华泽会计从业资格考试2017新大纲新增大量真题题库过关必做1000题财经法规与会计职业道德 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

适合参加全国会计从业资格考试的考生冲刺复习使用。

●本书题量高达1000题，被称为“小题库”

●增加二维码知识点视频讲解

●新增大量真题

● 章节训练——考点、要点让您“了然于胸”

● 专项训练——雷区、死角让您“胸有悬镜”

● 考场训练——真实演练、实弹操练让您“胸

财经法规与会计职业道德——章节训练1

第一章会计法律制度2

第二章结算法律制度10

第三章税收法律制度18

第四章财政法律制度28

第五章会计职业道德32

财经法规与会计职业道德——专项训练37

单项选择题38

多项选择题71

判断题106

案例分析题120

财经法规与会计职业道德——考场训练163

全真模拟试卷(一)164

全真模拟试卷(二)170

全真模拟试卷(三)177

参考答案及解析185

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：华泽会计从业资格考试2017新大纲新增大量真题题库过关必做1000题财经法规与会计职业道德在线阅读

在线听书地址：华泽会计从业资格考试2017新大纲新增大量真题题库过关必做1000题财经法规与会计职业道德在线收听

在线购买地址：华泽会计从业资格考试2017新大纲新增大量真题题库过关必做1000题财经法规与会计职业道德在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

适合参加全国会计从业资格考试的考生冲刺复习使用。

●本书题量高达1000题，被称为“小题库”

●增加二维码知识点视频讲解

●新增大量真题

● 章节训练——考点、要点让您“了然于胸”

● 专项训练——雷区、死角让您“胸有悬镜”

● 考场训练——真实演练、实弹操练让您“胸

• 作者：特殊塑料 发布时间：2019-04-16 20:20:56

  嘿嘿嘿嘿

• 作者：琥珀藓 发布时间：2024-03-15 08:25:59

  感觉是人卫蓝皮书里面编的比较好的一本，逻辑清楚。

  【读到162页的图3-1-11，很感动，终于有书愿意标一下是哪边的什么方向看过去了

• 作者：哆啦大胖 发布时间：2022-12-17 11:03:42

  得到APP每天听本书分享：本书的主角是美国生物化学家珍妮弗·杜德纳，她从小就很有好奇心，对生命科学、对科研生活很感兴趣。从高中起，她立志成为一名女科学家。长大后，她不仅是RNA领域的权威专家，还与合作者沙尔庞捷一起，发明了基因编辑工具CRISPR-Cas9，成为2020年诺贝尔化学奖得主。杜德纳的成就，离不开她的竞争意识与合作意识。她从小就懂得，要走一条人少的路，掌握稀缺性很强的技能。科研之路初期，她也懂得保持开放的合作心态，与合作者分享荣誉。随着商业的力量渗入科研的肌理，杜德纳、张锋等科研人员都发现，在竞争中获胜的激励，远远超出了彼此合作、分享的善意。荣誉和专利，撼动了每个人的“竞争-合作”天平。通过这个故事可以发现：如果激励的规则无法让人公平地分享利益，激励就会从手段变成目的，成为陷阱。

• 作者：· ~~~~~~~~~ 发布时间：2011-04-13 14:26:17

  总得要有点偏执和狭隘 才能自信满满 滔滔不绝

• 作者：五月 发布时间：2021-06-23 10:19:34

  有点假。不如白的其他几本。反正我不太吃这本。

• 作者：五行缺踹 发布时间：2021-12-12 11:59:46

  断断续续翻完了斯大林格勒战役的部分，基本没记住什么东西，获得一个教训:没地图的文字读物确实不适合二战历史入门

• 解读身体语言，插图很形象

  作者：LazyLorna 发布时间：2010-03-13 00:38:57

  从单位找到这本《你的身体会说话——比任何外语都重要的通用语言》，当作是学习解读身体语言尤其是表情语言的教材，还可以。里面还有很多形象的插图，更难得的是这是国人写的，不错。什么时候网络行为也能总结出这般科学的方法论来就牛掰了。

• 从英文版自译的一些片段

  作者：吊书客 发布时间：2024-03-22 23:37:39

  美国哲学家William James在《A Pluralistic Universe》中说道：

  If anything can make hard things easy to follow, it is a style like Bergson’s. A ‘straightforward’ style, an American reviewer lately called it; failing to see that such straightforwardness means a flexibility of verbal resource that follows the thought without a crease or wrinkle, as elastic silk underclothing follows the movements of one’s body. The lucidity of Bergson’s way of putting things is what all readers are first struck by. It seduces you and bribes you in advance to become his disciple. It is a miracle, and he a real magician.

  要说有什么方法能让难懂的事物变得容易理解，莫过于柏格森的表达风格。最近有一位美国评论家称之为“直来直往”，他不明白，恰恰是这种直来直往表现出了文字切合思想时的那种灵活性，正如一件弹力真丝内衣之于人的肢体行动那般熨帖，没有一丝褶皱。柏格森的表达方式中的那种明晰令所有读者惊艳，它诱惑并且贿赂你成为他的信徒。这是一个奇迹，而他是一个真正的魔法师。（自译）

  詹姆士的形容太贴切，《THE TWO SOURCES OF MORALITY AND RELIGION》的文字是如此精彩，忍不住自己翻译了三段。

  This is what happened with love. From time immemorial woman must have inspired man with an inclination distinct from desire, but in immediate contact, as though welded to it, and pertaining both to feeling and to sensation. But romantic love has a definite date: it sprang up during the Middle Ages on the day when some person or persons conceived the idea of absorbing love into a kind of supernatural feeling, into religious emotion as created by Christianity and launched by the new religion into the world. When critics reproach mysticism with expressing itself in the same terms as passionate love, they forget that it was love which began by plagiarizing mysticism, borrowing from it its fervour, its raptures, its ecstasies: in using the language of a passion it had transfigured, mysticism has only resumed possession of its own. We may add that the nearer love is to adoration, the greater the disproportion between the emotion and the object, the deeper therefore the disappointment to which the lover is exposed-unless he decides that he will ever look at the object through the mist of the emotion and never touch it, that he will, in a word, treat it religiously. Note that the ancients had already spoken of the illusions of love, but these were errors akin to those of the senses, and they concerned the face of the beloved, her figure, her bearing, her character. Think of Lucretius' description: the illusion here applies only to the qualities of the loved one, and not, as with the modern illusion, to what we can expect of love. Between the old illusion and the illusion we have superadded to it there is the same difference as between the primitive feeling, emanating from the object itself, and the religious emotion summoned from without by which it has been pervaded and eventually submerged. The margin left for disappointment is now enormous, for it is the gap between the divine and the human.

  同样的情况也出现在爱情上。从远古时代起，女人必定就曾在男人心中激发起了一种不同于欲望的情致，但仍需要双方直接接触才行，就像被焊接在一起那样，无论是心理感情还是生理感觉均是如此。而罗曼蒂克的爱情则有一个明确的起点：它兴起于中世纪晚期，当时的某个人或某些人设想将爱情引入一种超自然的感情中、引入宗教情感之中，即由基督教这一新兴宗教所创造并传播到了全世界的那种宗教情感。当评论家指责神秘主义把自己表达得好像狂热的爱情时，他们忘了，一开始是爱情抄袭了神秘主义，借走了它的热烈、它的欣喜若狂、它的心醉神迷，并且通过使用这种充满激情的语言而变得崇高神圣。神秘主义不过是恢复使用本就属于它的那些东西而已。我们可以进一步说，爱情越是接近于崇拜，情感与其对象之间的比例越是失衡，爱者就会越发深陷于失望的危险之中——除非他决定，他将永远隔着情感的迷雾来注视这对象，绝不触碰它，也就是说，他将宗教地爱它。我们注意到，古人早已谈论过爱的幻想，但这些只不过是一种类似于感官幻觉的错觉罢了，它们离不开情人的面容、手指、仪态、性情。试想一下卢克莱修的那些描写吧，他的幻想只适用于描写情人的特征，而不像现代的幻想那样，还适用于我们对爱的期待。存在于旧幻想和经过我们润色的新幻想之间的差别，也就是原始感情与宗教情感之间的差别：原始感情发自于对象本身，宗教情感则由那些渗透他并最终浸没他的东西从外界将他唤起。此时此刻，留给失望的是一片如此巨大的边缘，这就是神与人之间的界限。

  However much our intelligence may convince itself that this is the line of advance, things behave differently. What is simple for our understanding is not necessarily so for our will. In cases where logic affirms that a certain road should be the shortest, experience intervenes, and finds that in that direction there is no road. The truth is that heroism may be the only way to love. Now, heroism cannot be preached, it has only to show itself, and its mere presence may stir others to action. For heroism itself is a return to movement, and emanates from an emotioninfectious like all emotions-akin to the creative act. Religion expresses this truth in its own way by saying that it is in God that we love all other men. And all great mystics declare that they have the impression of a current passing from their soul to God, and flowing back again from God to mankind.

  Let no one speak of material obstacles to a soul thus freed! It will not answer that we can get round the obstacle, or that we can break it; it will declare that there is no obstacle. We cannot even say of this moral conviction that it moves mountains, for it sees no mountains to move. So long as you argue about the obstacle, it will stay where it is; and so long as you look at it, you will divide it into parts which will have to be overcome one by one; there may be no limit to their number; perhaps you will never exhaust them. But you can do away with the whole, at a stroke, if you deny its existence. That is what the philosopher did who proved movement by walking: his act was the negation pure and simple of the effort, perpetually to be renewed, and therefore fruitless, which Zeno judged indispensable to cover, one by one, the stages of the intervening space. By going deeply into this new aspect of morality, we should find an impression of coincidence, real or imaginary, with the generative effort of life. If seen from outside, the activity of life lends itself, in each of its works, to an analysis which might be carried on indefinitely; there is no end to a description of the structure of an eye such as ours. But what we call a series of means employed is, in reality, but a number of obstacles overcome; the action of nature is simple, and the infinite complexity of the mechanism which it seems to have built up piece by piece to achieve the power of vision is but the endless network of opposing forces which have cancelled one another out to secure an uninterrupted channel for the functioning of the faculty. So, if we took into account only what we saw, the simple act of an invisible hand plunged into iron filings would seem like an inexhaustible interplay of actions and reactions among the filings themselves in order that they might effect an equilibrium. If such is the contrast between the real working of life and the aspect it presents to the senses and the intelligence which analyse it, is it surprising that a soul which no more recognizes any material obstacle should feel itself, rightly or wrongly, at one with the principle of life?

  无论我们的理智本身有多么确信这就是前进的路线，事实却并非如此。理解起来很简单的东西，意志上却未必接受。在逻辑肯定地说理应有一条捷径的地方，经验插了进来，并且发现那里根本就没有路。事实真相是，英雄主义才是通往爱的唯一道路。英雄主义无法被宣讲，而只能是自我彰显，它仅仅是存在就可以激发他人去行动。因为英雄主义本身就是向运动的回归，它出自一种类似于创造行为的情绪，这情绪同所有情绪一般充满了感染力。宗教以它自己的方式说出了这个真相，它说我们在上帝之中爱所有人。所有伟大的神秘主义者都声称，有一条意识之流从他们的灵魂流向上帝，再从上帝流向全人类。

  不要对一个以这种方式获得自由的灵魂去谈论那些物质障碍！这个灵魂不会回答我们是要绕过障碍还是打破障碍，它会说根本就没有障碍。我们甚至不能说是这种道德信念移走了山峰，因为它根本看不到任何需要移动的山。只要你还在讨论障碍，它就始终在那里，只要你还在关注障碍，你就会把障碍分割成许多个部分然后不得不一个接一个地去克服它们。它们的数量或许没有极限，你或许永远都无法穷尽它们，但是，你可以一下子摆脱整个障碍，只要你否定它的存在。那个靠走路来证明运动存在的哲学家就是这样做的，这个方法最简单、最纯粹地否定了那种持续不断地重新开始、最终却毫无结果、白费力气的努力，而这种努力在芝诺看来却是必要的，用来填平每一步骤与下一步骤之间的空隙。随着对道德的这个新方面的不断深入认识，我们会得到一种印象，即它与生命的繁殖努力是相符的，或者是真实的相符，或者是想象中的相符。如果从外部来观察，那么生命活动所完成的每一件作品都可以被我们无限地分析下去，比如，我们永远无法完全描述一只眼睛的构造。所谓的一系列可用手段实际上只是一堆需要克服的障碍罢了。大自然的运作很简单，而这个看起来需要逐渐累积来获得视力的无限复杂机制，只不过是一个由相对力构成的无穷大网，这些相对力互相抵消从而获得一条让视觉功能畅通无阻运行的通道。所以，如果我们只顾及我们所看到的东西的话，那么，将一只看不见的手插进铁挫屑这样一个简单的动作，在我们看来就像是铁挫屑们为了形成一种平衡而无休止地进行着作用力与反作用力的相互作用一样。如果这就是生命的真实作为与它展现给感觉和分析它的理智的那一面之间的区别，那么一个不再承认任何物质障碍的灵魂可以或正确或错误地感觉到他自己与生命的原则合二为一，又有什么可惊讶的呢？

  Now, we have just the same impression when we compare, for example, the doctrine of the Stoics with Christian morality. The Stoics proclaimed themselves citizens of the world, and added that all men were brothers, having come from the same God. The words were almost the same; but they did not find the same echo, because they were not spoken with the same accent. The Stoics provided some very fine examples. If they did not succeed in drawing humanity after them, it is because Stoicism is essentially a philosophy. The philosopher who is so enamoured of this noble doctrine as to become wrapped up in it doubtless vitalizes it by translating it into practice; just so did Pygmalion's love breathe life into the statue once it was carven. But it is a far cry from that to the enthusiasm which spreads from soul to soul, unceasingly, like a conflagration. Such an emotion may indeed develop into ideas which make up a doctrine, or even several different doctrines having no other resemblance between them than a kinship of the spirit; but it precedes the idea instead of following it. To find something of the kind in classical antiquity, we must go not to the Stoics, but rather to the man who inspired all the great philosophers of Greece without contributing any system, without having written anything, Socrates. Socrates indeed exalts the exercise of reason, and particularly the logical function of the mind, above everything else. The irony he parades is meant to dispose of opinions which have not undergone the test of reflection, to put them to shame, so to speak, by setting them in contradiction with themselves. Dialogue, as he understands it, has given birth to the Platonic dialectics and consequently to the philosophical method, essentially rational, which we still practice. The object of such a dialogue is to arrive at concepts that may be circumscribed by definitions; these concepts will become the Platonic Ideas; and the theory of Ideas, in its tum, will serve as a model for the systems, also essentially rational, of traditional metaphysics. Socrates goes further still; virtue itself he holds to be a science, he identifies the practice of good with our knowledge of it; he thus paves the way for the doctrine which will absorb all moral life in the rational function of thought. Reason has never been set so high. At least that is what strikes us at first. But let us look closer. Socrates teaches because the oracle of Delphi has spoken. He has received a mission. He is poor, and poor he must remain. He must mix with the common folk, he must become one of them, his speech must get back to their speech. He will write nothing, so that his thought shall be communicated, a living thing, to minds who shall convey it to other minds. He is indifferent to cold and hunger, though in no way an ascetic; he is merely delivered from material needs, and emancipated from his body. A "daemon" accompanies him, which makes its voice heard when a warning is necessary. He so thoroughly believes in this "daemonic voice" that he dies rather than not follow it; if he refuses to defend himself before the popular tribunal, if he goes to meet his condemnation, it is because the "daemon" has said nothing to dissuade him. In a word, his mission is of a religious and mystic order, in the present-day meaning of the words; his teaching, so perfectly rational, hinges on something that seems to transcend pure reason. But do we not detect this in his teaching itself? If the inspired, or at all events lyrical sayings, which occur throughout the dialogues of Plato, were not those of Socrates, but those of Plato himself, if the master's language had always been such as Xenophon attributes to him, could we understand the enthusiasm which fired his disciples, and which has come down the ages? Stoics, Epicureans, Cynics, all the Greek moralists spring from Socrates-not only, as has always been said, because they develop the teaching of the Master in its various directions, but also, and, above all, because they borrow from him the attitude which is so little in keeping with the Greek spirit and which he created, the attitude of the Sage. Whenever the philosopher, closeted with his wisdom, stands apart from the common rule of mankind-be it to teach them, to serve as a model, or simply to go about his work of perfecting his inner self-Socrates is there, Socrates alive, working through the incomparable prestige of his person. Let us go further. It has been said that he brought philosophy down from heaven to earth. But could we understand his life, and above all his death, if the conception of the soul which Plato attributes to him in the Phaedo had not been his? More generally speaking, do the myths we find in the dialogues of Plato, touching the soul, its origin, its entrance into the body, do anything more than set down in Platonic terms a creative emotion, the emotion present in the moral teaching of Socrates? The myths, and the Socratic conception of the soul to which they stand in the same relationship as the explanatory programme to a symphony, have been preserved along with the Platonic dialectics. They pursue their subterranean way through Greek metaphysics, and rise to the open air again with the Alexandrine philosophers, with Ammonius perhaps, in any case with Plotinus, who claims to be the successor of Socrates. They have provided the Socratic soul with a body of doctrine similar to that into which was to be breathed the spirit of the Gospels. The two metaphysics, in spite, perhaps because, of their resemblance, gave battle to each other, before the one absorbed the best that was in the other; for a while the world may well have wondered whether it was to become Christian or Neo-Platonic. It was Socrates against Jesus. To confine ourselves to Socrates, the question is: what would this very practical genius have done in another society and in other circumstances; if he had not been struck, above all, by the danger of the moral empiricism of his time, and the mental anarchy of Athenian democracy; if he had not had to deal with the most crying need first, by establishing the rights of reason; if he had not therefore thrust intuition and inspiration into the background, and if the Greek he was had not mastered in him the Oriental who sought to come into being? We have made the distinction between the closed and the open: would anyone place Socrates among the closed souls? There was irony running through Socratic teaching, and outbursts of lyricism were probably rare; but in the measure in which these outbursts cleared the road for a new spirit, they have been decisive for the future of humanity.

  现在，若我们把斯多葛学派的教义与基督教道德相比较的话，也会得到同样的感想。斯多葛学派自称是世界公民，又称世人皆兄弟，均来自同一个神。这些话与基督教里的几乎相同，却没能引起同样的回响，这是因为两者话里的重音不一样。斯多葛学派里颇有一些出色的人物。倘若他们没能成功地吸引众人追随，则是因为斯多葛主义本质上是一种哲学。这哲学家是如此钟爱这种高贵的教义，以至沉溺其中，他定然会通过付诸实践来赋予教义活力，就像皮格马利翁的爱那样，雕像一经完成就被他注入生命。然而这种爱距离那种从一个灵魂蔓延至另一个灵魂、如大火般绵延不绝的激情依旧是望尘莫及。那样一种激情也许的确会发展为理念，即那种构成了某种教义甚至是构成了很多种除了精神上的某种共通之外再也找不到任何相似之处的截然不同的教义的理念。但是，激情是先于理念的，而非理念的产物。要在古典时代找到这种激情，我们不应当求诸斯多葛学派，而应当求诸那个没有建立任何体系也没有留下任何著述、却激发起了所有伟大的希腊哲学家的人——苏格拉底。苏格拉底确实将理性的运用、尤其是思维的逻辑能力提升至高于一切的地位。他那引人注目的反讽，旨在厘清那些未经反思检验的观念，也可以说是，通过置其于自相矛盾的境地来令其汗颜。正如他所设想的那样，对话催生出了柏拉图的辩证法，并且最终产生了我们今天仍在运用的哲学方法，这种方法本质上是合乎理性的。这些对话的目的是要得出可以用定义来加以限制的观念，这些观念将成为柏拉图的理念，而这种理念论又会随之成为传统形而上学体系的样式，这一体系本质上也是合乎理性的。而苏拉格底走得比这更远；他将美德本身当作一门科学，认为善的实践就是我们关于善的知识。他为一种教义铺平了道路，即那种以思维的合理性功用来吸收所有道德生活的教义。理性从未被抬得如此高过。至少我们第一眼就被它打动了。但是让我们看得更加仔细些。苏格拉底从事教学是因为德尔斐神谕如是说。他接受了一个使命。他一贫如洗，且务必终身安于贫穷。他必须混迹于凡人之间，必须成为其中的一员，他必须回应他们的呼声。他将不书一字，这样他的思想就会成为活的思想，被传递给那些能将其继续传递下去的人们。他无畏饥寒，尽管他并非是一个苦行者。他只是摆脱了物质需求，从肉体之中解脱了出来。有一个“代蒙”始终伴随着他，会在必要的情况下出声警示他。他全心信赖着“代蒙之声”，宁可付出生命也要遵从它的指令。倘若他拒绝在大众陪审团前为自己辩护，倘若他坦然奔赴刑场，那是因为“代蒙”并未出言劝阻他。总之，用今天的话说，他的使命是一个宗教的、神秘的指令。他的教导，尽管如此完美的合乎理性，却完全建立在一种似乎超越了纯粹理性的东西之上。但是，难道我们就无法从他的教导本身里找到这些东西吗？如果遍布于柏拉图对话中的那些灵性的、至少是抒情的话语，并非出自于苏格拉底而是柏拉图本人，如果这位大宗师的语言总是如色诺芬归之于他名下的对话那般，我们还能够理解那种点燃了他的信徒们并传诸后世的激情吗？斯多葛学派、伊壁鸠鲁学派、犬儒学派，所有希腊的道德家都源自于苏格拉底，这并非是仅仅如常言所说的，是因为他们沿着不同的方向发展了这位大宗师的教导，最重要的是，因为他们从他那里借鉴到了圣人的姿态，这是他所开创的一种迥异于希腊精神的姿态。无论何时，只要这个哲学家同他的智慧呆在一起、远离人类的普遍法则，无论他是在言传、身教、抑或是仅仅在完善他的内在自我，苏格拉底就还在，苏格拉底依然活着。让我们再进一步。人们常说苏格拉底把哲学从天堂带到了地上。但是，如果柏拉图在《斐多》里归诸苏格拉底的灵魂观念并非出自于他，那么我们还能够理解他的一生、尤其是他的死吗？说得更概括些，我们在柏拉图对话里所发现的那些有关灵魂、灵魂的起源以及灵魂进入身体的神话，除了将一种创造性的情绪、亦即那种存在于苏格拉底的道德教育里的情绪保留在柏拉图式的语言里以外，难道还有其他什么作用吗？神话，还有苏格拉底的灵魂观念，后者之于前者的关系正如说明性标题之于交响乐，这两者与柏拉图的辩证法一起留存至今。它们沿着一条隐蔽的地下通道在希腊的形而上学里穿行，然后再次回升到开放的空气中，与亚历山大哲学家们相遇，它们可能遇到过安莫尼乌斯，但不管怎样总会遇到那个自称为苏格拉底继承者的柏罗丁。他们为苏格拉底的灵魂提供了一具教义之躯，与之相似的还有那具被注入了福音书精神的教义之躯。也许正是因为这两种形而上学之间的相似，他们你争我夺，直到一方吸收了另一方的精髓为止。在这段时间里，世界很可能困惑于它将会成为基督徒的天下还是新柏拉图主义者的天下。这是苏格拉底和耶稣的对抗。若我们的问题仅限于苏格拉底，那么问题就是：这个真正的实践之天才若是处在另一个社会中、处在其他的环境下，他会怎么做呢？首先，若是他没有遭受到他那个时代的道德经验主义危机以及雅典民主的精神无政府状态的打击呢？若是他无须通过确立理性的正当性来优先处理当时最迫切的需求呢？若是他也无须因此将直觉和灵感推至次要的位置呢？若是他这个希腊人没有在他心中战胜那个渴望诞生的东方人呢？我们已经为封闭和开放划定了界限，还有谁会把苏格拉底归为封闭灵魂吗？反讽贯穿于苏格拉底的教导之中，抒情的爆发却不多见，但是，就这种爆发为一种全新的精神扫清了道路而言，它们对于人类的未来起到了决定性的作用。