新员工入职后，扣缴单位应在支付所得的本月办理扣缴申报。

员工通过税务部门提供的网络渠道（手机 P APP 或各省电子税务局等）填报专项附加扣除信息并选择扣缴单位办理扣除的，员工和扣缴单位无须留存纸质扣除信息表。

劳务报酬所得、稿酬所得、特许权使用费所得预扣预缴税款的计算，和年度汇算清缴税款的计算方法是有区别的。主要差别为三项：一是收入额的计算方法不同。二是可扣除的项目不同。三是适用的税率/预扣率不同。

在填写《个人所得税扣缴申报表》时，对稿酬所得的收入额减计 30% 的部分填入“免税收入”

自2019年1月1日起至2023年12月31日止，广东省、深圳市按内地与香港个人所得税税负差额，对在大湾区工作的境外（含港澳台）高端人才和紧缺人才给予补贴，该补贴免征个人所得税。

军队干部子女保教补助费免征个人所得税

对个人通过公益性社会团体或者县级以上人民政府及其部门捐赠武汉军运会的资金、物资支出，在计算个人应纳税所得额时全额予以税前扣除。

对从事个体经营的随军家属，自领取税务登记证之日起，5年内免征个人所得税。

个人捐赠北京2022年冬奥会、冬残奥会、测试赛的资金和物资支出可在计算个人应纳税所得额时捐赠额未超过纳税人申报的应纳税所得额百分之三十的部分，可以从其应纳税所得额中扣除。超过部分不予扣除。

对受北京冬奥组委邀请的，在北京2022年冬奥会、冬残奥会、测试赛期间临时来华，从事奥运相关工作的外籍顾问以及裁判员等外籍技术官员取得的由北京冬奥组委、测试赛赛事组委会支付的劳务报酬免征个人所得税。

对于参赛运动员因北京2022年冬奥会、冬残奥会、测试赛比赛获得的奖金和其他奖赏收入，免征个人所得税。

对内地个人投资者通过深港通投资香港联交所上市H股取得的股息红利，由中国结算按照20%的税率代扣个人所得税。

内地个人投资者通过深港通投资香港联交所上市的非H股取得的股息红利，H股公司按照20%的税率代扣个人所得税。

对香港市场投资者（包括企业和个人）投资深交所上市A股取得的股息红利所得，在香港中央结算有限公司（以下简称香港结算）不具备向中国结算提供投资者的身份及持股时间等明细数据的条件之前，暂不执行按持股时间实行差别化征税政策，由上市公司按照20%的税率代扣所得税，并向其主管税务机关办理扣缴申报。

对个人投资者从投保基金公司取得的行政和解金，按利息、股息、红利征收个人所得税。

自2016年1月1日起，全国范围内的中小高新技术企业以未分配利润、盈余公积、资本公积向个人股东转增股本时，个人股东一次缴纳个人所得税确有困难的，可根据实际情况自行制定分期缴税计划，在不超过5个公历年度内（含）分期缴纳，并将有关资料报留存备查。

自2016年1月1日起，全国范围内的中小高新技术企业以未分配利润、盈余公积、资本公积向个人股东转增股本时，个人股东获得转增的股本，按照“工资薪金所得”项目，征收个人所得税。

自2016年1月1日起，全国范围内的高新技术企业转化科技成果，给予本企业相关技术人员的股权奖励，个人一次缴纳税款有困难的，可根据实际情况自行制定分期缴税计划，在不超过5个公历年度内（含）分期均匀缴纳，并将有关资料报主管税务机关备案。

个人以非货币性资产投资应按照“财产转让所得”项目征税，在发生上述应税行为的次月15日内由纳税人自行向主管税务机关申报纳税。

对个人取得的2012年及以后年度发行的地方政府债券利息收入，减半征收个人所得税。

对工伤职工及其近亲属按照《工伤保险条例》（国务院令第586号）规定取得的工伤保险待遇，免征个人所得税。

对学生个人参与“明天小小科学家”活动获得的奖金，免予征收个人所得税。

证券市场个人投资者的证券交易结算资金在2008年10月9日后（含10月9日）孳生的利息所得，按20%的税率征收个人所得税。

个人在办理内部退养手续后至法定离退休年龄之间重新就业取得的“工资、薪金”所得，应与其从原任职单位取得的同一月份的“工资、薪金”所得合并，并依法自行向主管税务机关申报缴纳个人所得税。

拿到了国外颁发的技能证书，能享受每年3600元的专项附加扣除。

在计算医药费用支出额度时，纳税人及其配偶、未成年子女发生的医疗费用支出不能混合，应按每个人分别计算。

税改后，对综合所得按年计税，实行“代扣代缴、自行申报，汇算清缴、多退少补，优化服务、事后抽查”的征管模式。

居民个人劳务报酬所得预扣率有20%、30%两种

累计减除费用，按照每月5000元乘以纳税人当年在本单位的实际工作月份数计算。

扣缴义务人应扣未扣、应收而不收税款的，由税务机关向纳税人追缴税款，对扣缴义务人处应扣未扣、应收未收税款1倍以上5倍以下的罚款。

扣缴义务人的法人代表（或单位主要负责人）、财会部门的负责人及具体办理代扣代缴税款的有关人员，共同正确依法履行代扣代缴义务负法律责任。

独生子女补贴属于工资、薪金性质的补贴、津贴，按规定征收个人所得税

对个人通过非营利的社会团体和国家机关向农村义务教育的捐赠，准予在计算个人所得税时全额扣除。农村义务教育范围是指政府和社会力量举办的农村乡镇（含县和县级市政府所在地的镇）、村的小学和初中以及属于这一阶段的特殊教育学校。

纳税人李某符合住房租金扣除条件，具体租房时间自2019年4月起，他可开始享受住房租金扣除的具体时间是2019年5月

个人所得的形式，只有现金、实物、有价证券。

纳税人享受住房租金专项附加扣除，需要留存备查资料包括：住房租赁合同或协议等资料。

纳税人张某通过中介机构承租王某的住房，并签合同，张某符合住房租金扣除条件。考虑到张某配偶的工资收入较高，张某选择由其配偶扣除住房租金。这种做法正确

无住所个人在境内、境外单位同时担任职务或者仅在境外单位任职，且当期同时在境内、境外工作的，境外工作天数按照当期公历天数减去当期境内工作天数计算。

大病医疗支出扣除时间为医疗保险管理信息系统记录的医疗服务费用实际支出的当年。

计算累计应预扣预缴税额时，余额为负值时，可随时退税，也可在纳税年度终了后，由纳税人通过办理综合所得年度汇算清缴，多退少补。

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?___

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 can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___