)了”(歐洲委員會(huì),2012年,第23頁(yè))。然而,企業(yè)稅收強(qiáng)烈發(fā)展最可能的原因在于GDP中公司利潤(rùn)上升的份額(Devereux, Griffith和Klemm,2004年)。</p>

49、<p>  相比于20世紀(jì)70年代,在經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家中,來(lái)源于財(cái)產(chǎn)稅的收入占GDP的比例仍然保持得相當(dāng)穩(wěn)定。自1970年以來(lái),在許多富裕國(guó)家中,私有財(cái)富占國(guó)民收入的比率大幅上升。因此,財(cái)產(chǎn)稅的發(fā)展負(fù)面地影響了稅收正義和收入分配。</p><p>  2、當(dāng)前趨勢(shì)及政策建議</p><p>  自大蕭條以來(lái),許多經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家面臨著不平等程度上升和強(qiáng)大的預(yù)算壓力,有一些跡象表明,重

50、新分配稅收的下降趨勢(shì)近期可能已趨于停頓。在大多經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家中,最高法定所得稅率在金融危機(jī)之后有所增加(國(guó)際貨幣基金組織,2013年)。從那時(shí)起,一些國(guó)家也增加了對(duì)個(gè)人資本收益的最大稅率。值得注意的是,自經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)以來(lái),當(dāng)一些國(guó)家看到了企業(yè)所得稅稅基擴(kuò)大的時(shí)候,公司稅率的平均水平看似已經(jīng)穩(wěn)定下來(lái)了(經(jīng)合組織,2013年a)。比利時(shí)、希臘、愛(ài)爾蘭、葡萄牙、西班牙和英國(guó)增加了其對(duì)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)的稅收(歐洲委員會(huì),2012年;國(guó)際國(guó)幣基金組織,2013年

51、)。</p><p>  雖然上述提到的發(fā)展邁向了更大的稅收正義,但仍有一些反方向的步伐:自2009年以來(lái),許多政府都提高了其增值稅稅率以產(chǎn)出額外的收入(歐共體,2013年a;國(guó)際貨幣基金組織,2013年)。此外,消費(fèi)稅也大量增加了。正如歐洲委員會(huì)(2013年a)指出的,2009年以來(lái)的營(yíng)收措施嚴(yán)重專注于消費(fèi)稅,這在本質(zhì)上是退化的,是對(duì)稅收正義和再分配明顯的背離。</p><p>  在過(guò)

52、去的幾年里,許多重要的國(guó)際機(jī)構(gòu)在社會(huì)可接受的稅收改革方面對(duì)如何響應(yīng)財(cái)政整頓的需要提出了建議(歐洲委員會(huì),2012年和2013年c;歐洲工會(huì)聯(lián)合會(huì),2010年;歐洲反全球化網(wǎng),2013年;歐洲理事會(huì),2012年;國(guó)際勞工組織,2011年;國(guó)際貨幣基金組織,2013年;國(guó)際工會(huì)聯(lián)盟,2010年;經(jīng)合組織,2012年c,2012年d和2013年b;稅收正義網(wǎng),2013年;聯(lián)合國(guó)貿(mào)易暨發(fā)展會(huì)議,2012年)。然而,似乎有一個(gè)共同的信念認(rèn)為,應(yīng)該

53、優(yōu)先考慮打擊逃稅、限制避稅和引入金融交易稅,涉及到真正的累進(jìn)稅改革的需要時(shí)應(yīng)該見(jiàn)仁見(jiàn)智。然而工會(huì)、國(guó)際勞工組織、聯(lián)合國(guó)貿(mào)易暨發(fā)展會(huì)議和一些非政府組織提出這樣的要求時(shí),諸如歐洲委員會(huì)、國(guó)際貨幣基金組織和經(jīng)合組織等占主導(dǎo)地位的主流機(jī)構(gòu)如果不公開(kāi)反對(duì)這種改革,那么他們對(duì)此是十分猶豫的。</p><p>  國(guó)際貨幣基金組織(2013年)的傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)在于對(duì)收入方面提出整合,也就是專注于擴(kuò)大增值稅、個(gè)人所得稅和企業(yè)所得稅的稅

54、基,增加對(duì)住宅地產(chǎn)的復(fù)發(fā)性稅收,以及擴(kuò)展環(huán)境稅收。他們的目的是以不影響低收入家庭太多的方式增加額外稅收,這一觀點(diǎn)由經(jīng)合組織共享(2012年c)。雙方機(jī)構(gòu)都建議引入額外傳輸機(jī)制來(lái)緩解提議變革的退化影響。經(jīng)合組織提議重復(fù)最多的一條是,關(guān)閉稅收漏洞并減少“主要受益的稅式支出”(同上,第3頁(yè))來(lái)促進(jìn)增長(zhǎng)和減少不平等。根據(jù)經(jīng)合組織的提議,諸如對(duì)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)和消費(fèi)的稅收等最少扭曲的稅收都應(yīng)該是提高生活水平的,但也會(huì)導(dǎo)致更高的不平等。其結(jié)論是“定向傳輸可以

55、減少權(quán)衡的嚴(yán)重性”(同上)。同樣地,歐洲理事會(huì)“邀請(qǐng)成員國(guó),以使之更有效、消除不合理豁免、擴(kuò)大稅基、讓稅收轉(zhuǎn)離勞動(dòng)力、提高征收征管效率和解決逃稅為目的,適當(dāng)?shù)幕仡櫵麄兊亩愂障到y(tǒng)”(歐洲理事會(huì),2012年,第3頁(yè))。</p><p>  一些建議措施可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致收入不平等的減少或至少表現(xiàn)出對(duì)稅收負(fù)面分配影響的關(guān)心,但是參與討論的機(jī)構(gòu)沒(méi)有考慮根本的改革:增加的個(gè)人和企業(yè)稅收以及對(duì)財(cái)富的一般稅收并沒(méi)有提上日程。很明顯,對(duì)

56、提出根本性變革勉強(qiáng)的原因在于對(duì)公平與效率之間感知的權(quán)衡。正如經(jīng)合組織(2012年d,第39頁(yè))所說(shuō)的:“由于勞動(dòng)強(qiáng)度、職業(yè)生涯、避稅和其他行為反應(yīng)的影響,簡(jiǎn)單的對(duì)高收入者提高邊際個(gè)人所得稅率不會(huì)必然的帶來(lái)大量額外收入。”</p><p>  3、詳細(xì)審查下針對(duì)累進(jìn)稅的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)參數(shù)</p><p>  針對(duì)累進(jìn)稅的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)參數(shù)依賴于其為私人家庭和企業(yè)創(chuàng)造了負(fù)激勵(lì)并加強(qiáng)了避稅。然而,我們可以認(rèn)為,在主

57、流觀點(diǎn)(例如Rosen和Gayer,2008年;Salanie,2011年)和其他文獻(xiàn)中,這些影響并不太大。這表明,公平和效率權(quán)衡的可能性是相當(dāng)小的。此外,政府用額外收入支出經(jīng)費(fèi)可以抵消甚至是補(bǔ)償對(duì)產(chǎn)出和就業(yè)征稅的負(fù)面影響。</p><p>  除了對(duì)稅收真實(shí)的行為反應(yīng),現(xiàn)在備受爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題是公司的回避策略,其在實(shí)際上不改變經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)水平的情況下操縱國(guó)家的稅基。根據(jù)經(jīng)合組織對(duì)稅基侵蝕和利潤(rùn)轉(zhuǎn)移的綜合報(bào)道(2013年b

58、),存在多種機(jī)遇使公司在實(shí)體之間轉(zhuǎn)移收入,因此,對(duì)國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)較低稅率或特定豁免都是實(shí)用的。這種機(jī)遇的范例是為品牌、專利或其他金融服務(wù)使用由外資子公司提供的在低稅收管轄權(quán)內(nèi)的許可證,轉(zhuǎn)讓定價(jià)的操縱也是如此。雖然關(guān)于實(shí)際上有多少利潤(rùn)轉(zhuǎn)移發(fā)生并沒(méi)有確切的數(shù)據(jù)(同上),但是現(xiàn)存的利潤(rùn)轉(zhuǎn)移活動(dòng)在很大程度上是毋庸置疑的。Jost Henrich Heckemeyer和Michael Overesch(2013年)評(píng)論了有關(guān)跨國(guó)公司利潤(rùn)轉(zhuǎn)移的實(shí)證文獻(xiàn)。

59、平均來(lái)看,25項(xiàng)研究評(píng)估了關(guān)于一個(gè)國(guó)家及其子公司之間的國(guó)際稅收差異的利稅前的報(bào)告利潤(rùn)或收益的半彈性,相比于較高的2.23的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)偏差,其數(shù)值位于1.55(同上,第8頁(yè))。雖然乍一看這個(gè)數(shù)量似乎是可觀的,但這意味著對(duì)公司利潤(rùn)的綜合稅率平均在20%的國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō),可以以僅損失其7.75%稅基的成本增加5個(gè)百分點(diǎn)或者四分之一的稅率。當(dāng)不存在避稅時(shí),其不會(huì)收到增稅的全部收入利潤(rùn),但是會(huì)超過(guò)三分之二。</p><p><b

60、>  4、結(jié)論</b></p><p>  在過(guò)去幾年中,對(duì)稅制的真正的累進(jìn)改革的機(jī)遇已經(jīng)以一個(gè)相當(dāng)有利的方式得以發(fā)展。一些跡象表明,再分配稅收的下降趨勢(shì)最近已趨于停頓。與此同時(shí),許多國(guó)際機(jī)構(gòu)已經(jīng)在稅改方面以或多或少可接受的方式對(duì)如何回應(yīng)財(cái)政整頓的需要做出評(píng)論。在此背景下,本文可以至少得出兩條結(jié)論。</p><p>  在國(guó)際范圍內(nèi),有關(guān)打擊逃稅、限制避稅和引入金融交易稅

61、的需要的廣泛共識(shí),應(yīng)該以最雄心勃勃的方式用于促進(jìn)改革的實(shí)施。歐洲委員會(huì)修改儲(chǔ)蓄指令的計(jì)劃是為了使其適用于股息、資本收益和所有其他形式的金融收入(歐洲委員會(huì),2013年b),讓他們受制于成員國(guó)之間信息的自動(dòng)交換可能是反對(duì)個(gè)體偷稅漏稅重要的一步。在企業(yè)稅收方面,上述情況也適用于經(jīng)合組織稅基侵蝕和利潤(rùn)轉(zhuǎn)移的行動(dòng)計(jì)劃(經(jīng)合組織,2013年c)。一個(gè)潛在的甚至更重要的步驟是推行統(tǒng)一稅制的方法,這就要求跨國(guó)公司向當(dāng)?shù)囟悇?wù)機(jī)關(guān)提供其全球統(tǒng)一賬戶(包括

62、公司從事統(tǒng)一業(yè)務(wù)的所有部分),由此他們對(duì)內(nèi)部轉(zhuǎn)移將不再感興趣(Picciotto,2012年)。這可能是一些防止有害稅收競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的最低稅率的補(bǔ)充。包含現(xiàn)貨及衍生資產(chǎn)的金融交易稅有助于減少金融市場(chǎng)的規(guī)模和波動(dòng),同時(shí)也會(huì)產(chǎn)生可觀的收入(Schulmeister, Schratzenstaller和Picek,2008年)。然而,對(duì)所有這些提議來(lái)說(shuō)嚴(yán)重的危害是,出于政治壓力,它們將被推遲、淡化或不執(zhí)行。</p><p> 

溫馨提示

  • 1. 本站所有資源如無(wú)特殊說(shuō)明,都需要本地電腦安裝OFFICE2007和PDF閱讀器。圖紙軟件為CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.壓縮文件請(qǐng)下載最新的WinRAR軟件解壓。
  • 2. 本站的文檔不包含任何第三方提供的附件圖紙等,如果需要附件,請(qǐng)聯(lián)系上傳者。文件的所有權(quán)益歸上傳用戶所有。
  • 3. 本站RAR壓縮包中若帶圖紙,網(wǎng)頁(yè)內(nèi)容里面會(huì)有圖紙預(yù)覽,若沒(méi)有圖紙預(yù)覽就沒(méi)有圖紙。
  • 4. 未經(jīng)權(quán)益所有人同意不得將文件中的內(nèi)容挪作商業(yè)或盈利用途。
  • 5. 眾賞文庫(kù)僅提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間,僅對(duì)用戶上傳內(nèi)容的表現(xiàn)方式做保護(hù)處理,對(duì)用戶上傳分享的文檔內(nèi)容本身不做任何修改或編輯,并不能對(duì)任何下載內(nèi)容負(fù)責(zé)。
  • 6. 下載文件中如有侵權(quán)或不適當(dāng)內(nèi)容,請(qǐng)與我們聯(lián)系,我們立即糾正。
  • 7. 本站不保證下載資源的準(zhǔn)確性、安全性和完整性, 同時(shí)也不承擔(dān)用戶因使用這些下載資源對(duì)自己和他人造成任何形式的傷害或損失。

評(píng)論

0/150

提交評(píng)論