2. 外语
  3. There is, of course, no reason in logic why a transaction that involves moving goods across a border should be treated different

There is, of course, no reason in logic why a transaction that involves moving goods across a border should be treated different

admin2016-01-05  69
问题     There is, of course, no reason in logic why a transaction that involves moving goods across a border should be treated differently from a transaction within a border. Throughout history, states have also had recourse(求助)to taxes on domestic transactions. Ancient Athens had an excise on sales of slaves. Rome had a similar 4 percent sales tax, as well as a tax on the manumission(解放)of slaves and a 1 percent sales tax on other goods. In medieval France the Ordonance of December 1360 "revolutionized" royal finance by imposing a duty(the gabelle)on salt and aides of 5 percent on the sale of most commodities apart from wine, which was taxed at a higher rate(at first 8, later 5 percent). Renaissance Florence depended for a fifth of its revenue on a similar salt duty, levied at the city’s gates. Habsburg Castile had the alcabala, a 10 percent sales tax. Even before the introduction of the vodka monopoly, the excise on spirits was one of the Russian state’s principal sources of revenue, accounting for as much a third of the total in 1815.
    Few states in history have relied as heavily on the taxation of domestic consumption as Hanoverian Britain; and this is of particular interest as it was the regime that presided over the first industrial revolution. In fact, the excise-defined succinctly in Dr. Johnson’s dictionary as "a hateful tax levied upon commodities" — had its origins in the Stuart period: Charles I had levied duties on cloth, starch, soap, spectacles, gold and silver wire and playing cards; and in 1643, parliament had introduced excises on tobacco, wine, cider, beer, furs, hats, leather, lace, linen and imported silks. By 1660, excises were also being levied on salt, saffron, hops, lead tin, iron and glass. In the course of the next hundred years, these taxes became the British state’s principal source of revenue. To help finance the war with revolutionary France, the Younger Pitt added hats, gloves, mittens, perfumery, shops and female servants to the list of dutiable goods, to say nothing of bricks, horses and hunting. By the end of the Napoleonic wars, it seemed that scarcely anything in Britain was not taxed.
We can infer from Paragraph 1 that______.
选项 A、it will be equal to import and export in a country
B、we will treat the goods of inland as well as the outland
C、we’ll appeal to the export goods and business
D、every person likes goods across a border
答案A
解析 本文一开始，作者就说没理由把国内贸易和外贸区别对待，由此可知，答案为A)“国家应平等对待进口和出口”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/9OQ7777K
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)