Pub Date : 2018-07-26DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0010
S. White
Taxation of wealth transfers across generations (‘inheritance tax’) is strongly supported by social justice considerations but is also politically and morally contentious. As well as citing concerns about the possible impact on motives to work and save, critics present several moral objections to inheritance tax: it allegedly entails ‘double taxation’; it taxes citizens differently according to how they use their wealth, violating equity; it penalizes the ‘virtuous’ use of personal wealth; and it targets the wrong problem, which is not unequal holdings of wealth as such but unequal consumption. This paper addresses each of these four criticisms, indicates their flaws and limitations, and shows that they do not rebut the case for inheritance tax on grounds of social justice.
{"title":"Moral Objections to Inheritance Tax","authors":"S. White","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0010","url":null,"abstract":"Taxation of wealth transfers across generations (‘inheritance tax’) is strongly supported by social justice considerations but is also politically and morally contentious. As well as citing concerns about the possible impact on motives to work and save, critics present several moral objections to inheritance tax: it allegedly entails ‘double taxation’; it taxes citizens differently according to how they use their wealth, violating equity; it penalizes the ‘virtuous’ use of personal wealth; and it targets the wrong problem, which is not unequal holdings of wealth as such but unequal consumption. This paper addresses each of these four criticisms, indicates their flaws and limitations, and shows that they do not rebut the case for inheritance tax on grounds of social justice.","PeriodicalId":36556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Australian Taxation","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72517337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-26DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0013
Gillian Brock, R. McMaster
Chapter 12 considers why reforms to several taxation arrangements are needed, especially in the quest to reduce global injustices. The role of tax havens and transfer pricing schemes in facilitating massive tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance are discussed, along with some of the initiatives aimed at improvements. The case for carefully crafted new global taxes, including air ticket taxes and currency transaction taxes, is also considered. The chapter argues that all the reforms proposed here are normatively desirable and feasible. The chapter also engages with the work of prominent proposals concerning global taxation, considering their strengths and weaknesses.
{"title":"Global Taxation and Accounting Arrangements","authors":"Gillian Brock, R. McMaster","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0013","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 12 considers why reforms to several taxation arrangements are needed, especially in the quest to reduce global injustices. The role of tax havens and transfer pricing schemes in facilitating massive tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance are discussed, along with some of the initiatives aimed at improvements. The case for carefully crafted new global taxes, including air ticket taxes and currency transaction taxes, is also considered. The chapter argues that all the reforms proposed here are normatively desirable and feasible. The chapter also engages with the work of prominent proposals concerning global taxation, considering their strengths and weaknesses.","PeriodicalId":36556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Australian Taxation","volume":"141 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87911706","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-26DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199609222.003.0002
A. Hamlin
The modern economics literature provides three approaches to the analysis of taxation: one focused on the optimal balancing of a variety of normative considerations, a second focused on the relationship between taxation and (democratic) political processes, and a third focused on the possibility of constitutional limitations on the power to tax. This chapter outlines each of these approaches before discussing their compatibility and their implications for a more general normative political philosophy of taxation. It is argued that any coherent account of taxation in political philosophy should account for its non-ideal nature and draw on elements of all three economic approaches.
{"title":"What Political Philosophy Should Learn from Economics about Taxation","authors":"A. Hamlin","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780199609222.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199609222.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"The modern economics literature provides three approaches to the analysis of taxation: one focused on the optimal balancing of a variety of normative considerations, a second focused on the relationship between taxation and (democratic) political processes, and a third focused on the possibility of constitutional limitations on the power to tax. This chapter outlines each of these approaches before discussing their compatibility and their implications for a more general normative political philosophy of taxation. It is argued that any coherent account of taxation in political philosophy should account for its non-ideal nature and draw on elements of all three economic approaches.","PeriodicalId":36556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Australian Taxation","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76417585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-26DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199609222.003.0008
V. Munoz-Dardé, M. G. Martín
This chapter looks at moral justifications for funding welfare benefits through general taxation rather than seeking to support it through charitable giving. That is, the parties to the debate are assumed to accept the moral imperative to support the destitute, and the political question is whether there is any requirement to do so through taxation. The chapter explores parallels between begging and the raising of charitable donations, highlighting not only the costs of begging on supplicants, but those that fall as well on the would-be donors. In the light of this, the chapter offers a justification for using taxation as a preferred way of raising resources for the provision of welfare benefits which has echoes of, but contrasts with, a famous proposal by Thomas Nagel.
{"title":"Beggar Your Neighbour","authors":"V. Munoz-Dardé, M. G. Martín","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780199609222.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199609222.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter looks at moral justifications for funding welfare benefits through general taxation rather than seeking to support it through charitable giving. That is, the parties to the debate are assumed to accept the moral imperative to support the destitute, and the political question is whether there is any requirement to do so through taxation. The chapter explores parallels between begging and the raising of charitable donations, highlighting not only the costs of begging on supplicants, but those that fall as well on the would-be donors. In the light of this, the chapter offers a justification for using taxation as a preferred way of raising resources for the provision of welfare benefits which has echoes of, but contrasts with, a famous proposal by Thomas Nagel.","PeriodicalId":36556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Australian Taxation","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79889456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-26DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0012
P. Dietsch
Governments increasingly use their fiscal policy to attract mobile capital from abroad. This tax competition puts a strain on the international fiscal system by undermining the capacity of states to make autonomous fiscal choices and by exacerbating inequalities. The existing regulatory framework is not able to address these challenges. Yet, what considerations should guide our efforts for reform? This chapter argues that a first necessary step consists in understanding the principles that justify the state as the principal locus of fiscal control in the first place. Building on an account of the legitimacy of the state and its fiscal powers, the chapter shows how tax competition is in tension with the principal objectives this account assigns to the state. It then outlines a normative response to tax competition that relies on both reforming jurisdictional rules and redistribution between states.
{"title":"The State and Tax Competition","authors":"P. Dietsch","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0012","url":null,"abstract":"Governments increasingly use their fiscal policy to attract mobile capital from abroad. This tax competition puts a strain on the international fiscal system by undermining the capacity of states to make autonomous fiscal choices and by exacerbating inequalities. The existing regulatory framework is not able to address these challenges. Yet, what considerations should guide our efforts for reform? This chapter argues that a first necessary step consists in understanding the principles that justify the state as the principal locus of fiscal control in the first place. Building on an account of the legitimacy of the state and its fiscal powers, the chapter shows how tax competition is in tension with the principal objectives this account assigns to the state. It then outlines a normative response to tax competition that relies on both reforming jurisdictional rules and redistribution between states.","PeriodicalId":36556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Australian Taxation","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78391017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-26DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0003
M. Fleurbaey
The economic theory of income taxation has recently been eager to apply philosophically prominent approaches to the selection of the optimal tax on earnings. This chapter presents and compares the consequentialist–utilitarian approach to taxation developed by Mirrlees and defended by Murphy and Nagel, to the fair allocation approach, as adapted to taxation problems by Fleurbaey and Maniquet. The fairness approach does retain an element of libertarianism and gives some value to market earnings. The two approaches have different recommendations for taxation, especially regarding low incomes, which are given absolute priority under the fairness approach, and may be submitted to lower tax rates out of respect for the diversity of preferences among the least skilled workers.
{"title":"Welfarism, Libertarianism, and Fairness in the Economic Approach to Taxation","authors":"M. Fleurbaey","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"The economic theory of income taxation has recently been eager to apply philosophically prominent approaches to the selection of the optimal tax on earnings. This chapter presents and compares the consequentialist–utilitarian approach to taxation developed by Mirrlees and defended by Murphy and Nagel, to the fair allocation approach, as adapted to taxation problems by Fleurbaey and Maniquet. The fairness approach does retain an element of libertarianism and gives some value to market earnings. The two approaches have different recommendations for taxation, especially regarding low incomes, which are given absolute priority under the fairness approach, and may be submitted to lower tax rates out of respect for the diversity of preferences among the least skilled workers.","PeriodicalId":36556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Australian Taxation","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89041737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-26DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0006
P. Vallentyne
Chapter 5 discusses the implications of libertarianism for just taxation. Libertarianism holds that agents fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to appropriate natural or abandoned resources. Some versions of libertarianism preclude the possibility of just taxation, but the author claims that other versions can, under very limited circumstances, endorse two kinds of taxes as just: taxes on right-infringers for the cost of rights-enforcement and taxes on anyone with an excess share of the value ownership rights over natural resources. Other kinds of taxation, such as income taxes, human resource (talents) taxes, and artifactual resource taxation are not just on any version of libertarianism.
{"title":"Libertarianism and Taxation","authors":"P. Vallentyne","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 5 discusses the implications of libertarianism for just taxation. Libertarianism holds that agents fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to appropriate natural or abandoned resources. Some versions of libertarianism preclude the possibility of just taxation, but the author claims that other versions can, under very limited circumstances, endorse two kinds of taxes as just: taxes on right-infringers for the cost of rights-enforcement and taxes on anyone with an excess share of the value ownership rights over natural resources. Other kinds of taxation, such as income taxes, human resource (talents) taxes, and artifactual resource taxation are not just on any version of libertarianism.","PeriodicalId":36556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Australian Taxation","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76597285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-26DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0011
I. McLean
This chapter aims to show that land value tax has both theoretical and practical merit. The author traces the classical normative arguments for land tax in Adam Smith, Tom Paine, David Ricardo, Henry George, and Lloyd George, and the current academic literature, and then shows how some of difficulties of inheritance (estate) tax can be resolved by a land tax. It would also improve on the UK’s current ragbag of property taxes. In the final sections, issues of practicability, and of winners and losers, are addressed. The examples almost all come from the United Kingdom, but the arguments are intended to be general.
{"title":"The Politics of Land Value Taxation","authors":"I. McLean","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0011","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter aims to show that land value tax has both theoretical and practical merit. The author traces the classical normative arguments for land tax in Adam Smith, Tom Paine, David Ricardo, Henry George, and Lloyd George, and the current academic literature, and then shows how some of difficulties of inheritance (estate) tax can be resolved by a land tax. It would also improve on the UK’s current ragbag of property taxes. In the final sections, issues of practicability, and of winners and losers, are addressed. The examples almost all come from the United Kingdom, but the arguments are intended to be general.","PeriodicalId":36556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Australian Taxation","volume":"154 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75327702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-26DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0004
G. Brennan
Does the fact that considerations of distributive justice entitle governments to interfere with the distribution (of income/wealth/consumption) that emerges from market interactions imply that the property rights structure on which that market distribution is based has no normative authority in structuring government/citizen interactions? That claim is one implied by Nagel and Murphy in their book The Myth of Ownership. Chapter 3 proposes that this claim is false; but insists that denying that claim does not entail denying the legitimacy of public redistribution through the tax-transfer process. One central claim is that the concept of horizontal equity—that individuals should pay taxes in relation to their aggregate returns from market activity—may be thought of as a principle that appropriately reconciles the competing normative claims of the private property rights structure on the one hand with other requirements of distributive justice.
{"title":"Striving for the Middle Ground","authors":"G. Brennan","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Does the fact that considerations of distributive justice entitle governments to interfere with the distribution (of income/wealth/consumption) that emerges from market interactions imply that the property rights structure on which that market distribution is based has no normative authority in structuring government/citizen interactions? That claim is one implied by Nagel and Murphy in their book The Myth of Ownership. Chapter 3 proposes that this claim is false; but insists that denying that claim does not entail denying the legitimacy of public redistribution through the tax-transfer process. One central claim is that the concept of horizontal equity—that individuals should pay taxes in relation to their aggregate returns from market activity—may be thought of as a principle that appropriately reconciles the competing normative claims of the private property rights structure on the one hand with other requirements of distributive justice.","PeriodicalId":36556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Australian Taxation","volume":"103 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73637940","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-26DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0005
Laura R Biron
This chapter draws attention to a puzzle about the relevance of the concept of property to studies of taxation. On the one hand, rhetorical appeals to property rights are prevalent in popular debates about taxation. On the other hand, property theorists do not tend to apply their work directly to the analysis of taxation. Moreover, some theorists of taxation have suggested that the concept of property is neither important nor relevant to the study of taxation. What are we to make of this mismatch between popular rhetoric and theoretical argument? Chapter 4 illustrates some ways in which conceptual work on property is directly relevant to the study of taxation, and argues that taxation should occupy a more prominent place in the jurisprudence of property than it currently does.
{"title":"Taxing or Taking? Property Rhetoric and the Justice of Taxation","authors":"Laura R Biron","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199609222.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter draws attention to a puzzle about the relevance of the concept of property to studies of taxation. On the one hand, rhetorical appeals to property rights are prevalent in popular debates about taxation. On the other hand, property theorists do not tend to apply their work directly to the analysis of taxation. Moreover, some theorists of taxation have suggested that the concept of property is neither important nor relevant to the study of taxation. What are we to make of this mismatch between popular rhetoric and theoretical argument? Chapter 4 illustrates some ways in which conceptual work on property is directly relevant to the study of taxation, and argues that taxation should occupy a more prominent place in the jurisprudence of property than it currently does.","PeriodicalId":36556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Australian Taxation","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76924083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：