怎么读不懂啊？

fly028

11.Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

why those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maitain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it ?

i think that people making no use of a government service should be forced to pay for it would be reasonable according to Gloria

fly028

11.   Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.

Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?

(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.

(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.

(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.

(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.（A）

(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.

fly028

那位NN 能帮忙解释一下吗？ 谢谢！

colacat

美国的公立学校，单就小学和中学而言，是完全免费的。它的维持是由政府的税收来支出，即是由纳税人来承担。但是私立学校是要交学费的

所以gloria说：那些支持学费抵税的父母——他们的子女上了私立学校——宣称：那些没有使用政府服务（就是上公立学校）的人是不应该其掏钱的。虽然，买瓶装水的人和使用当地供水系统的人一样要交税来维持当地的供水系统的运做。

不知道我说清楚了没有。

fly028

以下是引用colacat在2005-2-19 12:31:00的发言：

美国的公立学校，单就小学和中学而言，是完全免费的。它的维持是由政府的税收来支出，即是由纳税人来承担。但是私立学校是要交学费的

所以gloria说：那些支持学费抵税的父母——他们的子女上了私立学校——宣称：那些没有使用政府服务（就是上公立学校）的人是不应该其掏钱的。虽然，买瓶装水的人和使用当地供水系统的人一样要交税来维持当地的供水系统的运做。

不知道我说清楚了没有。

谢谢，我原来没有准确理解YET 的意思。

我还有点不明白的是 tuition tax credits for parents 翻译成学费抵税 可能不太准确吧 ？学费抵税是什么意思呢？

是不是可以这样说：

那些支持对孩子在私立学校上学的父母施加教育税的人宣称 ：那些没有使用政府服务（就是上公立学校）的人是不应该其掏钱的。虽然，买瓶装水的人和使用当地供水系统的人一样要交税来维持当地的供水系统的运做。

colacat

tuition tax credits  是要联系tax return来理解，退税政策中有一条，就是所交的学费，是可以抵免收入税的。比如说：去年，一个family income 是100k,假如按照40%的税率，他们应该交40k的tax.但是他们家的孩子学费是30k

这样根据tuition tax deduction 他应该交(100k-30k)*40%的税。其中减掉的30k就叫tuition tax credits.也就是学费抵免。可能这么翻译不精确。反正大概就是这个意思。

fly028

MM 解释的很好，我在GOOGLE上查了，没错！谢谢。