原田英語の英検二次面接 ぜんぶ攻略くん
AI採点

英検1級 二次 予想トピック 45 ・ 🏛️ 政治・行政・法 ・ A or B

Cutting taxes or expanding public services: which should the government prioritize when prices are rising?

物価が上がっているとき、政府は減税と公共サービスの拡充のどちらを優先すべきか。

このトピックを選ぶべき人

物価高や減税の議論をニュースで見ていて、家計と社会の両方から話せる人向け。

骨組み理由3つ（どちらの立場でも話せる）

賛成（Yes）で話すなら

I believe the government should prioritize cutting taxes.

  1. quick reliefTax cuts put money back into people's pockets quickly. Reducing the consumption tax on food, for example, would lower the price of daily necessities for every household.
  2. freedom of choiceEach household knows best what it needs. Rather than the government deciding how money is spent, tax cuts let people choose for themselves, whether that means food, rent, or savings.
  3. economic boostWhen people have more money to spend, businesses benefit, and this can support wages and jobs. This is especially important when consumers are cutting back because of high prices.

反対（No）で話すなら

I believe the government should prioritize expanding public services.

  1. targeted helpPublic services can be directed to the people who need help most. A consumption tax cut gives the biggest savings to people who spend the most, while free school lunches help struggling families directly.
  2. fiscal responsibilityJapan already has a large national debt, and tax cuts are hard to reverse once introduced. Spending on specific services is easier to adjust when prices become stable.
  3. lasting valueInvestment in services like childcare, healthcare, and public transport creates value that lasts beyond the current price rise. A new childcare center, for instance, will keep helping families for many years.

模範スピーチ反対の立場で2分（255語）

序論Thank you. I'd like to talk about whether the government should prioritize cutting taxes or expanding public services when prices are rising. I believe it should focus on public services, for three reasons: fairness, financial responsibility, and long-term value. 理由1First, public services can help the people who are struggling the most. A cut in the consumption tax, for example, gives the biggest savings to people who spend the most, including wealthy households. On the other hand, free school lunches or help with heating bills go directly to the families who are really feeling the pressure of high prices. 理由2Second, tax cuts are easy to introduce but very hard to reverse. Japan already has a large national debt, and once a tax rate is lowered, politicians rarely find the courage to raise it again. Spending on specific services, however, can be reduced step by step when prices become stable. 理由3Finally, investment in services creates value that lasts. A new childcare center or a better local bus service will keep helping people long after the current price rise is over. In contrast, the extra money from a tax cut may simply disappear into everyday spending. 譲歩Admittedly, tax cuts can bring relief more quickly, and people appreciate the freedom to decide how to spend their own money. However, quick relief that mostly benefits better-off households is not the best use of limited public money. まとめIn conclusion, because they are fairer, more responsible, and more lasting, I believe public services should come first when prices are rising. Thank you.

和訳

ありがとうございます。物価が上がっているとき、政府は減税と公共サービスの拡充のどちらを優先すべきかについてお話しします。私は公共サービスに力を入れるべきだと考えます。理由は3つ、公平さ、財政への責任、そして長期的な価値です。 第一に、公共サービスは最も苦しんでいる人を助けられます。例えば消費税を下げると、裕福な世帯を含め、最も多くお金を使う人ほど得をします。一方、給食の無償化や暖房費の補助は、物価高の重さを本当に感じている家庭に直接届きます。 第二に、減税は始めるのは簡単でも、元に戻すのはとても難しいものです。日本はすでに多額の国の借金を抱えており、一度税率を下げると、政治家が再び上げる勇気を持つことはめったにありません。しかし、特定のサービスへの支出なら、物価が落ち着いたときに少しずつ減らせます。 最後に、サービスへの投資は長く残る価値を生みます。新しい保育所や便利になった地域のバスは、今の物価高が終わった後もずっと人々の役に立ちます。それに比べ、減税で増えたお金は日々の出費に消えてしまうかもしれません。 確かに、減税の方が早く負担を和らげられますし、自分のお金の使い道を自分で決められるのはありがたいことです。しかし、主に余裕のある世帯の得になる即効性の対策は、限られた公のお金の最善の使い方とは言えません。 結論として、より公平で、より責任があり、より長く続くという理由から、物価が上がっているときは公共サービスを優先すべきだと考えます。ありがとうございました。

想定質疑面接委員はこう突っ込んでくる

QWouldn't expanding public services require a large bureaucracy?

That's a fair concern. Admittedly, new programs can be slow and costly to run. However, many services can use existing systems, such as schools for free lunches or local governments for support payments. So I still think targeted services are better value than broad tax cuts.

Q：公共サービスを広げると、大きな役所の仕組みが必要になりませんか。
A：もっともな懸念です。確かに新しい制度は動き出すのが遅く、運営に費用がかかることがあります。しかし、給食なら学校、給付金なら自治体というように、多くは今ある仕組みを使えます。ですから、やはり対象を絞ったサービスの方が、一律の減税より効果的だと考えます。

QMany people feel the tax burden is already too high. How would you respond?

I understand that feeling, especially among middle-income workers. But I would argue that the problem is how taxes are used, not just how high they are. If people can see clear benefits, such as cheaper childcare, they may feel more willing to pay.

Q：税の負担はもう重すぎると感じている人が多いです。どう答えますか。
A：その気持ちは分かります。特に中間層の働く人はそうでしょう。ただ、問題は税の高さだけでなく、その使い道だと言いたいです。保育料が安くなるなど、はっきりした恩恵が見えれば、払ってもいいと思う人も増えるはずです。

QIs there any situation in which you would support tax cuts?

Yes, in a serious recession, a temporary tax cut could be useful to boost spending quickly. The key word is temporary. It should come with a clear end date so that it does not damage public finances in the long run.

Q：減税を支持する状況はありますか。
A：はい。深刻な不況のときは、一時的な減税で消費を素早く後押しするのは有効だと思います。大事なのは「一時的」という点です。長い目で見て財政を傷めないよう、終わる日をはっきり決めておくべきです。

語彙このトピックで使える表現