 |
当前位置：首页 >> 个人服务 >> 预览个人简历信息 提醒：任何一种简历保密设置，都不会影响您在线投递简历。 |
|
| 个人信息 |
| 姓 名： |
邵译员 [编号]:2870 |
性 别： |
女 |
|
| 擅长专业： |
英语 |
出生年月： |
1987/9/1 |
|
| 民 族： |
汉族 |
所在地区： |
浙江 杭州 |
|
| 文化程度： |
本科 |
所学专业： |
英语 |
|
| 毕业时间： |
2010 |
毕业学校： |
浙江财经学院 |
|
| 第一外语： |
英语 |
等级水平： |
专业英语8级 |
|
|
| 口译等级： |
中级 |
工作经历： |
1 年 |
|
|
| 翻译库信息 |
| 可翻译语种： |
英语 |
|
|
| 目前所在地： |
浙江 杭州 |
| 可提供服务类型： |
笔译 |
| 每周可提供服务时间： |
全周 |
| 证书信息 |
| 证书名称： |
专业英语八级 |
|
| 获证时间： |
2009/6/1 |
|
| 获得分数： |
良 |
|
|
| 工作经历 |
| 工作时期： |
2009/7/1--2009/8/1 |
|
| 公司名称： |
温岭市对外贸易公司 |
|
| 公司性质： |
其它 |
| 所属行业： |
采购/贸易 |
| 所在部门： |
进出口二部 |
|
| 职位： |
外贸助理 |
| 自我评价： |
经过四年的专业培养，现已具备扎实的英语语言基础和相对宽厚的经贸类知识 |
|
|
| 笔译案例信息 |
| 案例标题： |
The Effects of the Ecological Tax Reform in Germany |
|
| 原文： |
The ecological tax reform has been hotly debated since its introduction in Germany in 1999. Apart from the war of words between politicians, it is evident that there is still a large degree of public uncertainty about the actual effects of energy taxation and reduced social insurance contributions. The DIW, in cooperation with other researchers, has now carried out a first systematic impact analysis of the phases of the ecological tax reform that have been agreed upon. The analysis focuses on the consequences for economic growth, the labour market, energy consumption and CO2 emissions, and the effects on income distribution.
The results point to mostly positive effects of the reform. The impact on economic growth will be minimal, employment will rise, and energy consumption and CO2 emissions will decrease. The fear that the ecological tax reform might interfere with the goals of social and income-distribution policy is not justified in this blanket form.
The first systematic study of Germany’s new ecological tax reform
The DIW, in cooperation with Prof. Bernd Meyer (Osnabruck), Prof. Heinz Welsch (Oldenburg University) and Dr. Christhart Bork (formerly Potsdam University), and on behalf of the Germany Ministry of Finance, used various approaches to examine the economic and ecological effects that can be expected from the reform. The study focused on the effects for national and sectoral growth, the labour market, income distribution, and energy consumption and the resulting CO2 emissions in the period 1999 to 2010.
The effects of the ecological tax reform were examined using two macroeconomic models and a micro-simulation model. The PANTA RHEI econometric simulation and forecast model represents the national economy in 58 production areas in accordance with the input-output system. The LEAN simulation model is an empirical, general equilibrium model of the German economy, which was developed with a particular emphasis on the representation of the energy and labour markets. The macroeconomic results were linked with a micro-simulation model so that detailed household data could be used to determine the effect of the ecological tax reform on personal income distribution.
The quantitative analysis was carried out using the scenario technique. First a reference scenario was drawn up, describing the trends in the absence of the ecological tax reform. This was then compared with a policy scenario, which differs from the reference scenario in that it takes account of the ecological tax reform. Differences in the findings (e.g. in employment or economic growth) are interpreted as effects of the ecological tax reform. The analysis is thus only concerned with the differences between the values found; the absolute values are only of subordinate significance. Sensitivity analyses with higher energy prices, different exchange rates and changed wage-setting behaviour were carried out in order t check the robustness of the findings and to estimate the effects of different assumptions and analytic methods on the results.
Ecological impact clearly evident
The simulation shows a 2% to 3% medium-term reduction of CO2 emissions compared with the scenario without the ecological tax reform (cf. figure 1). This amounts in absolute terms to no less than 20 to 25 million tonnes (cf. figure 2). Even so, the ecological tax reform alone cannot guarantee that the targets for reduction of CO2 emissions agreed either nationally or under the European “burden sharing” agreement will be achieved. Neither can it remain the only measure in German climate protection policy; rather it should be integrated into a package of agreed measures to achieve these goals.
Figure 1
Comparison of the Modelled Effects of the Ecological Tax Reform
% deviation from reference scenario
1 Reference scenario with high energy prices.
Sources: Calculated using LEAN and PANTA RHEI
Positive employment effects
According to the calculations, the ecological tax reform could lead to the creation of 250000 new jobs by 2010. The repercussions for overall economic growth are minor. PANTA RHEI reveals a decline in growth of up to 0.6% compared with the reference scenario by 2005, which will be slightly smaller after the year 2005. LEAN even shows a slight increase in growth initially, which, however, is lost again by the end of the observation period (cf. figure 1).
However, these findings are highly dependent on certain assumptions. Thus, a sensitivity analysis with LEAN shows the effect of wages policy: if the trade unions react to employment growth by increasing their wage demands, this could significantly dampen economic growth and nullify the positive employment effects. On the one hand, this result reveals the problem with model calculatins because the political decisions of important actors are impossible to represent using statistical methods. On the other hand, it reveals the importance of the reaction of social groups to the ecological tax reform. Social consensus on the ecological tax reform could, therefore, improve the economic effects and facilitate the adjustment process. The employment findings also show that the ecological tax reform can ease the situation on the labour market but cannot put an end to Germany’s continued high unemployment. Thus, it cannot be seen as a substitute for employment-promoting policies.
Minor distribution effects
A detailed analysis of the distribution effects by socioeconomic characteristics, using the Potsdam micro-simulation model, shows that the ecological tax reform in itself leads to a net bueden for mst households. However, as a share of household income this burden is low. (cf. figure 3 and 4).
All in all, the ecological tax reform is not neutral in its effects on private households: they bear around 60% of the tax burden, but benefit from only half of the reductions in pension contributions. Households with lower incomes will bear a somewhat heavier burden as a share of net household income. The main reason are the higher prices for electricity,heating oil and natural gas. By contrast, medium-income households will bear the greater bueden as regards the increased fuel taxes.
In assessing the income distributin effects it must be borne in mind that the ecological tax reform is an integral part of the German government’s comprehensive tax reform package. Thus, if we also look at the reductions in income tax and the increase in child allowance that will be introduced by 2003, most households will be better off on balance. Even most commuting workers can expect a reduced overall tax burden. In addition to workers, huseholds with children, especially, will be favoured to a relatively considerable extent; only a small number of singles and couples without children and with low gross incomes will be disadvantaged.
Figure 2
Trends for CO2 emissions
Households that mainly depend on income transfers (pensioners and the unemployed) will be affected negatively. However, the disadvantages will be eased by adjustment mechanisms which could not be taken into account in the distribution analyses presented here: the ecological tax reform will lead after a one-year delay to increases in social security pensions and unemplyment benefit and assistance. The latter two benefits are adjusted in accordance with net wage growth. In other words, they will increase at a higher rate than in the absence of the ecological tax reform. Pensions were adjusted in 2000 in accordance with the inflation rate. Thus, in 1999 there was an additional increase in pensions in proportion to the increase in the inflation rate resulting from the eco-taxes. From 2001 onwards a modified gross wage adjustment will be carried out which takes changes in pension insurance contributions into account, but not changes in other social security contributions ans taxes. Persons in reciept in pension contributins intriduced by the ecological tax reform. Social welfare recipients will also automatically receive higher benefits because their heating costs will be paid by the social welfare offices.
Figure 3
Income Effects of the Ecological Tax Reform in 2003 by Social Status of Private Households
Ecological tax reform alone
Ecological tax reform plus income tax reform
Although takes on its own the ecological tax reform has, to a small extent, undesired distribution effects, these can be compensated by income-distribution measures. This becmes evident if we look at the ecolgical tax reform and the income tax reform together (ef. Figures 3 and 4). If unacceptable hardship ensures nonetheless for individual groups, and compensation measures are considered, these should be designed such that problem groups are consciously spared, without reducing the energy saving incentives of the ecological tax reform. For example, further increases in child allowance could compensate for undesired burdens on families.
Figure 4
Income Effects of Ecological Tax Reform in 2003 by Type of Private Households
Ecological tax reform alone
High world-market prices for crude oil not a reason for suspending the ecological tax reform
The sharp increases in crude-oil prices are repeatedly cited as an argument against continuing the ecological tax reform. A sensitivity analysis with different assumptions concerning crude-oil prices and the exchange rate shows, however, that the effects of the reform on growth are weak and remain largely constant. In a scenario with higher energy prices, the employment effects are even more favourable. In this case CO2 emissions are lower, but they remain significantly above the climate policy targets, so that there is still a need fr policy action.
The results of the simulatin thus give no cause to question the ecological tax reform on the basis of the higher import prices for crude oil and mineral oil products. The economic interpretatin of the effects of this price increase must be entirely different from the interpretatin of the effects of the ecological tax reform, because the tax increase is offset by cuts in pension insurance contributions which in macroeconomic terms are almost of the same dimension.
Ecological tax reform can play a greater role in climate protection
Germany’s ecological tax reform helps to reduce energy consumption and the associated environmental damage without having a substantial adverse effect on overall economic growth. It could even initiate a slightly positive trend on the labour market via the reductions in pension insurance cntributions. The effects on economic structure are less clear, however. If the burden of contributins for the prduction factor of labour is transferred to energy, this might be expected to stimulate an ecological structural change in favour of the less energy-intensive sectors. The special regulations on relief for energy-intensive economic sectors weaken this effect, though. All in all, the sectoral consequences of the ecological tax reform are likely to be much less strong than those resulting from changes in oil prices or the exchange rate.
All in all, the findings of the impact analysis suggest that the phases of the ecological tax reform which have been implemented or are planned are economically and socially acceptable. The ecological tax reform could thus play a greater role in climate protection than t date without any need to fear economic or social problems.
Further elaboration of the ecological tax reform for the period after 2003 should be decided as far as possible in agreement with Germany’s European partners. This would increase the ecological impact and reduce the risk of effects that could distort competition. A further very gradual increase in energy taxation without coordinated action on the part of the European Union would also be both possible and sensible, however, given that other European countries have already taken this route.
In the course of the further development of the reform, the weaknesses of the current concept should be gradually eliminated. Thus, all non-renewable energy sources should be included in the taxation measures and taxed more in accordance with their contribution to environmental pollution. The special regulations should be abolished as far as possible. Any remaining regulations must be designed such that the incentive to save on energy is not lost.
（It comes from www.cnki.net）
|
|
| 译文： |
德国生态税收改革的成效
自从德国在1999年引进生态税收以来，国内关于生态税收改革的讨论一直很激烈。除了政治家之间的口舌之争，民众对于能源税和消减社会社会保险款项的实际影响也持很大的怀疑态度。DIW组织和其他研究人员一起首次开展了一项对于现行的的生态税收改革的各个阶段的系统影响的研究。这项分析研究着力于分析经济增长的结果、劳动力市场、能源消耗及二氧化碳的排放对于收入分配的影响。
研究结果显示：生态税收改革带来的影响基本上都是积极的。生态税收改革没有拉动很大的经济增长，但是就业增加了，能源消耗和二氧化碳排放量减少了。而人们对于生态税收改革可能会阻碍社会分配和收入分配的目标的担忧并未在研究结果中有任何的显示。
关于德国的新生态税收改革的首次系统研究
关于国家和部门增长的影响为重点，劳动力市场，收入分配，能源消耗和在1999年期间产生的二氧化碳排放量到2010年的研究。DIW组织以德国财政部的名义，并且在贝恩德•迈耶教授（奥斯纳布鲁）、亨氏韦尔施教授（奥尔登堡大学）和博士Christhart博克（波茨坦大学前身）的共同努力下，用各种方法来研究这次生态税收改革可能带来的经济和生态影响。这次研究的是在1999到2010期间，生态税收改革对于国家和部门的增长、劳动力市场、收入分配、能源消耗和二氧化碳排放量的影响。
对于生态税改革的影响研究使用的是两个宏观经济模型和一个微观仿真模型。PANTA RHEI 经济模拟和预测模型代表了根据输入输出系统指定的58个生产地域的国民经济。LEAN精益仿真模型是关于德国经济的一种经验性的一般均衡模型。这种模型是以能源和劳动力市场为代表发展起来的。宏观经济的结果与微观仿真模型紧密联系在一起，这样就有便于用详细的家庭数据来确定生态税收改革对于个人收入分配的影响。
研究人员采用情景技术来进行定量分析。首先制定一个参考情景，该情景用于描述在生态税收改革前的动态。然后再将其与一个已经考虑到生态税收的政策情景相比较。研究结果（在就业率或经济增长方面）显示出来的不同正是因为有了生态税收的作用。因此，这次分析主要关于最后价值的不同，这种绝对价值只有附属意义。研究者们推行了关于较高的能源价格、不同汇率和改变工资行为的敏感性研究，用来检查研究结果的稳健性并且评估不同假设的效果及对于结果的分析方法。
显而易见的生态效果
相较于没有生态税收的情景模型，二氧化碳排放量在仿真模型中有2%至3%的减少（参见图1）。就绝对数字而言，这相当于不少于20至25万公吨（参见图2）。即便如此，生态税收改革也不能保证达到德国或欧盟在《分担协议》中商定的关于减少二氧化碳排放量的标准。同样地，生态税收政策也不能被当做德国保护气候的唯一政策，而是应该融进一系列的措施中去实现上述目标。
图1
生态税收改革范本效应的比较研究
％偏离参考情景
高能源价格的参考情景
资料来源：LEAN and PANTA RHEI
就业政策效果显著
根据计算，生态税收改革到2010年将会创造25万份新工作。但整体经济增长反响却很小。据PANTA RHEI披露，与2005年的参考场景相比较，经济增长的下跌幅度已经达到了0.6%，而这在05年之后将会有所减少。LEAN甚至展示了经济增长初期的小幅度上涨，但是在观察期末尾又再次下滑。（见图表1）。
但是这些发现主要是依据某些假设。因此，LEAN所做的感性分析显示了薪资政策的效果：如果工会应对就业增长的方法是提高公认的工资需求，这将会大大抑制经济增长，并且使得已产生效果的就业政策失效。一方面，这一结果以及模型计算都揭示了这一问题，因为那些政坛巨鳄的决定是不可能依据统计学的结论的。另一方面，它表明了社会团体对于生态税收改革作出回应的重要性。因此，全社会如果都支持生态税后改革，那么这将有力地促进经济的增长并加快推动调适过程。在就业领域的这些发现也显示生态税收改革能够改善劳动力市场的现状，但却不能结束德国持续已久的高失业率。因此生态税收改革不能替代就业推动政策。
分配制度收效甚微
运用波茨坦微型仿真模型，一项社会经济学对分配效果的深入分析表明，生态税收改革本身成为了大多数家庭的负担。但是若以全家的收入一起分担，负担还是比较低的（见图表3和4）。
总的来说，生态税收改革对家庭来说并非没有影响：他们承受了60%左右的税负，但是退休金的缴纳却只减少了一半。低收入家庭因为净收入过低所以负担更重。主要的原因是电、油、天然气的价格过高。 相比之下，中等收入家庭因为不断上涨的能源价格负担也会更重。
评估收入非配效果时也必须牢记：生态税收改革是德国政府综合税收改革计划中不可或缺的一环。因此，如果我们同时注意一下将在03年开始实行的所得税的减少以及儿童津贴的增加，那么就会发现大多数家庭总的来说会更加富裕。甚至大多数朝五晚九的上班族也可以期盼税负总体上有所减少。除了工人，尤其是有孩子的家庭也会会受益匪浅；只有少数的单身贵族和一些没有孩子的家庭才会有经济损失。
图2 二氧化碳排放量曲线
主要依靠转移性收入的家庭（退休金领取者和失业人群）也会受到冲击。但是调节机制可以缓解这种损失和冲击。而在本文的分配问题的分析上调节机制不能被列入其中加以参考：因为在延迟了一年之后，生态税收改革会导致社会养老保险金，失业救济金以及各项补助金的增加。其中后两者是依据薪资的净增长而调节的。换句话说，如果没有生态税收改革，它们的增长速率会更高。养老保险金曾在2000年依据通货膨胀率调节过。因此在1999年，因为生态税收导致了通货膨胀率上升，所缴纳的养老保险金也根据通货膨胀而额外增长。从2010年开始将会开展总收入的调节，幅度不会很大，其中将会考虑养老金缴纳金额的改变，但并不会考虑其它社会保险金额和税收的改变。生态税收改革的展开会减少养老金所要缴纳的金额，因而这会让接受社会转移性收入的人群从中获利。领取社会福利金的人也能够自动的获得更高的收益，因为他们的取暖费用将由社会福利署代交。
只有生态税收的情况下
生态税和所得税共同作用的情况下
话虽如此，生态税收改革多所造成的分配效果并不理想，但收入分配措施可以弥补这一不足。如果我们同时参考生态税收改革和所得税改革（见表格3和4）， 这是十分明显的。不过，如果各个团队能得到保障，赔偿措施也纳入其中加以考虑，那么就应该设计成团队自觉地分担问题却不削减生态税收改革的奖励金额。例如，可以进一步增加儿童津贴从而减少家庭负担。
2003年单单考虑生态税收的情况
国际原油市场价格居高不下：并非生态税收改革受阻缘由
原油价格的大幅度增长一直被用来作为阻止生态税收改革的理据。但是，关于原油价格和汇率的各种假设以及敏锐的分析却表明改革收效甚微而且一直没有多大变化。而在能源价格更高的假设场景中，就业政策的效果却更加明显。在这种假设中，二氧化碳的排放量更低，但是仍然高于气候政策的目标，所以仍然需要将政策贯彻到实际工作中去。因此，即使以不断上升的原油进口价格以及矿藏石油产品的价格为依据，这种仿真模型的结果表明我们没有理由质疑生态农业税收改革。对于价格上涨的后果其经济层面的解读一定是与生态税收改革效果的解读完全不同，因为税收的上涨会被养老保险金缴纳金额的减少所抵消，这从宏观经济的层面来说是一样的。
生态税收改革在气候保护上举足轻重
德国的生态税收改革能够帮助减少能源消耗以及由消耗能源引起的环境损害却不会对整体经济增长造成大规模的实质性负面影响。它甚至可以通过减少养老保险金的缴纳金额而缓解就业市场的压力。但是这在经济结构上所起的效果却不甚明了。如果生产部所需缴纳的养老金金额能够有能源部缴纳，或许我们能够期待生态结构发生改变，从而降低能源消耗密度。然而，这种旨在缓解能源消耗性经济的措施却降低了这种效果。总的来说，生态税收改革带来的部门的变革很可能比原油价格或者兑换率所导致的变化要小得多。总体上来说，这项分析的发现表明已经或正在计划实施的生态税后改革既能与经济发展相适应又能与社会发展相协调。因此，生态税收改革在保护环境上所起的作用举足轻重，根本无需害怕引起经济或社会问题。生态税收改革的进一步的步骤需要尽可能的与其他欧盟成员国的计划一致。这样做可以加大生态税收改革的影响并减少对竞争的干扰。鉴于已有欧盟成员国采取此项措施，欧盟不需进过协调行动也可以慢慢增加能源税收，这是完全可行的，也是合理的。进一步发展此项改革计划时，需要将现在计划的缺点与不足逐步消除。因而，所有不可再生能源都应该包含在税收计划中并且依据它们对环境污染程度增加税收。那些特殊条规应该尽可能取消。余下的条规必须保留节省能源的奖励。
(来源于中国知网)
|
|
|
|
|
