Rawls, Taxation and Calabresi & Melamed’s Rules

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW Review of Law & Economics Pub Date : 2019-04-24 DOI:10.1515/rle-2016-0073
Limor Riza
{"title":"Rawls, Taxation and Calabresi & Melamed’s Rules","authors":"Limor Riza","doi":"10.1515/rle-2016-0073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper identifies a new rule in the tax discourse – the versatility rule. Calabresi and Melamed’s landmark article contributed to the legal discussion despite paying relatively little attention to taxation. This paper analyzes income tax, Calabresi and Melamed’s rules and Rawls’ theory, and examines whether Calabresi and Melamed’s pioneering work on liability, property and inalienability rules can be integrated into income tax discourse (and other legitimate property expropriations); and claims that these rules assist in understanding the essence of taxation. The question is analyzed from the Rawlsian perspective since his concern with the “least advantaged” and inequality in society poses a serious global challenge. The paper offers a unique analysis by showing that in the tax field all rules protect the same entitlement at the same time against the same entity – the government. This concurrent implementation of Calabresi and Melamed’s rules in taxation can only take place when taxation is understood as both “giving” and “taking”. Although the paper aims at increasing distributive goals, it appears that efficient outcome is its byproduct. Integrating Calabresi and Melamed’s rules into the tax discourse via Rawls’ theory not only elucidates the versatility rule but also blurs the distinction between the protection and transfer rules, and highlights the reciprocity of the duty and right to pay taxes. Since Calabresi and Melamed’s classical work, many scholars have significantly modified the existing rules and developed new ones, such as the Solomonic entitlement and the pliability rule, though no one has thus far proposed a scenario in which all remedies simultaneously apply against the same entity.","PeriodicalId":44795,"journal":{"name":"Review of Law & Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Law & Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2016-0073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The paper identifies a new rule in the tax discourse – the versatility rule. Calabresi and Melamed’s landmark article contributed to the legal discussion despite paying relatively little attention to taxation. This paper analyzes income tax, Calabresi and Melamed’s rules and Rawls’ theory, and examines whether Calabresi and Melamed’s pioneering work on liability, property and inalienability rules can be integrated into income tax discourse (and other legitimate property expropriations); and claims that these rules assist in understanding the essence of taxation. The question is analyzed from the Rawlsian perspective since his concern with the “least advantaged” and inequality in society poses a serious global challenge. The paper offers a unique analysis by showing that in the tax field all rules protect the same entitlement at the same time against the same entity – the government. This concurrent implementation of Calabresi and Melamed’s rules in taxation can only take place when taxation is understood as both “giving” and “taking”. Although the paper aims at increasing distributive goals, it appears that efficient outcome is its byproduct. Integrating Calabresi and Melamed’s rules into the tax discourse via Rawls’ theory not only elucidates the versatility rule but also blurs the distinction between the protection and transfer rules, and highlights the reciprocity of the duty and right to pay taxes. Since Calabresi and Melamed’s classical work, many scholars have significantly modified the existing rules and developed new ones, such as the Solomonic entitlement and the pliability rule, though no one has thus far proposed a scenario in which all remedies simultaneously apply against the same entity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
罗尔斯,《税收与卡拉布雷西和梅拉米德规则》
摘要本文提出了一种新的税收语篇规则——通用性规则。卡拉布雷西和梅拉米德这篇具有里程碑意义的文章对法律讨论做出了贡献,尽管对税收的关注相对较少。本文分析了所得税、Calabresi和Melamed的规则和罗尔斯的理论,并考察了Calabresi和Melamed关于责任、财产和不可让与规则的开创性工作是否可以整合到所得税话语(以及其他合法的财产征收)中;并声称这些规则有助于理解税收的本质。这个问题是从罗尔斯的角度来分析的,因为他对“最弱势”和社会不平等的关注构成了一个严重的全球性挑战。本文提供了一个独特的分析,表明在税收领域,所有规则同时保护同一权利,反对同一实体-政府。只有当税收既被理解为“给予”又被理解为“索取”时,这种同时实施卡拉布雷西和梅拉米德的税收规则才会发生。虽然本文的目的是增加分配目标,但有效的结果似乎是它的副产品。通过罗尔斯的理论将卡拉布雷西和梅拉米德的规则整合到税收话语中,不仅阐明了通用性规则,而且模糊了保护规则和转移规则的界限,突出了纳税义务和纳税权利的互惠性。自卡拉布雷西和梅拉米德的经典著作以来,许多学者对现有规则进行了重大修改,并开发了新的规则,如所罗门权利和柔韧性规则,尽管迄今为止还没有人提出一种所有救济同时适用于同一实体的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
The Disavowal of Decisionism: Politically Motivated Exits from the U.S. Courts of Appeals On the Role of Sales Taxes for Efficient Compensation of Property Loss Under Strict Liability Broadband Internet and Crime Unraveling the Peltzman Effect: The Significance of Agent’s Type Do US State Breach Notification Laws Decrease Firm Data Breaches?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1