当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文


2017年12月16日 03:44:27    日报  参与评论()人

上饶市中医医院激光去痘多少钱上饶市第二人民医院激光去烫伤的疤多少钱上饶缩胸手术需要多少钱 Millions of people go to tanning salons, some to get a base tanbefore they go away on a beach vacation.数百万的人在海滨度假之前去日晒沙龙,一些人的皮肤会晒成棕褐色。The idea of the basetan is that it will protect you from burning on your sunexcursion, so that what you end up with is a darker tan ratherthan a lobster face and discomfort.把皮肤晒成棕褐色,是因为它可以保护你免于晒伤,因此最终你的皮肤将变得更黑,而不是变红或是感觉不舒。But does a base tan protect your skin from ultraviolet damageyou cant see?但是棕褐色皮肤真的可以使你的皮肤免遭那些你看不见的紫外线伤害吗?Dermatologists say that just one trip to the tanning salon can produce DNA damage that cancause skin cancer.皮肤病学家称仅仅去一次日晒沙龙就可以引起致皮肤癌的DNA损害。Tanning booths emit about ninety-five percent ultraviolet A light and five-percent ultraviolet B light.人工日光浴场放射出约95%的紫外线A光和5%的紫外线B光。For some time, ultraviolet A light was thought to affect the aging of skin only.有时,人们认为紫外线A光仅仅是影响皮肤老化。Now dermatologistsknow that ultraviolet A light, like ultraviolet B light, also causes genetic damage linked to skincancer.现在皮肤病学家们认识到,和紫外线B光一样,紫外线A光也会产生与皮肤癌有关的遗传性伤害。One study indicated that people who used tanning beds at least once were two-and-a-half timesmore likely to develop squamous cell skin cancer, and one-and-a-half times more likely to developbasal cell skin cancer.有研究表明,至少用过一次日光浴床的那些人得鳞状细胞皮肤癌的可能性要高2.5倍,得基底细胞皮肤癌的可能性要高1.5倍。Tanning bed users are at an increased risk of melanoma too, the deadliestform of skin cancer.日光浴床使用者得黑素瘤的风险也增加了,这是一种最致命的皮肤癌。Not only can tanning inside lead to skin cancer, but the base tan that indoor tanning providescontains a sun protective factor of only about SPF-4.日光浴不仅在内部能让人体得皮肤癌,而且即使是室内日光浴提供的“日晒”防晒系数也只有SPF4。It doesnt offer good protection againstsunburn or the genetic damage that can lead to skin cancer.它们没有提供良好的保护以免受致皮肤癌的晒伤或遗传性伤害。Dermatologists recommend an over-the-counter sunscreen of SPF-15 or higher.皮肤病学家们推荐使用防晒系数15或更高的非处方防晒霜。 201405/297473上饶去痘印手术多少钱

上饶哪里可以打美白针Water水资源All dried up全面干涸Northern China is running out of water, but the government’s remedies are potentially disastrous中国北方水资源渐耗尽,政府举措存风险Oct 12th 2013 | BEIJING |From the print editionCHINA endures choking smog, mass destruction of habitats and food poisoned with heavy metals. But ask an environmentalist what is the country’s biggest problem, and the answer is always the same. “Water is the worst,” says Wang Tao, of the Carnegie-Tsinghua Centre in Beijing, “because of its scarcity, and because of its pollution.” “Water,” agrees Pan Jiahua, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. “People can’t survive in a desert.” Wang Shucheng, a former water minister, once said: “To fight for every drop of water or die: that is the challenge facing China.”中国正遭受着持续雾霾、栖息地大规模破坏以及食品重金属中毒等问题。然而,当问起环境专家“什么是中国最大的问题”时,得到的通常如出一辙。北京清华-卡耐基中心的王涛答道:“水资源问题最为严重,一方面由于水资源缺乏,另一方面由于它的污染状况。” “水资源,”中国社科院潘家华表示认同,“人们不能在沙漠中生存。”前水利部部长汪恕诚曾说:“中国面临的挑战就是要珍惜每一滴水,否则就是灭亡。”He was not exaggerating. A stock image of China is a fisherman and his cormorant on a placid lake. The reality is different. The country uses 600 billion cubic metres (21,200 billion cubic feet) of water a year, or about 400 cubic metres a person—one-quarter of what the average American uses and less than half the international definition of water stress.他并非夸大其词。人们脑海中的中国印象是平静湖面上的渔民和他的鸬鹚。现实却大相径庭。中国水资源的年消耗量达6000亿立方米(212,000亿立方英尺),即约每人400立方米——为美国人平均使用量的四分之一,不到国际公认的用水紧张线的一半。The national average hides an even more alarming regional disparity. Four-fifths of China’s water is in the south, notably the Yangzi river basin. Half the people and two-thirds of the farmland are in the north, including the Yellow River basin. Beijing has the sort of water scarcity usually associated with Saudi Arabia: just 100 cubic metres per person a year. The water table under the capital has dropped by 300 metres (nearly 1,000 feet) since the 1970s.全国平均用水量背后的地区差异更为令人担忧。中国五分之四的水资源位于南方,尤其是长江流域。一半人口以及三分之二的耕地则位于北方,其中包括黄河流域。北京的水荒常被与沙特阿拉伯的相比较:人均年用水量仅为100立方米。自从20世纪70年代以来,首都的地下水位已下降约300米(1,000英尺左右)。China is using up water at an unsustainable rate. Thanks to overuse, rivers simply disappear. The number of rivers with significant catchment areas has fallen from more than 50,000 in the 1950s to 23,000 now. As if that were not bad enough, China is polluting what little water it has left. The Yellow River is often called the cradle of Chinese civilisation. In 2007 the Yellow River Conservancy Commission, a government agency, surveyed 13,000 kilometres (8,000 miles) of the river and its tributaries and concluded that a third of the water is unfit even for agriculture. Four thousand petrochemical plants are built on its banks.中国正以一种难以长期持续的速度消耗水资源。过度使用使河流几近干涸。重要集水区的河流数量已从50年代的50,000条减至如今的23,000条。仿佛事态还不够严重,中国仅存的河流也正遭受污染。黄河常被称为中华文明的摇篮。2007年,政府组织黄河保护委员会调查了13,000公里(8,000英里)的黄河及其流,结论是三分之一的水域不甚健康,甚至无法用于农业生产。4000家石油化工厂矗立黄河两岸。The water available for use is thus atrocious. Song Lanhe, chief engineer for urban water-quality monitoring at the housing ministry, says only half the water sources in cities are safe to drink. More than half the groundwater in the north China plain, according to the land ministry, cannot be used for industry, while seven-tenths is unfit for human contact, ie, even for washing. In late 2012 the Chinese media claimed that 300 corpses were found floating in the Yellow River near Lanzhou, the latest of roughly 10,000 victims—most of them (according to the local police) suicides—whose bodies have been washing downstream since the 1960s.可用水如此匮乏。建设部城市水质监测中心总工程师宋兰合说,城市水资源中仅有一半能供人安全饮用。据土地称,超过半数中国北部平原的地下水不能用于工业,同时,七成的水不适于与人体接触,也就是说,这些水甚至无法用于洗涤。2012年下半年,中国媒体曝出在黄河兰州段附近发现300具浮尸。自60年代以来约10,000名新受害者(据当地警方称,其中多为自杀)的尸体顺流而下。In the World Bank put the overall cost of China’s water crisis at 2.3% of GDP, mostly reflecting damage to health. Water shortages also imperil plans to expand energy production, threatening economic growth. China is hoping to follow America into a shale-gas revolution. But each shale-gas well needs 15,000 tonnes of water a year to run. China is also planning to build around 450 new coal-fired power stations, burning 1.2 billion tonnes of coal a year. The stations have to be cooled by water and the coal has to be washed. The grand total is 9 billion tonnes of water. China does not have that much available. According to the World Resources Institute, a think-tank in Washington, DC, half the new coal-fired plants are to be built in areas of high or extremely high water stress.年,世界认为中国在水危机上的总出占GDP的2.3%,这在很大程度上反映出水资源状况对健康之危害。水资源短缺同样危及扩大能源生产,对经济增长造成威胁。中国希望能跟随美国进入天然气时代。然而,一个天然气井需一年15,000吨水来运转。中国也正在计划建造约450座新的燃煤发电站,一年燃烧12亿吨煤炭。发电站需要用水冷却,而煤炭需要用水清洗。总需水量达90亿吨。供不应求。据位于华盛顿的智囊组织世界资源协会称,一半的新燃煤发电站建造于水资源紧缺或极度紧缺的地区。Every drop is precious滴滴珍贵The best answer would be to improve the efficiency with which water is used. Only about 40% of water used in industry is recycled, half as much as in Europe. The rest is dumped in rivers and lakes. Wang Zhansheng of Tsinghua University argues that China is neglecting its urban water infrastructure (sewerage, pipes and water-treatment plants), leading to more waste. Water prices in most cities are only about a tenth of the level in big European cities, yet the government is reluctant to raise them, for fear of a popular backlash.最好的办法是提升水的利用效率。只有约4成工业用水循环使用,该比例仅为欧洲的一半。而余下的则被弃于江河之中。清华大学王占生认为中国忽视城市水利基建(污水、管道和污水净化厂)导致更多浪费。大部分城市的水费仅为欧洲大城市的十分之一,而政府由于担心民众反对,则不愿涨价。The result is that China’s “water productivity” is low. For each cubic metre of water used, China gets -worth of output. The average for European countries is per cubic metre. Of course, these countries are richer—but they are not seven times richer.造成的结果是中国的“水分生产率”低下。每立方米水产出值为8美元。而欧洲国家平均产出值为58美元。当然,这些国家更为富有——但不至于富裕七倍。Rather than making sensible and eminently doable reforms in pricing and water conservation, China is focusing on increasing supplies. For decades the country has been ruled by engineers, many of them hydraulic engineers (including the previous president, Hu Jintao). Partly as a result, Communist leaders have reacted to water problems by building engineering projects on a mind-boggling scale.相比合理使用、价格显著调整以及水资源保护,中国采取的主要方法则是增加供应量。几十年来,中国的领导人多为工程师,他们中有不少是水利工程师(包括前国家主席胡锦涛)。部分由于上述原因,共产党领导对水资源问题的反应乃是在令人难以置信的范围内建立工程项目。The best known such project is the Three Gorges dam on the Yangzi. But this year an even vaster project is due to start. Called the South-North Water Diversion Project, it will link the Yangzi with the Yellow River, taking water from the humid south to the parched north. When finished, 3,000km of tunnels and canals will have been drilled through mountains, across plains and under rivers. Its hydrologic and environmental consequences could be enormously harmful.此类工程中最著名的就是位于长江的三峡大坝。但今年一个更大的项目即将启动。南水北调工程将长江与黄河接通,将水从湿润的南方调运至干旱的北方。项目完成后,将有3,000公里的隧道与运河贯通山脉,穿越平原与地下河。它将在水文与环境上造成严重后果。The project links China’s two great rivers through three new channels. The eastern, or downstream one is due to open by the end of this year (see map). It would pump 14.8 billion cubic metres along 1,160km of canals, using in part a 1,500-year-old waterway, the Grand Canal. The water pumped so far has been so polluted that a third of the cost has gone on water treatment. A midstream link, with 1,300km of new canals, is supposed to open by October 2014. That is also when work on the most ambitious and controversial link, the upstream one across the fragile Himalayan plateau, is due to begin. Eventually the South-North project is intended to deliver 45 billion cubic metres of water a year and to cost a total of 486 billion yuan (.4 billion). It would be cheaper to desalinate the equivalent amount of seawater.该项目通过三条新水道接通中国两大河流。东部,即下游调水线将于年底贯通(见地图)。它将沿1,160公里的运河(部分利用拥有1500年历史的水道——大运河)输水148亿立方米。迄今输送的水已被污染,以至于三分之一的开被用于水污染治理。长达1,300千米的中游调水线预计于2014年十月贯通。而最为雄心勃勃和最具争议的上游调水线也预备动工,它贯穿了脆弱的喜马拉雅高原。最终,南水北调工程计划每年调水450亿立方米,总花费4,860亿元人民币(794亿美元)。这比除去等量海水中的盐分的成本来得更低。The environmental damage could be immense. The Yangzi river is aly seriously polluted. Chen Jiyu of the Chinese Academy of Engineering told South Weekly, a magazine, in 2012 that the project so far has reduced the quantity of plankton in the Yangzi by over two-thirds and the number of benthic organisms (those living on the river bottom) by half. And that was before it even opened. Ma Jun, China’s best known environmental activist, says the government’s predilection for giant engineering projects only makes matters worse, “causing us to hit the limits of our water resources”.这可能造成巨大的环境破坏。长江已被严重污染。2012年,中国工程院院士陈吉余告诉南方周末记者,项目迄今造成长江浮游生物数量减少超过三分之二,底栖生物(生活在水底的生物)减少一半。这还是没有贯通之前所发生的。中国著名环保斗士马军说,政府对大型工程项目的偏好只会让事情变得更糟,“导致我们冲击水资源的使用极限”。But the biggest damage could be political. Proposed dams on the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra, Mekong and other rivers are bound to have an impact on downstream countries, including India, Bangladesh and Vietnam. The Chinese say they would take only 1% of the run-off from the giant Brahmaputra. But if all these projects were operational—and the engineering challenges of one or two of them are so daunting that even the Chinese might balk at them—they would affect the flow of rivers on which a billion people depend. Hence the worries for regional stability. And all this would increase China’s water supplies by a mere 7%. The water crisis is driving China to desperate but ultimately unhelpful measures.不过,最大的危害可能是政治上的。计划在雅鲁藏布江、湄公河以及其他河流上游建造的大坝必定会对下游国家产生影响,包括印度、孟加拉国和越南。中国方面说他们仅从广阔的雅鲁藏布江中调取1%的水量。但是如果所有的项目都开始运转——其中一两个工程上的挑战就会令人沮丧,届时中国可能予以回避——这将影响傍河而生的10亿人口。从而导致地区稳定上的隐忧。而所有这些工程仅增加中国供水量的7%。水资源危机迫使中国孤注一掷,而终究未必治本。201310/261348上饶妇保医院激光祛斑手术多少钱 Yael:Its time for another installment of lunch with Don and Yael.雅艾尔:现在到了唐和雅艾尔共进午餐的另一环节。So, Don, what do you have for lunch today?那么,唐,今天午餐你吃什么?Don:An apple.唐:一个苹果。Yael:Thats it?雅艾尔:就这些吗?Don:And some water.唐:还有些水。Yael:Why so little?雅艾尔:为什么吃这么点?Don:Well, I ate out last night . . . and at restaurants you tend to get around four or five times as much food as nutrition experts recommend.唐:嗯,我昨晚出去吃的饭。。。在餐馆就餐的你倾向于摄入专家推荐4至5倍的食物营养。For example, if you order a steak, youll probably get a nice, juicy, twelve-ounce piece of meat.如果你点了牛排,你的餐盘里可能盛放的是一份不错,多汁,12盎司的肉。But experts say that you shouldnt eat more than five-and-a-half ounces of meat per day.但专家表示你每天不应该吃超过5盎司的肉。Yael:Wow. Why does that happen?雅艾尔:哇。为什么会这样?Don:Its partly due to the plate size.唐:这部分是由于盘子尺寸所致。Have you ever noticed that a lot of restaurants use oversize plates?你有没有注意到很多餐馆使用超大的盘子?Which leads to another factor . . .when youre paying for a meal, you expect those plates to be filled with food.这导致另一个因素,当你出去吃饭,你指望那些盘子装满食物。Get a four- or five-ounce piece of steak on your giant plate and you might not feel that youre getting your moneys worth.在4-5盎司牛排盛放到你巨大盘子后,你可能不会觉得你花出去的钱物有所值。Yael:Yknow, I somewhere that people are eating out more than ever.雅艾尔:我在哪里看到过人们会比以往更多出去吃饭。And if theyre eating larger than recommended portions at restaurants, I bet thats contributing to the obesity problem.如果他们吃的比餐馆推荐量还要多,我敢打赌这会导致肥胖问题。Don:Some experts think so.唐:一些专家也认为如此。But theres an easy solution . . . eat only some of whats on your plate and take the rest home.但是有简单的解决方案。。。只吃在你盘子里的,把其余的打包带走。Yael:Did you do that last night?雅艾尔:你昨天晚上是这样的吗?Don:Uh, no. Its kinda hard to stop eating when all that food is right there in front of you.唐:嗯,没有。满桌美食尽在眼前不吃的确有些困难。Yael:Well then, enjoy your apple. 雅艾尔:那就好好享受你的这餐苹果吧。 201310/261137万年县做双眼皮手术多少钱

上饶地区人民医院激光去斑多少钱Heres a neat question you may have never thought to ask. How far away is the horizon?你可能从未思考过这个简单的问题,地平线有多远?Think about it.想想这个问题,The Earth seems flat from our viewpoint, and if you are in a desert or out at sea you get a sense that the earth extends indefinitely in every direction.从我们的视角看来,地球似乎是平的,但是要是你待在沙漠里或是在海上的话,你会感觉地球在向四面八方无限地延伸。This isnt correct, though; the planet is round, so at some point the ground must drop away.然而这是不正确的,地球是圆的,因此陆地在某一点必下沉 。When it drops below your angle of vision, you cant see it any more, and thats what we call the horizon.当地面下沉到你的视角之下时,你就无法再看到,这就是我们所说的地平线。So how far can you see before the planet curves away?那么在地球发生弯曲之前,你可以看多远呢?If youre six feet tall, the answer is about three miles. Surprised?如果你有六尺高的话,你可以看差不多三英里远。震惊吗?You arent alone.可是并不是只有你一个人感到震惊。Try asking a friend next time youre at the beach on a clear day to guess how far out across the ocean you are looking.尝试着下次问下你朋友这个问题:在一个晴天,你站在一个沙滩上,猜猜你可以看到多远的海面。Shes more likely to say twenty or fifty miles than just three.她很有可能会说二十或五十英里,而不是三英里。Now that were thinking about horizons, heres another cool thing to think about.既然我们在思考关于地平线的问题,我们要思考另一个很酷的问题。The horizon is three miles away on earth. But elsewhere in the solar system its closer or farther, depending on the size of the body youre standing on!地平线在地球上的三英里之外,但是在太阳系的其他星球上地平线是更近还是更远呢,这取决于你所站立的星球的体积大小。Take the moon.以月球为例,The moon is two thousand, one hundred and sixty miles in diameter, only about one quarter the size of the earth.月球直径为2160英里,只有地球的四分之一。So the curvature at its surface is much more noticeable, and the horizon is much closer. Its only about 1.5 miles away.因此,月球表面的曲率更明显,地平线也更近,只有大约1.5英里远。One cool result?这是不是一个很酷的?The surface bends so quickly on the moon that its possible to stand inside some of the largest impact craters and not know youre in one.在月球上,地表弯曲得很快,因此当你站在一个撞击坑中,很可能身处其中而不自知,The walls of the crater are below the horizon on all sides!因为撞击坑的岩壁处在地平线以下。 /201401/272695 Finance and Economics;Free exchange;Zero-sum debate;财经;自由兑换; 零和争论;Economists are rethinking the view that capital should not be taxed;经济学家正重新考虑是否要推翻不该对资本征税的观点。Executives thunder that Americas corporate-tax rates are to blame for economic weakness. Mitt Romneys campaign accuses Barack Obama of waging a “war on capital”. In fact, Americas taxation of capital is more murky than confiscatory. At 39.2% (including state and local tax) its top corporate rate is the rich worlds highest but loopholes mean most companies end up paying 27.6%, similar to Britains effective rate of 27.4% and below Germanys 31.6%. Americas tax rate on capital gains, at 15%, is lower than in many other countries. And if Mr Romney is the more ardent defender of capital, both men agree on the need for reforms. This is less a battle, more a skirmish.行政当局愤怒指出美国经济疲软应归咎于公司企业所得税率。米特·罗姆尼发起一场运动指责奥巴马掀起了“对资本的战争”。事实上,美国的资本税与其用于没收充公,不如说其使用含混不明。其最高企业所得税税率高达39.2%(包括州政府和当地政府所征税收),居发达国家之首,不过由于存在漏洞,大多数公司最终付的税率为27.6%,接近于英国的实际税率27.4%,低于德国的实际税率31.6%。美国的资本利得税税率为15%,比很多国家都要低。尽管罗姆尼更热衷于维护资本,他和奥巴马都认为有必要进行改革。这不像一场战争,反而只是一场小争论罢了。The more interesting fight is going on within economics. For a generation, the professions message on capital taxes has been simple: the lower the better. Most economists would prefer no tax on capital income at all. This seeming fanaticism is rooted in sensible models, developed in the 1970s and 1980s and built on a pleasing simplicity. Taxation inevitably involves trade-offs. Governments tax in order to fund public goods and limit inequality, but taxes are no free lunch. People and businesses respond—a tax on carrots, say, reduces carrot consumption—and these responses distort the economy and may reduce its potential growth rate.经济学内部发生了更有趣的争执。一代以来,经济学家对于资本税的看法十分简单:税率越低越好。大多数经济学家根本不持对资本收入征税。这种表面上的狂热植根于一些实用模型,它们于20世纪70年代到80年代发展起来,其基本特征是简洁,因此令人愉悦。税收不可避免地涉及了交换。政府征税是为了提供公共产品和限制收入不公,然而税收并非免费的午餐。个人和企业会提供反响,例如,对胡萝卜征税会减少胡萝卜的消费量,而这些反应使得经济扭曲,并有可能减少经济的潜在增长率。In these models, inequality was seen as a problem of pay differences, best addressed through taxes on labour incomes. Taxes on capital were reckoned to have large costs. Capital, or savings invested in new production, raises future growth and consumption. If a tax on capital income discourages investment, that impact compounds indefinitely into the future. As a result, zero tax on capital income should be preferred, even by individuals who dont earn any such income. Economists became vocal in calling for reduced tax rates, and policymakers responded. Top capital-income tax rates in America and Britain fell by more than half from the 1950s to the 1980s. There is pressure to go further.在这些模型中,人们认为收入的不一致导致出现了不公正,而解决这个问题的最好方法就是向劳力收入征税。资本税会产生巨额成本。资本,或者投入新生产的储蓄能够在未来带来经济增长和消费。若对资本收入征税会减少投资,其影响将有可能渗入到未来。这么一来,人们更乐于选择对资本收入征收零税收,即使对于那些并没有资本收入的人来说也是如此。经济学家强烈呼吁削减税率,并得到了政策制定者的回应。在20世纪50年代到80年代间,英美两国的最高资本收入税率下降了超过一半。若施加更多压力,还能降得更多。But some economists are questioning the prevailing view, not least because reductions in capital-tax rates appear to have delivered more inequality than growth. In a 2008 paper, Juan Carlos Conesa of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sagiri Kitao of the University of Southern California and Dirk Krueger of the University of Pennsylvania argued that taxing capital was “not a bad idea after all”. Capital markets are imperfect, they observe, and households are unable to insure themselves against all of lifes ups and downs. Taxing away some of the return to capital to provide social insurance against risks is appropriate.不过一些经济学家正在质疑这种盛行的观点,其理由不仅仅是因为资本税率的减少似乎并未带来多少增长,反而扩大了不公正的发生。在一份2008年发布的论文上,巴塞罗那自治大学的Juan Carlos Conesa, 南加利福尼亚大学的Sagiri Kitao 以及宾夕法尼亚大学的Dirk Krueger争论说,对资本收入“绝不是一个坏主意”。在他们看来,资本市场是不完美的,单个家庭自身无力保能够有效应对生命中的大起大落。因此通过征税拿走一部分资本收益,用以提供社会保障和抵御风险是合情合理的。That is because the growth costs of capital taxes are overestimated. The old models contend that capital supply is highly sensitive to changes in tax policy, and that a zero tax rate is needed to prevent capital from drying up over the long run. This looks unrealistic, the authors reckon. Most capital-income taxes are paid by working-age adults saving for retirement, who will continue to save despite taxes. Stubborn savers make for a stable supply of investment capital, limiting the impact of taxes on growth. In the authors estimation, a 36% capital-income tax rate is justified.之所以发生这种情况,是因为资本税收的增长成本被高估了。旧模型坚持认为资本供给对税收政策的变化极其敏感,因此需要实行零税收以防止长期里资本陷入枯竭。作者们认为,这种说法是不切实际的。大多数资本收入税收是由在职成年人付,用以积蓄养老,即便收税他们仍然会维持这种储蓄。坚定不移的储蓄者保了投资性资本的稳定供给,这样就限制了税收对于经济增长带来的影响。在作者的预计中,36%的资本收入税率是公正的。In a new NBER working paper, Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley poke different holes in the conventional view. The old models, they point out, ignore inheritances. In the real world inheritances strongly influence income levels, particularly among the very rich. Mr Romney recently reinforced this very point by exhorting students to borrow from parents if necessary. Taxes on wages and salaries are inadequate to the task of limiting inequality because they punish those who owe high incomes to greater ability and effort, rather than to inheritances. Messrs Piketty and Saez also question the scale of the threat to growth. They point to ratios of capital to output, which are surprisingly stable over time despite tax swings. Their model finds that the optimal tax rate on inheritance could be 50-60% or more.在一份新的美国国家经济研究局(NBER)的工作报告中,巴黎经济学院的Thomas Piketty 和加利福尼亚大学伯克利分校的Emmanuel Saez 在传统的观点中找到了另外一些漏洞。他们指出,旧模型忽略了遗产的因素。在现实世界里,遗产强烈影响了收入水平,尤其是对于那些巨富来说更是如此。罗姆尼最近强调了这一点,他规劝学生们有必要的话可以向家长借钱。对工钱或薪水征税不足以限制收入不公,因为这些税收对因自身能力和努力工作而获得高收入的人造成了损害,反而放过了因遗产而暴富的人。Messrs Piketty 和Saez同样质疑了经济增长是否真的受到了那么大程度的威胁。他们显示了资本对产量的比率,发现就算税率变动,这一比率却能长期保持平稳,令人惊异。他们的模型发现对遗产征收的最佳税率能达到50%到60%,甚至更多。Inheritance taxes are a minor source of government money, accounting for less than one percentage point of the 8-9% of GDP in revenues that Messrs Piketty and Saez estimate is raised by capital taxes. But taxing capital gains or corporate income, which is responsible for much of the rest, is also justifiable, they say. The often-fuzzy line between income from capital and labour means a large gap in relative tax rates breeds tax avoidance. When wage taxes are high and capital taxes are low, firms simply shift compensation from salaries to stock options and dividends, cutting revenue without boosting growth. All told, capital-tax rates as high or higher than those on labour may make sense, they think.遗产税只是政府收入中极小的一个来源,在国内生产总值中占的比例不超过8%到9%,据Messrs Piketty 和Saez预计,征收资本税还可以提高这一收入。他们说,就连对资本增值或者企业所得征税,即资本税包含的另一部分,也是合理的。资本收入和劳力收入之间的界限经常模糊不清,这样在相对税率上产生了很大的差距,容易滋生漏税行为。若工资税高,资本税低,公司会将工资转为股权和红利,以此避免花费,这种行为减少了税收收入,无益于推动经济增长。他们认为,所有据表明,资本税率同劳力税率一样高或者比后者高一点或许是合理的。Pressure valve压力阀A recent paper by Emmanuel Farhi of Harvard University, Christopher Sleet and Sevin Yeltekin of Carnegie Mellon University, and Ivan Werning of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology makes another argument against abolition. The authors point out that rising inequality is a destabilising political force, which may encourage future governments to expropriate wealth through heavy taxation. That threat could discourage saving and investment now, something a weak economy cannot afford. Paradoxically, a progressive tax on capital in the present may lead to more investment by keeping inequality in check and by convincing firms that their wealth is (mostly) safe over the long term.由哈佛大学的Emmanuel Farhi,卡内基梅隆大学的Christopher Sleet 和Sevin Yeltekin 以及麻省理工学院的Ivan Werning发表的一篇论文中针对取消资本税提出了另一项反。这些作者指出,愈演愈烈的收入不公会造成政治不稳定,这样就会促使政府在未来通过征收重税来剥夺财富。这种威胁可能会对现在的储蓄和投资产生不利影响,而该影响是当前疲软的经济所无法承受的。矛盾的是,现在对资本渐进地征税或许会导致更多的投资,一方面,它能限制收入不公,另一方面,它可以使公司确信他们的财富在长期大部分都是安全的。Fretting over high capital-tax rates still makes sense, not least because capital is highly mobile. If countries differ in their approach, firms may simply invest more in those with more congenial rates. But from a global perspective, as inequality rises, having taxes on capital income will look increasingly attractive—and, by some reckonings, more sensible than previously thought.为了高资本税率烦恼不堪仍然是有道理的,尤其是因为资本具有高度的流动性。如若各国采取的政策不同,那么公司或许会仅仅凭借国家税率的友好程度选择投资方向。然而站在全球视角上来看,对资本收入征税看上去越来越吸引人了,并且在某些人看来,这比我们之前想的要合理多了。 /201305/238578上饶韩美美容医院激光去斑手术多少钱铅山县曼托丰胸的价格



上饶市中医医院激光去掉雀斑多少钱 上饶市第二人民医院纹眉毛多少钱百度生活 [详细]
江西省韩美整形医院做抽脂手术多少钱 上饶铁路医院治疗痘坑多少钱 [详细]
上饶韩美医院做双眼皮手术 最新优惠上饶县脂肪丰胸价格国际门户 [详细]
挂号养生江西省韩美整形医院做隆鼻手术多少钱 上饶哪里做上眼皮好排名共享上饶隆鼻手术多少费用 [详细]