Dst No5

Question 1

On

Answer 1

Pas de w our us

Question 2

Ne pas recopié la question

Question 3

Depuis longtemps
Depuis un évènement

Answer 3

For a long time
Since ….

Question 4

Bénéfique

Answer 4

Beneficial

Question 5

Apprendre la langue est important

Answer 5

Learning the language is important
The most important thing is to…
What matters is to learn…

Question 6

Trouver du travail
Les recherches montrent que

Answer 6

Find work(u) / a job
Research(u) shows that

Question 7

S’intégrer
Critique

Answer 7

Integrate (intransitif)
Critic ( une personne) / criticism
This idea entails much criticism (u)

Question 8

Étranger

Answer 8

Stranger
Foreigner

Question 9

Favoriser
Aller a

Answer 9

To favor
Went to

Question 10

Synthèse

Answer 10

Is it morally right to be born with a silver spoon in one’s mouth and live off one’s privileges? In the interests of social justice it seems only fair to tax inheritance, as the authoritative British weekly The Economist asserts. A cartoon also raises doubts about the desirability of automatic inheritance. That point of view is not shared by the essayist C. Northcote Parkinson and Bruce Anderson who writes the Drink column in the Conservative Spectator: both defend the right of people to hand over their assets to their children without hindrance from the State. Should inheritance tox be scropped altogether? The writers’ reflections go beyond the mere debate about inheritance. Taxation in general is the subject: what are the right limits and how should it be organised?
The wish to pass on one’s belongings to one’s offspring is a common human instinct, the notural wish to preserve the fruit of a lifetime’s efforts for the benefit of posterity, a point which The Economist leader writer acknowledges. Roising inherl-tance tax is a sure vote loser, he concedes. There is olso a liberal principle at stake : people should be free to use their wealth as they see fit, on argument also made forcefully by Parkinson who, quoting Jefferson, hints that goverments do not always spend taxpayers’ money wisely, Both Anderson and Parkinson believe that a single generation is not enough to build up great and lasting ochievements. It tokes time, expertise and accumulated copital to nurture fine wines, Anderson explains, adding that is a fine thing to see a family home in the some hands for generations, inheritance then develops into heritoge which enriches civilisation. Thus the confiscation of assets is seen as morally wrong and counterproductive as it makes the State too powerful and extinguishes freedom. But are all inheritors worthy successors? That is the question amusingly raised by the cartoon: a successful entrepreneur will go to any lengths to prevent his patiently built industrial empire to be passed on to a feckless son whose choice of clothes clearly shows that his inheritance will be squandered. Besides there is the nagging issue of foimess, which The Economist returs to.
_ It is a fact that uneamed weolth sounds unfair to many people as it entrenches inequalities. The Economist shows that the problem has been exacerboted in recent years, something that bothers neither Parkinson nor Anderson. Parkinson shows the deleterious effects of excessive taxes, detailing all the pernicious effects on the economy, the loss of freedom and the demor-alisation of the citizenry, worst when the level reaches 36%. Then people will do their utmost to avoid taxes, a point also ocknowledged by The Economist. Yet taxation is a necessary evil and the leader witer argues that inheritance taxes are probably the least inequitable variety, the least damaging as they do not remove the Incentive to work. Obviously The Economist does not advocate punitive taxes but urges-governments to target inheritors rother than estates, simplify the system and make it more effective. Better soak rich inheritors and lighten the burden for the rest.
Thus the disgreement between the various writers boils down to a debate about freedom vs. fairness. Are they mutually exclusive? The question remains unanswered