在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

量变的复杂性是指___

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

分期缴纳备案，是指个人所得税纳税人按照政策的规定，可以分期缴纳个人所得税的，按规定由纳税人或扣缴义务人向主管机关报送相关资料进行备案,不包括___

关于申请开具《中国税收居民身份证明》，以下说法符合规定的是___

纳税人可以委托他人在（）代为开具本人的个人所得税《纳税记录》___

张某和妻子李某婚前各购买一套住房，均属于首套住房贷款，下列说法正确的是___。

关于住房租金专项附加扣除，以下说法不正确的是___。

扣缴义务人向非居民个人支付工资、薪金所得、劳务报酬所得、稿酬所得和特许权使用费所得时，应当按以下方法按月或者按次代扣代缴个人所得税___。

取得综合所得办理汇算清缴，以下规定不正确的是___。

根据个人所得税法的相关规定,下列关于经营所得的表述中,不正确的是___

纳税人存在报送虚假专项附加扣除信息、重复享受专项附加扣除等税务总局规定的其他情形之一的，主管税务机关应当责令其改正；（ ）年内再次发现的，视情形记入有关信用信息系统，并按照国家有关规定实施联合惩戒；涉及违反税收征管法等法律法规的，税务机关依法进行处理___。

下列关于个人投资者收购企业股权后将盈余积累转增股本有关个人所得税的规定中，不正确的是___。

乔恩是美国人，2019年1月3日来中国工作，2019年10月15日回国，其中6月份有18天回国，中国公司仍正常支付工资，乔恩是美国税收居民，申请按税收协定征税，以下关于乔恩个人所得税说法不正确的是___。

无住所个人享受境内受雇所得协定待遇，需同时满足规定条件，不包括___

下列情形当中，可视为股权转让收入明显偏低的是___

个人转让股权，发生如下行为（），扣缴义务人、纳税人应当依法在次月15日内向主管税务机关申报纳税___。

纳税人、扣缴义务人向主管税务机关办理股权转让纳税（扣缴）申报时，应当报送的资料是___

以下按特许权使用费所得项目征收个人所得税的是___

850,赵某是在校大学生，2019年4月取得的下列收入中,免征个人所得税的是___

外籍个人李某在境外任职，因工作原因，2018年11月1日至2019年6月1日期间在中国境内提供劳务，境外公司发放给李某的工资薪金所得，按照税法规定，应在中国缴纳个人所得税。

2019年1月1日后，非居民个人取得的工资薪金所得，以每月收入额减除费用5000元、专项附加扣除后的余额为应纳税所得额，适用按月换算后的综合所得税率表。

2019年1月1日后，个人取得的劳务报酬所得、利息股息红利所得、财产转让所得、财产租赁所得和偶然所得，适用20%的比例税率，计算征收个人所得税。

纳税人取得经营所得，按月或按季计算应纳个人所得税，向经营管理所在地主管税务机关办理纳税申报。

纳税人从两处或两处以上取得经营所得的，选择其中一处经营管理所在地主管税务机关办理年度汇总申报。

非居民个人取得特许权使用费所得且扣缴义务人未扣缴税款的，应当在取得所得的次年3月1日至6月30日内，向扣缴义务人主管税务机关办理纳税申报。

非居民个人取得工资薪金所得、劳务报酬所得且有两个以上扣缴义务人未扣缴税款的，非居民个人应分别向各扣缴义务人所在地税务机关办理纳税申报。

非居民个人取得工资薪金所得且扣缴义务人未扣缴税款的，如非居民个人在次年六月三十日前离境的，应当在离境前办理纳税申报。

居民个人因移居境外注销中国户籍的，应当在申请注销户籍后，向户籍所在地主管税务机关办理纳税申报。

居民个人取得中国境外所得的，应当在取得所得的次年1月1日至1月31日内，向税务机关办理纳税申报。

居民个人取得中国境外所得，如在中国境内没有任职、受雇单位，并且户籍所在地与中国境内经常居住地不一致的，选择其中一地主管税务机关申报。

纳税人在注销户籍年度取得经营所得的，应当在申请注销户籍前，办理当年经营所得的汇算清缴。并报送《个人所得税经营所得纳税申报表（B表）》

非居民个人在一个纳税年度内税款扣缴方法保持不变，达到居民个人条件时，不需要参加汇算清缴。

境内工作期间按照个人在境内工作天数计算，包括其在境内的实际工作日以及境内工作期间在境内享受的公休假、个人休假、接受培训的天数，不包含境外享受的公休假、个人休假、接受培训的天数。

在境内、境外单位同时担任职务或者仅在境外单位任职的个人，在境内停留的当天不足24小时的，按照半天计算境内工作天数。

无住所个人一个月内取得的境内外数月奖金或者股权激励包含归属于不同期间的多笔所得的，应当先分别计算不同归属期间来源于境内的所得，然后再加总计算当月来源于境内的数月奖金或者股权激励收入额。

在一个纳税年度内，在境内累计居住不超过90天的非居民个人，仅就归属于境内工作期间并由境内雇主支付或者负担的工资薪金所得计算缴纳个人所得税。

凡境内雇主采取核定征收所得税或者无营业收入未征收所得税的，无住所个人为其工作取得工资薪金所得，不论是否在该境内雇主会计账簿中记载，均视为由该境内雇主支付或者负担。

在一个纳税年度内，在境内累计居住超过90天但不满183天的非居民个人，其取得归属于境外工作期间的工资薪金所得，征收个人所得税。

在中国境内无住所的个人，在中国境内居住累计满183天的年度连续不满六年的，其来源于中国境外且由境外单位或者个人支付的所得，应缴纳个人所得税。

在中国境内无住所的个人，在中国境内居住累计满183天的年度连续不满六年的，其来源于中国境外且由境外单位或者个人支付的所得，免予缴纳个人所得税

无住所居民个人在境内居住累计满183天的年度连续满六年后，不符合实施条例第四条优惠条件的无住所居民个人，其从境内、境外取得的全部工资薪金所得均应计算缴纳个人所得税。

无住所居民个人取得综合所得，年度终了后，无需按年计算个人所得税。