1. Figures and examples of upholding justice. On December 26, 2008, during the visit, the police learned that the party member training room of the Party branch of Zhanggao Village, Tuyuan Township, Sucheng District, which is being assisted by pairs, has not yet been equipped with tables and chairs due to a shortage of funds.

After learning about this, Chang Gaochao hit it off with the political commissar Fang Xianyou and sent the nearly 30,000 yuan worth of tables, chairs and benches left behind after the relocation of a large team to Zhanggao Village.

On June 10, 2008, He Chang, who had just turned 16, suffered from the death of his father and his mother remarried and lived with his grandfather and grandmother. The family, which was already relatively poor, was worsened by a car accident at about 7 pm that night.

Since the perpetrator escaped, more than 100,000 yuan in rescue and treatment costs were left unfunded.

In response to this special situation, the accident handling brigade of the detachment actively provided legal assistance to him, visited his home many times, and identified He Chang as a rescue recipient of the province's love fund. In January this year, He Chang received the "Jiangsu Province Traffic Accident Award"

"Love Relief Fund" provides relief of 5,000 yuan.

2. Examples of consciously safeguarding justice. Individual tax reform is the realization of social fairness rather than hatred of the rich. The holding of individual tax reform hearings is not only a manifestation of political democratization, but also the progress of social and political civilization. It is conducive to listening to the voices of all strata of society.

Absorb the opinions of the public and optimize public policies.

After all, the starting point of China's individual tax collection mechanism is too low, which is suspected of "robbing the poor to give to the rich". It is also objectively contrary to social fairness and will continue to expand social polarization.

The holding of hearings and raising the tax threshold are, to a certain extent, a manifestation of the principle of "proportional contribution", which promotes the development of social taxes in a direction that is beneficial to the least advantaged people in society, and is conducive to the realization of social equity.

However, Lin Yifu, a professor at Peking University, proposed: "Individual income tax reform should not be carried out with hatred of the rich (China Youth Daily, September 27)", saying that if he does not support the rich making so much money, they should hand it over.

He also said, "Taxing money from the rich and then providing subsidies to the poor can theoretically balance wealth. But, who is still willing to make money?" Speaking this as a famous economist, naturally

He has his own perspective and his own reasons.

But two questions have also arisen. First, is the personal income tax reform just about hating the rich or robbing the rich to help the poor?

Second, will the personal tax reform cause the rich to no longer want to make money, thereby leading to the inefficiency of the entire society?

I secretly think that Professor Lin's view is absurd. At least, considering the current situation of society, it is simply unnecessary to put forward such a view.

First of all, the current personal tax reform or adjustment is carried out on the premise that the tax policy is unfair.

Since my country's personal tax system was implemented in the early 1980s, the starting point of 800 has remained unchanged for more than 20 years. The main group of tax holders is the working class, and even the poor people have to pay a certain amount due to the low starting point. Quantity tax.

Such a system does not reflect much of the leverage effect of personal tax adjustment, nor does it reflect much of the principles of "proportional equality" or "proportional contribution". Instead, it "robs the poor and gives to the rich" and is a form of social fairness.

Trampling on and hindering further social, political and economic development.

The continuous expansion of the gap between the rich and the poor and the Gini coefficient has had a certain malignant impact on social stability and economic development, directly threatening social harmony and stability.

Therefore, the current personal tax reform is only an adjustment to a policy that is considered unfair. It is an appropriate fine-tuning based on the principle of fairness, and it is not a massive deprivation of the money earned by the rich. How can this be said to be hatred of the rich?

?

Secondly, does appropriate taxation of the rich necessarily lead to them not wanting to make money?

And then lead to the inefficiency of the entire society?

As an economist, it is understandable to pay attention to the input-output ratio and emphasize efficiency.

However, in terms of the healthy development of the entire society, fairness is more critical than efficiency.

Without fairness, there is no talk of efficiency at all, because unfairness will inevitably lead to conflicts, violent conflicts and even revolutions. It will also inevitably damage efficiency, leading to inefficiency, balance between positive and negative efficiencies, and even the growth of "negative effects."

Therefore, in order to achieve social harmony and stability, integrate social resources, form synergy, and achieve sustainable development, we must always put the value of fairness first.

Because "fairness is the fundamental guarantee of efficiency", fairness and justice are not only "the fundamental driving force for social development" but also "the best state of social development".

The realization of social equity will not only not harm efficiency, but on the contrary, it can form a good social order and synergy to achieve greater efficiency and benefits.

In such a society, not only the rich will continue to rely on their intelligence and wisdom to work hard and realize the value ideal of personal entrepreneurship.

People at the bottom will also see hope and actively realize their desire to become rich through their own efforts.

Otherwise, they have neither a way to express their interests nor a voice to express their interests. They can only suffer unfair deprivation and cannot even maintain their survival. So what does this society mean to them?

It becomes possible to use extreme means to protect one's right to exist, which is very scary.

Therefore, only by taking justice as the ethical goal and primary value of social public policies, creating a just institutional environment foundation, and achieving the greatest degree of justice for the whole society can social development be most efficient, effective, and harmonious.

Any system that undermines justice and lacks fairness will inevitably lead to serious social conflicts, confrontations and even violent revolutions. It will also be inefficient, let alone efficiency and performance.