推 heine564:感謝Dustin! 08/15 14:23
→ heine564:我的理解是這樣 不知道對不對 除非選項理的答案發生 08/15 14:24
→ heine564:否則Cycle不會發生， 所以選項的答案變成是一種前提? 08/15 14:25
→ heine564:選項 → cycle 08/15 14:25
推 dounts:沒錯 這是前提 這題有點像 assumption 08/15 14:53
※ 引述《heine564 (築夢踏實)》之銘言：
: When people evade income taxes by not declaring taxable income, a vicious
: cycle results. Tax evasion forces lawmakers to raise income tax rates, which
: causes the tax burden on nonevading taxpayers to become heavier. This, in
: turn, encourages even more taxpayers to evade income taxes by hiding taxable
: income.
: The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the
: following were true?
問前提。
循環式：逃稅-政府收不到錢-提高稅率-高稅率讓更多人逃稅-政府再度提高稅率...
: (A) An increase in tax rates tends to function as an incentive for taxpayers
: to try to increase their pretax incomes.
"提高收入"x提高的稅率=政府收到更多的錢 這樣政府就不會再度提高稅率
循環不會發生。
: (B) Some methods for detecting tax evaders, and thus recovering some tax
: revenue lost through evasion, bring in more than they cost, but their success
: rate varies from year to year.
1.抓逃漏稅的成功率"varies"，這種模糊的詞基本上不能證明什麼
難以拿來當做前提
況且跟這個題目無關
2.抓逃漏稅(扣掉成本後)可以補回來一些錢，
政府就比較不會因為缺錢再度提高稅率。
: (C) When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain
: level of revenue, they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost
: through evasion.
"制定稅率時沒有考慮到'逃稅'這個因素"
將此取非->若是有預先考慮到逃稅這個因素而制定稅率，
那麼當逃稅發生時，因為這個因素已經預先被考慮了，
所以稅率不會因此再調整。取非反駁結論
-選c
: (D) No one who routinely hides some taxable income can be induced by a
: lowering of tax rates to stop hiding such income unless fines for evaders are
: raised at the same time.
另外一面的循環是否成立與題目無關。
ex.給獎勵學生會認真讀書不代表給處罰學生會懶惰不讀書
: (E) Taxpayers do not differ from each other with respect to the rate of
: taxation that will cause them to evade taxes.
taxpayers在題目中被視為一個整體，
沒有必要比較taxpayers之間個體的關係。
Dustin
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 1.162.9.46