网友您好， 请在下方输入框内输入要搜索的题目：
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
The European Commission's proposed tax on digital services is intended to make companies such as Google and Uber pay more.The idea is that such firms are gaming the rules at the expense of other taxpayers.The issue is real and needs to be addressed-but the answer under discussion breaks with both established international practice and plain common sense.Formal talks on the plan are due to start this week.The commission is calling for a 3 percent tax on the turnover of large digital enterprises-those with EU digital revenues over 50 million euros and total global revenues of over 750 million euros.About half the companies affected would be American,the EU estimates.The commission says it has been left with little choice.The value generated by digital companies doesn't require a physical presence,making them harder to rax.Digital businesses arrange their affairs to exploit this:They allocate income to low-tax jurisdictions and,according to officials,end up paying an effective tax of roughly 10 percent of profits,less than half of the burden carried by traditional businesses.Officials acknowledge that the right solution is a thorough overhaul of the corporate tax code,especially as it affects international firms selling digital services-and that this should be done not unilaterally but in cooperation with other countries,notably the U.S.Efforts are in fact underway,but progress has been slow,and EU officials have chosen to do something,anything,as soon as possible.Doing nothing would be better than this.For a start,the plan wouldn't raise much revenue-a meager 5 billion euros each year.And this supposedly fairer tax would bring abnormal results.For instance,companies such as Uber that don't make money will have a new cost to absorb;highly profitable firms with market power,such as Facebook,will be able to pass the tax on to their consumers.Small startups will be exempt from the new tax-unless they're acquired by larger companies.That will discourage consolidations.And the proposal as it stands may tax more activities than intended:Some financial services,for example,seem to be within its scope In its zeal to tax digital enterprises,the commission departs from many of its own stated principles.Its plan would probably require accessing individual,not just anonymized,user data.This runs counter to the EU's strict new rules on privacy,coming into force next month.Efforts to design a multinational solution need to be stepped up,not set aside.The goal should be a fair,multilateral framework that recognizes the complexity of the new digital economy while respecting the sovereignty of nations to set their own tax policy.That's an international challenge demanding an international solution.
The author's attiiude toward EU's new tax plan is one of
The author's attiiude toward EU's new tax plan is one of
A.slight hesitation.
B.strong disapproval.
C.reserved consent.
D.enthusiastic support.
B.strong disapproval.
C.reserved consent.
D.enthusiastic support.
参考答案
参考解析
解析：文章首段即指出“欧盟数字税脱离既有国际惯例，又背离显见的常理”，随后五、六段直言“什么都不做也比施行数字税好”，指出“数字税无益于增加政府税收且会打击低利润公司、伤害消费者、阻碍企业合并、波及计划外活动，更背离其隐私新规”，最后于末段提出“应加紧努力建立多边体系”，可见，作者对“欧盟单独行动——数字税计划”的态度是“强烈反对的”，B.正确。[解题技巧]A.、C.、D.由首段②句及第三、四段信息“数字公司钻现行税法空子、致使税负不均，而国际层面上公司税改革进展缓慢”臆断出作者对欧盟数字税持“犹疑、大致赞同、甚至支持”的态度，但作者实际观点为“改革公司税法势在必行，但欧盟单方面行动不可取，应该积极推进国际解决方案”。
更多 “The European Commission's proposed tax on digital services is intended to make companies such as Google and Uber pay more.The idea is that such firms are gaming the rules at the expense of other taxpayers.The issue is real and needs to be addressed-but the answer under discussion breaks with both established international practice and plain common sense.Formal talks on the plan are due to start this week.The commission is calling for a 3 percent tax on the turnover of large digital enterprises-those with EU digital revenues over 50 million euros and total global revenues of over 750 million euros.About half the companies affected would be American,the EU estimates.The commission says it has been left with little choice.The value generated by digital companies doesn't require a physical presence,making them harder to rax.Digital businesses arrange their affairs to exploit this:They allocate income to low-tax jurisdictions and,according to officials,end up paying an effective tax of roughly 10 percent of profits,less than half of the burden carried by traditional businesses.Officials acknowledge that the right solution is a thorough overhaul of the corporate tax code,especially as it affects international firms selling digital services-and that this should be done not unilaterally but in cooperation with other countries,notably the U.S.Efforts are in fact underway,but progress has been slow,and EU officials have chosen to do something,anything,as soon as possible.Doing nothing would be better than this.For a start,the plan wouldn't raise much revenue-a meager 5 billion euros each year.And this supposedly fairer tax would bring abnormal results.For instance,companies such as Uber that don't make money will have a new cost to absorb;highly profitable firms with market power,such as Facebook,will be able to pass the tax on to their consumers.Small startups will be exempt from the new tax-unless they're acquired by larger companies.That will discourage consolidations.And the proposal as it stands may tax more activities than intended:Some financial services,for example,seem to be within its scope In its zeal to tax digital enterprises,the commission departs from many of its own stated principles.Its plan would probably require accessing individual,not just anonymized,user data.This runs counter to the EU's strict new rules on privacy,coming into force next month.Efforts to design a multinational solution need to be stepped up,not set aside.The goal should be a fair,multilateral framework that recognizes the complexity of the new digital economy while respecting the sovereignty of nations to set their own tax policy.That's an international challenge demanding an international solution. The author's attiiude toward EU's new tax plan is one ofA.slight hesitation. B.strong disapproval. C.reserved consent. D.enthusiastic support.” 相关考题
考题
The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.
The author's attitude toward the commcssion's decision isA.cautious.
B.ambiguous.
C.sarcastic.
D.supportive.
考题
The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.
In responding to the commission's decision,Google argues thatA.the fine is too heavy Ior the company to pay.
B.the smartphone market is highly competitive.
C.the company ought to control most of Android.
D.Apple is more likely to constitute a monopoly.
考题
The European Commission's proposed tax on digital services is intended to make companies such as Google and Uber pay more.The idea is that such firms are gaming the rules at the expense of other taxpayers.The issue is real and needs to be addressed-but the answer under discussion breaks with both established international practice and plain common sense.Formal talks on the plan are due to start this week.The commission is calling for a 3 percent tax on the turnover of large digital enterprises-those with EU digital revenues over 50 million euros and total global revenues of over 750 million euros.About half the companies affected would be American,the EU estimates.The commission says it has been left with little choice.The value generated by digital companies doesn't require a physical presence,making them harder to rax.Digital businesses arrange their affairs to exploit this:They allocate income to low-tax jurisdictions and,according to officials,end up paying an effective tax of roughly 10 percent of profits,less than half of the burden carried by traditional businesses.Officials acknowledge that the right solution is a thorough overhaul of the corporate tax code,especially as it affects international firms selling digital services-and that this should be done not unilaterally but in cooperation with other countries,notably the U.S.Efforts are in fact underway,but progress has been slow,and EU officials have chosen to do something,anything,as soon as possible.Doing nothing would be better than this.For a start,the plan wouldn't raise much revenue-a meager 5 billion euros each year.And this supposedly fairer tax would bring abnormal results.For instance,companies such as Uber that don't make money will have a new cost to absorb;highly profitable firms with market power,such as Facebook,will be able to pass the tax on to their consumers.Small startups will be exempt from the new tax-unless they're acquired by larger companies.That will discourage consolidations.And the proposal as it stands may tax more activities than intended:Some financial services,for example,seem to be within its scope In its zeal to tax digital enterprises,the commission departs from many of its own stated principles.Its plan would probably require accessing individual,not just anonymized,user data.This runs counter to the EU's strict new rules on privacy,coming into force next month.Efforts to design a multinational solution need to be stepped up,not set aside.The goal should be a fair,multilateral framework that recognizes the complexity of the new digital economy while respecting the sovereignty of nations to set their own tax policy.That's an international challenge demanding an international solution.
What is the ultimate goal that digital tax legislation should pursue?A.Efficient unilateral solution.s.
B.Simplified corporate tax systems
C.A global cooperative approach
D.An anti-tax avoidance package
考题
The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.
The phrase"a rap over the knuckles"（I.ine l.Para.1）is closest in meaning toA.a not-very-severe punishment.
B.a nol-very-correci explanaiion.
C.a heavy fine.
D.a false charge.
考题
The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.
Which of the following is true of Google's licensing trick?A.It is of great use to some users,but of little use to others.
B.It offers many enticing functions to Android users for free.
C.It imposes a restriction on manufacturers'choice of apps
D.It may help Google escape punishment from the commission.
考题
The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy.
Google gives away certain software toA.respond actively io the commission's decision.
B.make itself easily accessible to advertisers.
C.draw people into its advertising ecosystem.
D.avoid distractions from its core business.
考题
The European Commission's proposed tax on digital services is intended to make companies such as Google and Uber pay more.The idea is that such firms are gaming the rules at the expense of other taxpayers.The issue is real and needs to be addressed-but the answer under discussion breaks with both established international practice and plain common sense.Formal talks on the plan are due to start this week.The commission is calling for a 3 percent tax on the turnover of large digital enterprises-those with EU digital revenues over 50 million euros and total global revenues of over 750 million euros.About half the companies affected would be American,the EU estimates.The commission says it has been left with little choice.The value generated by digital companies doesn't require a physical presence,making them harder to rax.Digital businesses arrange their affairs to exploit this:They allocate income to low-tax jurisdictions and,according to officials,end up paying an effective tax of roughly 10 percent of profits,less than half of the burden carried by traditional businesses.Officials acknowledge that the right solution is a thorough overhaul of the corporate tax code,especially as it affects international firms selling digital services-and that this should be done not unilaterally but in cooperation with other countries,notably the U.S.Efforts are in fact underway,but progress has been slow,and EU officials have chosen to do something,anything,as soon as possible.Doing nothing would be better than this.For a start,the plan wouldn't raise much revenue-a meager 5 billion euros each year.And this supposedly fairer tax would bring abnormal results.For instance,companies such as Uber that don't make money will have a new cost to absorb;highly profitable firms with market power,such as Facebook,will be able to pass the tax on to their consumers.Small startups will be exempt from the new tax-unless they're acquired by larger companies.That will discourage consolidations.And the proposal as it stands may tax more activities than intended:Some financial services,for example,seem to be within its scope In its zeal to tax digital enterprises,the commission departs from many of its own stated principles.Its plan would probably require accessing individual,not just anonymized,user data.This runs counter to the EU's strict new rules on privacy,coming into force next month.Efforts to design a multinational solution need to be stepped up,not set aside.The goal should be a fair,multilateral framework that recognizes the complexity of the new digital economy while respecting the sovereignty of nations to set their own tax policy.That's an international challenge demanding an international solution.
To which of the following would EU officials most probably agree?A.Traditional business lax cut is necessary in the digital era.
B.The pace of global corporate tax reform is too slow.
C.Europe should reduce the number of Iow-tax jurisdictions.
D.Corporate tax code is being revised in favor of the U,S.
考题
The European Commission's proposed tax on digital services is intended to make companies such as Google and Uber pay more.The idea is that such firms are gaming the rules at the expense of other taxpayers.The issue is real and needs to be addressed-but the answer under discussion breaks with both established international practice and plain common sense.Formal talks on the plan are due to start this week.The commission is calling for a 3 percent tax on the turnover of large digital enterprises-those with EU digital revenues over 50 million euros and total global revenues of over 750 million euros.About half the companies affected would be American,the EU estimates.The commission says it has been left with little choice.The value generated by digital companies doesn't require a physical presence,making them harder to rax.Digital businesses arrange their affairs to exploit this:They allocate income to low-tax jurisdictions and,according to officials,end up paying an effective tax of roughly 10 percent of profits,less than half of the burden carried by traditional businesses.Officials acknowledge that the right solution is a thorough overhaul of the corporate tax code,especially as it affects international firms selling digital services-and that this should be done not unilaterally but in cooperation with other countries,notably the U.S.Efforts are in fact underway,but progress has been slow,and EU officials have chosen to do something,anything,as soon as possible.Doing nothing would be better than this.For a start,the plan wouldn't raise much revenue-a meager 5 billion euros each year.And this supposedly fairer tax would bring abnormal results.For instance,companies such as Uber that don't make money will have a new cost to absorb;highly profitable firms with market power,such as Facebook,will be able to pass the tax on to their consumers.Small startups will be exempt from the new tax-unless they're acquired by larger companies.That will discourage consolidations.And the proposal as it stands may tax more activities than intended:Some financial services,for example,seem to be within its scope In its zeal to tax digital enterprises,the commission departs from many of its own stated principles.Its plan would probably require accessing individual,not just anonymized,user data.This runs counter to the EU's strict new rules on privacy,coming into force next month.Efforts to design a multinational solution need to be stepped up,not set aside.The goal should be a fair,multilateral framework that recognizes the complexity of the new digital economy while respecting the sovereignty of nations to set their own tax policy.That's an international challenge demanding an international solution.
According to the first two paragraphs,the EU digital tax proposalA.protects European industries from competition.
B.aims to updaic esiablished international practice.
C.is a blow to top digital companies.
D.binds only America's tech giants.
考题
The European Commission's proposed tax on digital services is intended to make companies such as Google and Uber pay more.The idea is that such firms are gaming the rules at the expense of other taxpayers.The issue is real and needs to be addressed-but the answer under discussion breaks with both established international practice and plain common sense.Formal talks on the plan are due to start this week.The commission is calling for a 3 percent tax on the turnover of large digital enterprises-those with EU digital revenues over 50 million euros and total global revenues of over 750 million euros.About half the companies affected would be American,the EU estimates.The commission says it has been left with little choice.The value generated by digital companies doesn't require a physical presence,making them harder to rax.Digital businesses arrange their affairs to exploit this:They allocate income to low-tax jurisdictions and,according to officials,end up paying an effective tax of roughly 10 percent of profits,less than half of the burden carried by traditional businesses.Officials acknowledge that the right solution is a thorough overhaul of the corporate tax code,especially as it affects international firms selling digital services-and that this should be done not unilaterally but in cooperation with other countries,notably the U.S.Efforts are in fact underway,but progress has been slow,and EU officials have chosen to do something,anything,as soon as possible.Doing nothing would be better than this.For a start,the plan wouldn't raise much revenue-a meager 5 billion euros each year.And this supposedly fairer tax would bring abnormal results.For instance,companies such as Uber that don't make money will have a new cost to absorb;highly profitable firms with market power,such as Facebook,will be able to pass the tax on to their consumers.Small startups will be exempt from the new tax-unless they're acquired by larger companies.That will discourage consolidations.And the proposal as it stands may tax more activities than intended:Some financial services,for example,seem to be within its scope In its zeal to tax digital enterprises,the commission departs from many of its own stated principles.Its plan would probably require accessing individual,not just anonymized,user data.This runs counter to the EU's strict new rules on privacy,coming into force next month.Efforts to design a multinational solution need to be stepped up,not set aside.The goal should be a fair,multilateral framework that recognizes the complexity of the new digital economy while respecting the sovereignty of nations to set their own tax policy.That's an international challenge demanding an international solution.
The author believes ihat the commission's tax plan wouldA.ultimately harm consumers
B.benefit some financial services
C.help curb monopoly power
D.force privacy rules to be modified.
考题
Text 3 The past five years have been a bad time to be a taxpayer in Europe.Across the continent,govemments have relied heavily on tax rises to cut budget deficits,increasing the total burden by almost 5%of GDP in France and Greece.But rather than raise taxes any further,many countries are startin8 to cut them.The European Commission reckons that the euro zone's tax-to-GDP ratio stabilised in 2013 and is now falliry;.In January France announced plans to cut payroll taxes by 30 billion.This month Italy unveiled income-tax cuts worth 10 billion for those earning less than 25,000 a year.This week Britain proposed tax cuts for most people on low or medium incomes.Ireland and Sptun are also planning tax cuts later this year.Lower taxes may be popular,but how are such giveaways being financed?Few countries have Lhe scope to borrow much more.The commission has criticised France and Spain for repeatedly missing their deficit-reduction targets,though it is not taking action agsunst them.Italy's high level of public debt,which hit 133%of GDP in 2013,has also landed it on the commission's fiscal"watch list".Instead,most countries plan to pay for their tax proposals with public-spending cuts.Italy says it will reduce spendirg by an extra 7 billion this year and save a further 2.2 billion thanks to lower yields on its debt-though these figures may prove optimistic.The politician8 hope that lower taxes will boost growth.As euro-zone countries cannot devalue or lower their own interest rates,tax cuts are one of the few ways of trimming business costs fast,says Guillaume Menuet at Citigroup.France and Italy both hope to improve their competitiveness by reducing the tax"wedge"between employers'costs and what workers actually take home.In 2012 this tax take reached nearly 50%of the payroll biU in France and Italy,against an OECD average of just 36%.Some economists doubt that cutting income tax,Italy's approach,is the best way forward.Instead,they favour slashing Europe's high employer-paid socild security charges,as France proposes to do.Ihis would directly lower labour costs,encouraging companies to hire extra workers as well as to increase their invesLmenl.That would aLso give a welcome boost to growth.
France and Spain have been blamed for_____A.borrowing too much debt
B.failing to pay the loans back
C.planning to cut domestic taxes
D.being unable to reduce Lheir deficit
考题
Text 4 The EU's faltering progress towards a common system of taxing the huge revenues of the new digital giants lurched forward this morning as Margrethe Vestager,the EU commissioner in charge of competition,declared that Amazon had received unfair state aid from Luxembourg through its tax arrangements,and demanded that it pay￡250m in back taxes.At the same time,Ms Vestager announced that the European commission would haul Ireland up before the European court of justice for its failure to demand￡13bn of unpaid tax from Apple,identi{ied in an earlier investigation.The lwo events illusrrate the gulf between the commission,together with some of the EU's iargest economies,and smaller members such as Ireland and Luxembourg.Both Ireland and Luxembourg defend their tax arrangements.Ireland in particular welcomes the thousands of goocl jobs that the tech giants bring and has no desire to find ways of extracting more tax from thcm in case it drives them away.The Irish government also insists that taxation is a sovereign matter,not an arena for EU interference.（ ）thers are under pressure from voters who are outraged that any company can make so much profit in their country and pay so little tax on it.Revenue from Facebook's UK operations,it has emerged,nearly quadrupled last year t0 842m,through growth in digital ad sales;its corporation tax bill crept up from 4.2m t0 5.Im.The US inland revenue service is also keen to find transparent ways of taxing the new digital economy,and is watching jealously as the European commission draws up its plans,suspicious of any move that might be used by the tech giants to offset their US tax bills.Already,companies such as Google and Amazon hold billions of dollars in offshore funds,where ihey are out of reach of the taxman.The US defensiveness about its own tax revenues points to the need for a global rather than a merely European solution to the question of how,what and whcre to tax the digital economy,but progress through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development（OECD）is glacial,and would in any event only be advisory.The commission is still hoping to get agreement on a common corporate tax base that would help to identify the parameters of any new tax system,but progress has stalled because of complexities around double taxation.Meanwhile the American Chamber of Commerce in Europe（ACCE）is warning that any attempt to tax the tech giants more would threaten investment and expansion.But across most of the EU discontent is growing,not just over the failure to pay tax-which has already prompted some tech companies to become more transparent,and even pay more-but over many of their practices.The chief executive of the ride-hailing app Uber has been in London this week trying to patch up relations with Transport for London（TfL）.Margrethe Vestager is right:enforcing regulations works.
The U.S.'s close attention to EU's tax plan making is mentioned to stress_____A.the OECD's failure to fulfill its obligation
B.Google and Amazon's success outside the U.S.
C.U.S.'s jealousy in European progress in tax reform
D.the universality of digital economy taxation problem
考题
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.
The author argues that regulators should_____A.leave room for dominant companies to innovate
B.help small companies enhance competitiveness
C.encourage companies to increase product variety
D.prohibit featuring services on company platforms
考题
Text 3 The power and ambition of the giants of the digital economy is astonishing—Amazon has just announced the purchase of the upmarket grocery chain Whole Foods for$13.5bn，but two years ago Facebook paid even more than that to acquire the WhatsApp messaging service，which doesn’t have any physical product at all.What WhatsApp offered Facebook was an intricate and finely detailed web of its users’friendships and social lives.Facebook promised the European commission then that it would not link phone numbers to Facebook identities，but it broke the promise almost as soon as the deal went through.Even without knowing what was in the messages，the knowledge of who sent them and to whom was enormously revealing and still could be.What political journalist，what party whip，would not want to know the makeup of the WhatsApp groups in which Theresa May’s enemies are currently plotting?It may be that the value of Whole Foods to Amazon is not so much the 460 shops it owns,but the records of which customers have purchased what.Competition law appears to be the only way to address these imbalances of power.But it is clumsy.For one thing,it is very slow compared to the pace of change within the digital economy.By the time a problem has been addressed and remedied it may have vanished in the marketplace,to be replaced by new abuses of power.But there is a deeper conceptual problem,too.Competition law as presently interpreted deals with financial disadvantage to consumers and this is not obvious when the users of these services don’t pay for them.The users of their services are not their customers.That would be the people who buy advertising from them—and Facebook and Google，the two virtual giants，dominate digital advertising to the disadvantage of all other media and entertainment companies.The product they’re selling is data，and we，the users，convert our lives to data for the benefit of the digital giants.Just as some ants farm the bugs called aphids for the honeydew they produce when they feed,so Google farms us for the data that our digital lives yield.Ants keep predatory insects away from where their aphids feed;Gmail keeps the spammers out of our inboxes.It doesn’t feel like a human or democratic relationship，even if both sides benefit.
Linking phone numbers to Facebook identities may_____A.worsen political disputes
B.mess up customer records
C.pose a risk to Facebook users
D.mislead the European commission
考题
Text 2 Economic refugees have traditionally lined up to get into America.lAtely,they have been lining up to leave.In the past few months,half a dozen biggish comparues have announced plans to merge with foreign partners and in the process move their corporate homes abroad.The motive is simple:corporate taxes are lower in Ireland,Britain and,for that matter,almost everywhere else than they are in America.In Washington,D.C.,policymakers have reacted wiLh indignation.Jack Lew,the treasury secretary,has quesLioned che companies'patriotism and called on Congress to outlaw such transactions.His fellow Democrats are eager to oblige,and some Republicans are willing to listen.The proposals are misguided.Tightening the rules on corporate"inversions",as these moves are called,does nothing to deal with the reason why so many firms want to leave:America has the rich world's most dysfunctional corporate-tax system.It needs fundamental reform,not new complications.America's corporate tax has two horrible flaws.The first is the tax rate,which at 35%is the lughest among the 34 mostly rich-country members of the OECD.Yet it raises less revenue than the OECD average ihanks to countless loopholes and tax breaks aimed at everything from machinery investment to NASCAR race tracks.Last year these breaks cost$150 billion in forgone revenue,more than half of what America collected in total corporate taxes.The second flaw is that America levies lax on a company's income no matter where in the world it is eamed.In contrast,every other large rich country taxes only income eamed within its borders.Here,too,America's system is absurdly ineffective at collecting money.Firms do not have to pay tax on foreign profits until Lhey bring them back home.Not surprisingly,many do not:American multinationals have some$2 trillion sittiry;on their foreign units'balance-sheets,and growing.All this imposes big costs on the economy.The high rate discourages investment and loopholes distort it,because decisions are driven by tax considerations rather than a project's economic merits.The tax rate companies actually pay varies wildly,depending on cheir type of business and the creativity of their lawyers:some pay close to zero,others the fuU 35%.But as other countries chopped their rates and America's stayed the same,the incentive to flee grew.A possible solution is to lower the corporate rate,eliminate tax breaks and move America from a worldwide system to a territonal one.
We can infer from Paragraph 4 that______A.some tax reduction in America might be irrational
B.most rich countries in OECD have sound tax systems
C.America's corporate tax rale is the highesL in the world
D.American firms raise less revenue than other countries
考题
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.
Which of the following statements about virtual monopolies is true?A.They are increasingly denied by the public.
B.They are facing great pressure of innovation.
C.They are attempting to cooperate with start-ups.
D.They are suffering badly from the network effect.
考题
Text 4 The EU's faltering progress towards a common system of taxing the huge revenues of the new digital giants lurched forward this morning as Margrethe Vestager,the EU commissioner in charge of competition,declared that Amazon had received unfair state aid from Luxembourg through its tax arrangements,and demanded that it pay￡250m in back taxes.At the same time,Ms Vestager announced that the European commission would haul Ireland up before the European court of justice for its failure to demand￡13bn of unpaid tax from Apple,identi{ied in an earlier investigation.The lwo events illusrrate the gulf between the commission,together with some of the EU's iargest economies,and smaller members such as Ireland and Luxembourg.Both Ireland and Luxembourg defend their tax arrangements.Ireland in particular welcomes the thousands of goocl jobs that the tech giants bring and has no desire to find ways of extracting more tax from thcm in case it drives them away.The Irish government also insists that taxation is a sovereign matter,not an arena for EU interference.（ ）thers are under pressure from voters who are outraged that any company can make so much profit in their country and pay so little tax on it.Revenue from Facebook's UK operations,it has emerged,nearly quadrupled last year t0 842m,through growth in digital ad sales;its corporation tax bill crept up from 4.2m t0 5.Im.The US inland revenue service is also keen to find transparent ways of taxing the new digital economy,and is watching jealously as the European commission draws up its plans,suspicious of any move that might be used by the tech giants to offset their US tax bills.Already,companies such as Google and Amazon hold billions of dollars in offshore funds,where ihey are out of reach of the taxman.The US defensiveness about its own tax revenues points to the need for a global rather than a merely European solution to the question of how,what and whcre to tax the digital economy,but progress through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development（OECD）is glacial,and would in any event only be advisory.The commission is still hoping to get agreement on a common corporate tax base that would help to identify the parameters of any new tax system,but progress has stalled because of complexities around double taxation.Meanwhile the American Chamber of Commerce in Europe（ACCE）is warning that any attempt to tax the tech giants more would threaten investment and expansion.But across most of the EU discontent is growing,not just over the failure to pay tax-which has already prompted some tech companies to become more transparent,and even pay more-but over many of their practices.The chief executive of the ride-hailing app Uber has been in London this week trying to patch up relations with Transport for London（TfL）.Margrethe Vestager is right:enforcing regulations works.
Ireland disagrees with European commission's digital tax reform in that_____A.it would reduce its employment opportunities
B.it fails to respect the will of Irish voters
C.it may widen the gap between rich and poor countries
D.it threatens the sovereignty of weaker countries
考题
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.
The European antitrust law is similar to its American counterpart in——A.the goal to defend the benefits of consumers
B.the principle of protecting market competitors
C.the criteria to decide whether a company is guilty
D.the way to penatize convicted companies
考题
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.
According to Paragraph 2,the author views Google's activity with——.A.sympathy
B.uncertainty
C.appreciation
D.criticism
考题
Text 3 The past five years have been a bad time to be a taxpayer in Europe.Across the continent,govemments have relied heavily on tax rises to cut budget deficits,increasing the total burden by almost 5%of GDP in France and Greece.But rather than raise taxes any further,many countries are startin8 to cut them.The European Commission reckons that the euro zone's tax-to-GDP ratio stabilised in 2013 and is now falliry;.In January France announced plans to cut payroll taxes by 30 billion.This month Italy unveiled income-tax cuts worth 10 billion for those earning less than 25,000 a year.This week Britain proposed tax cuts for most people on low or medium incomes.Ireland and Sptun are also planning tax cuts later this year.Lower taxes may be popular,but how are such giveaways being financed?Few countries have Lhe scope to borrow much more.The commission has criticised France and Spain for repeatedly missing their deficit-reduction targets,though it is not taking action agsunst them.Italy's high level of public debt,which hit 133%of GDP in 2013,has also landed it on the commission's fiscal"watch list".Instead,most countries plan to pay for their tax proposals with public-spending cuts.Italy says it will reduce spendirg by an extra 7 billion this year and save a further 2.2 billion thanks to lower yields on its debt-though these figures may prove optimistic.The politician8 hope that lower taxes will boost growth.As euro-zone countries cannot devalue or lower their own interest rates,tax cuts are one of the few ways of trimming business costs fast,says Guillaume Menuet at Citigroup.France and Italy both hope to improve their competitiveness by reducing the tax"wedge"between employers'costs and what workers actually take home.In 2012 this tax take reached nearly 50%of the payroll biU in France and Italy,against an OECD average of just 36%.Some economists doubt that cutting income tax,Italy's approach,is the best way forward.Instead,they favour slashing Europe's high employer-paid socild security charges,as France proposes to do.Ihis would directly lower labour costs,encouraging companies to hire extra workers as well as to increase their invesLmenl.That would aLso give a welcome boost to growth.
The author's attitude towards France's proposal seems to be_____A.favorable
B.pessinustic
C.doubtful
D.biased
考题
Text 3 The past five years have been a bad time to be a taxpayer in Europe.Across the continent,govemments have relied heavily on tax rises to cut budget deficits,increasing the total burden by almost 5%of GDP in France and Greece.But rather than raise taxes any further,many countries are startin8 to cut them.The European Commission reckons that the euro zone's tax-to-GDP ratio stabilised in 2013 and is now falliry;.In January France announced plans to cut payroll taxes by 30 billion.This month Italy unveiled income-tax cuts worth 10 billion for those earning less than 25,000 a year.This week Britain proposed tax cuts for most people on low or medium incomes.Ireland and Sptun are also planning tax cuts later this year.Lower taxes may be popular,but how are such giveaways being financed?Few countries have Lhe scope to borrow much more.The commission has criticised France and Spain for repeatedly missing their deficit-reduction targets,though it is not taking action agsunst them.Italy's high level of public debt,which hit 133%of GDP in 2013,has also landed it on the commission's fiscal"watch list".Instead,most countries plan to pay for their tax proposals with public-spending cuts.Italy says it will reduce spendirg by an extra 7 billion this year and save a further 2.2 billion thanks to lower yields on its debt-though these figures may prove optimistic.The politician8 hope that lower taxes will boost growth.As euro-zone countries cannot devalue or lower their own interest rates,tax cuts are one of the few ways of trimming business costs fast,says Guillaume Menuet at Citigroup.France and Italy both hope to improve their competitiveness by reducing the tax"wedge"between employers'costs and what workers actually take home.In 2012 this tax take reached nearly 50%of the payroll biU in France and Italy,against an OECD average of just 36%.Some economists doubt that cutting income tax,Italy's approach,is the best way forward.Instead,they favour slashing Europe's high employer-paid socild security charges,as France proposes to do.Ihis would directly lower labour costs,encouraging companies to hire extra workers as well as to increase their invesLmenl.That would aLso give a welcome boost to growth.
It can be inferred from the second paragraph that_______A.all domestic taxes will be cut in France soon
B.lax cut may be a good news to some Britons
C.most people in Italy benefit trom the tax cut
D.low-income people needn't pay tax in Ireland
考题
Text 4 The EU's faltering progress towards a common system of taxing the huge revenues of the new digital giants lurched forward this morning as Margrethe Vestager,the EU commissioner in charge of competition,declared that Amazon had received unfair state aid from Luxembourg through its tax arrangements,and demanded that it pay￡250m in back taxes.At the same time,Ms Vestager announced that the European commission would haul Ireland up before the European court of justice for its failure to demand￡13bn of unpaid tax from Apple,identi{ied in an earlier investigation.The lwo events illusrrate the gulf between the commission,together with some of the EU's iargest economies,and smaller members such as Ireland and Luxembourg.Both Ireland and Luxembourg defend their tax arrangements.Ireland in particular welcomes the thousands of goocl jobs that the tech giants bring and has no desire to find ways of extracting more tax from thcm in case it drives them away.The Irish government also insists that taxation is a sovereign matter,not an arena for EU interference.（ ）thers are under pressure from voters who are outraged that any company can make so much profit in their country and pay so little tax on it.Revenue from Facebook's UK operations,it has emerged,nearly quadrupled last year t0 842m,through growth in digital ad sales;its corporation tax bill crept up from 4.2m t0 5.Im.The US inland revenue service is also keen to find transparent ways of taxing the new digital economy,and is watching jealously as the European commission draws up its plans,suspicious of any move that might be used by the tech giants to offset their US tax bills.Already,companies such as Google and Amazon hold billions of dollars in offshore funds,where ihey are out of reach of the taxman.The US defensiveness about its own tax revenues points to the need for a global rather than a merely European solution to the question of how,what and whcre to tax the digital economy,but progress through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development（OECD）is glacial,and would in any event only be advisory.The commission is still hoping to get agreement on a common corporate tax base that would help to identify the parameters of any new tax system,but progress has stalled because of complexities around double taxation.Meanwhile the American Chamber of Commerce in Europe（ACCE）is warning that any attempt to tax the tech giants more would threaten investment and expansion.But across most of the EU discontent is growing,not just over the failure to pay tax-which has already prompted some tech companies to become more transparent,and even pay more-but over many of their practices.The chief executive of the ride-hailing app Uber has been in London this week trying to patch up relations with Transport for London（TfL）.Margrethe Vestager is right:enforcing regulations works.
Concerning tax problem,most of the EU countries'attitude toward tech giants is______A.tolerant
B.critical
C.supportive
D.ambiguous
考题
Text 4 The EU's faltering progress towards a common system of taxing the huge revenues of the new digital giants lurched forward this morning as Margrethe Vestager,the EU commissioner in charge of competition,declared that Amazon had received unfair state aid from Luxembourg through its tax arrangements,and demanded that it pay￡250m in back taxes.At the same time,Ms Vestager announced that the European commission would haul Ireland up before the European court of justice for its failure to demand￡13bn of unpaid tax from Apple,identi{ied in an earlier investigation.The lwo events illusrrate the gulf between the commission,together with some of the EU's iargest economies,and smaller members such as Ireland and Luxembourg.Both Ireland and Luxembourg defend their tax arrangements.Ireland in particular welcomes the thousands of goocl jobs that the tech giants bring and has no desire to find ways of extracting more tax from thcm in case it drives them away.The Irish government also insists that taxation is a sovereign matter,not an arena for EU interference.（ ）thers are under pressure from voters who are outraged that any company can make so much profit in their country and pay so little tax on it.Revenue from Facebook's UK operations,it has emerged,nearly quadrupled last year t0 842m,through growth in digital ad sales;its corporation tax bill crept up from 4.2m t0 5.Im.The US inland revenue service is also keen to find transparent ways of taxing the new digital economy,and is watching jealously as the European commission draws up its plans,suspicious of any move that might be used by the tech giants to offset their US tax bills.Already,companies such as Google and Amazon hold billions of dollars in offshore funds,where ihey are out of reach of the taxman.The US defensiveness about its own tax revenues points to the need for a global rather than a merely European solution to the question of how,what and whcre to tax the digital economy,but progress through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development（OECD）is glacial,and would in any event only be advisory.The commission is still hoping to get agreement on a common corporate tax base that would help to identify the parameters of any new tax system,but progress has stalled because of complexities around double taxation.Meanwhile the American Chamber of Commerce in Europe（ACCE）is warning that any attempt to tax the tech giants more would threaten investment and expansion.But across most of the EU discontent is growing,not just over the failure to pay tax-which has already prompted some tech companies to become more transparent,and even pay more-but over many of their practices.The chief executive of the ride-hailing app Uber has been in London this week trying to patch up relations with Transport for London（TfL）.Margrethe Vestager is right:enforcing regulations works.
According to the first paragraph,Amazon_____.A.is demanded to pay back taxes it owes to Ireland
B.will be brought to the European court of justice
C.has enjoyed tax benefits offered by Luxembourg
D.got involved in the case of Apple's tax avoidance
考题
Text 4 The EU's faltering progress towards a common system of taxing the huge revenues of the new digital giants lurched forward this morning as Margrethe Vestager,the EU commissioner in charge of competition,declared that Amazon had received unfair state aid from Luxembourg through its tax arrangements,and demanded that it pay￡250m in back taxes.At the same time,Ms Vestager announced that the European commission would haul Ireland up before the European court of justice for its failure to demand￡13bn of unpaid tax from Apple,identi{ied in an earlier investigation.The lwo events illusrrate the gulf between the commission,together with some of the EU's iargest economies,and smaller members such as Ireland and Luxembourg.Both Ireland and Luxembourg defend their tax arrangements.Ireland in particular welcomes the thousands of goocl jobs that the tech giants bring and has no desire to find ways of extracting more tax from thcm in case it drives them away.The Irish government also insists that taxation is a sovereign matter,not an arena for EU interference.（ ）thers are under pressure from voters who are outraged that any company can make so much profit in their country and pay so little tax on it.Revenue from Facebook's UK operations,it has emerged,nearly quadrupled last year t0 842m,through growth in digital ad sales;its corporation tax bill crept up from 4.2m t0 5.Im.The US inland revenue service is also keen to find transparent ways of taxing the new digital economy,and is watching jealously as the European commission draws up its plans,suspicious of any move that might be used by the tech giants to offset their US tax bills.Already,companies such as Google and Amazon hold billions of dollars in offshore funds,where ihey are out of reach of the taxman.The US defensiveness about its own tax revenues points to the need for a global rather than a merely European solution to the question of how,what and whcre to tax the digital economy,but progress through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development（OECD）is glacial,and would in any event only be advisory.The commission is still hoping to get agreement on a common corporate tax base that would help to identify the parameters of any new tax system,but progress has stalled because of complexities around double taxation.Meanwhile the American Chamber of Commerce in Europe（ACCE）is warning that any attempt to tax the tech giants more would threaten investment and expansion.But across most of the EU discontent is growing,not just over the failure to pay tax-which has already prompted some tech companies to become more transparent,and even pay more-but over many of their practices.The chief executive of the ride-hailing app Uber has been in London this week trying to patch up relations with Transport for London（TfL）.Margrethe Vestager is right:enforcing regulations works.
Which of the following can help push EU's tax plan forward according to the last paragraph?A.Firmly carry out current regulations.
B.Find a balance between double taxations.
C.Carefully consider ACCE's warning.
D.Loosen control over some tech giants.
考题
Text 2 Economic refugees have traditionally lined up to get into America.lAtely,they have been lining up to leave.In the past few months,half a dozen biggish comparues have announced plans to merge with foreign partners and in the process move their corporate homes abroad.The motive is simple:corporate taxes are lower in Ireland,Britain and,for that matter,almost everywhere else than they are in America.In Washington,D.C.,policymakers have reacted wiLh indignation.Jack Lew,the treasury secretary,has quesLioned che companies'patriotism and called on Congress to outlaw such transactions.His fellow Democrats are eager to oblige,and some Republicans are willing to listen.The proposals are misguided.Tightening the rules on corporate"inversions",as these moves are called,does nothing to deal with the reason why so many firms want to leave:America has the rich world's most dysfunctional corporate-tax system.It needs fundamental reform,not new complications.America's corporate tax has two horrible flaws.The first is the tax rate,which at 35%is the lughest among the 34 mostly rich-country members of the OECD.Yet it raises less revenue than the OECD average ihanks to countless loopholes and tax breaks aimed at everything from machinery investment to NASCAR race tracks.Last year these breaks cost$150 billion in forgone revenue,more than half of what America collected in total corporate taxes.The second flaw is that America levies lax on a company's income no matter where in the world it is eamed.In contrast,every other large rich country taxes only income eamed within its borders.Here,too,America's system is absurdly ineffective at collecting money.Firms do not have to pay tax on foreign profits until Lhey bring them back home.Not surprisingly,many do not:American multinationals have some$2 trillion sittiry;on their foreign units'balance-sheets,and growing.All this imposes big costs on the economy.The high rate discourages investment and loopholes distort it,because decisions are driven by tax considerations rather than a project's economic merits.The tax rate companies actually pay varies wildly,depending on cheir type of business and the creativity of their lawyers:some pay close to zero,others the fuU 35%.But as other countries chopped their rates and America's stayed the same,the incentive to flee grew.A possible solution is to lower the corporate rate,eliminate tax breaks and move America from a worldwide system to a territonal one.
The author suggests that the corporate-tax system in America is_____A.misguided
B.complicated
C.incomplete
D.fundamental
考题
It is true that CEO pay has gone up-top ones may make 300 times the pay of typical workers on average,and since the mid-1970s CEO pay for large publicly traded American corporations has,by varying estimates,gone up by about 500%The typical CEO of a top American corporation now makes about S18.9 million a year.The best model for understanding the growth of CEO pay is that of limited CEO talent in a world where business opportunities for the top firms are growing rapidly.The efforts of America's highest-earning 1%have been one of the more dynamic elements of the global economy.It's not popular to say,but one reason their pay has gone up so much is that CEOs really have upped their game relative to many other workers in the U.S.economy.Today's CEO,at least for major American firms,must have many mere skills than simply being able to“run the company"CEOs must have a good sense of financial markets and maybe even how the company should trade in them.They also need better public relations skills than their predecessors,as the costs of even a minor slipup can be significant.Then there's the fact that large American companies are much more globalized than ever before,with supply chains spread across a larger number of countries.To lead in that system requires knowledge that is farly mind-boggling plus,virtually all major American companies are beyond this major CEOs still have to do all the day-to-day work they have always done.The common idea that high CEO pay is mainly about ripping people off doesn't explain history very well.By most measures,corporate governmance has become a lot tighter and more rigorous since the 1970s.Yet it is principally during this period of stronger govemnance that CEO pay has been high and rising.That suggests it is in the broader corporate interest to recruit top candidates for increasingly tough jobs.”Furthermore,the highest CEO salaries are paid to outside candidates,not to the cozy insider picks,another sign that high CEO pay is not some kind of depredation at the expense of the rest of the company.And the stock market reacts positively when companies tie CEO pay to,say,stock prices,a sign that those practices build up corporate value not just for the CEO.Compared with their predecessors,today's CEOs are required to______A.foster a stronger sense of teamwork
B.finance more research and development
C.establish closer ties with tech companies
D.operate more globalized companies
考题
Text 3 The past five years have been a bad time to be a taxpayer in Europe.Across the continent,govemments have relied heavily on tax rises to cut budget deficits,increasing the total burden by almost 5%of GDP in France and Greece.But rather than raise taxes any further,many countries are startin8 to cut them.The European Commission reckons that the euro zone's tax-to-GDP ratio stabilised in 2013 and is now falliry;.In January France announced plans to cut payroll taxes by 30 billion.This month Italy unveiled income-tax cuts worth 10 billion for those earning less than 25,000 a year.This week Britain proposed tax cuts for most people on low or medium incomes.Ireland and Sptun are also planning tax cuts later this year.Lower taxes may be popular,but how are such giveaways being financed?Few countries have Lhe scope to borrow much more.The commission has criticised France and Spain for repeatedly missing their deficit-reduction targets,though it is not taking action agsunst them.Italy's high level of public debt,which hit 133%of GDP in 2013,has also landed it on the commission's fiscal"watch list".Instead,most countries plan to pay for their tax proposals with public-spending cuts.Italy says it will reduce spendirg by an extra 7 billion this year and save a further 2.2 billion thanks to lower yields on its debt-though these figures may prove optimistic.The politician8 hope that lower taxes will boost growth.As euro-zone countries cannot devalue or lower their own interest rates,tax cuts are one of the few ways of trimming business costs fast,says Guillaume Menuet at Citigroup.France and Italy both hope to improve their competitiveness by reducing the tax"wedge"between employers'costs and what workers actually take home.In 2012 this tax take reached nearly 50%of the payroll biU in France and Italy,against an OECD average of just 36%.Some economists doubt that cutting income tax,Italy's approach,is the best way forward.Instead,they favour slashing Europe's high employer-paid socild security charges,as France proposes to do.Ihis would directly lower labour costs,encouraging companies to hire extra workers as well as to increase their invesLmenl.That would aLso give a welcome boost to growth.
According to the last paragraph,some economists______A.prefer Italy's approach to France's
B.favour slashing employers'salaries
C.agree to reduce the costs of employees
D.reckon that cutting tax is the only way
考题
Text 4 Alphabet Inc.'s most successful product-the Google search engine-may now be its most problematic.On Tuesday,the European Commission's top antitrust regulator levied a$2.7-billion fine against Alphabet and Google for the way the search engine handles requests for information about products.Specifically,Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that Google twisted its results to bury links to rival companies'comparison shopping sites while prominently featuring its own service,Google Shopping.Google responded that it's simply trying to give users what they want and denied"favoring ourselves,or any particular site or seller."It has a lot at stake:Google has integrated many different offerings into its search engine,including its mapping and travel services.The principle advanced by Vestager,however,is a good one:Giant online companies shoulcl not be able to take advantage of their dominance in one field to hurt competitors in another.Google's argument is:It integrated Google Shopping,which offers links to products at sites that advertise on Google.into its search engine because that gave users quicker access to the information they were seeking.And in the United States,the key question in antitrust!aw is whether a company's behavior hurts users,not whether it hurts the company's competitors.European regulators focus more on competitors,but they really are two sides of the same coin.If competitors are unfairly closed out,the public can miss out on the very real benefits that vigorous competition provides.At the same time,it's undeniable that the public has welcomed virtual monopolies in search,social media and other services in the Internet era.A large part of the appeal of sites like Facebook and Twitter is that so many people use them.There's a network effect for social media apps in particular-the more people who use the service,the more valuable it becomes to them.Meanwhile,start-ups come out of nowhere to create whole new categories of must-have apps and proclucts online.That means dominant companies have to innovate too,or else they can easily change from today's thing to yesterday's.And often,that innovation involves finding a better way to do something that a competitor is doing.The challenge for regulators is to provide the big companies space to try new things without grossly disrupting the market,closing out other companies and reducing consumer choice,which will ultimately lead to less innovation.A good place to start is by focusing on cases where there is evidence of intentional undermining of competitors-where a dominant company alters the platform it provides not just to feature its own services,but to make it harder to find or use its rivals'.
The European Commission fined Google for_____A.providing false information
B.integrating multiple offerings
C.manipulating search results
D.defaming rival companies
热门标签
最新试卷
