《经济评论季刊》,2018年夏季

K. McQuinn, Conor O'Toole, P. Economides, Teresa Monteiro
{"title":"《经济评论季刊》,2018年夏季","authors":"K. McQuinn, Conor O'Toole, P. Economides, Teresa Monteiro","doi":"10.26504/qec2018sum","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tax treatments of pensions vary widely across countries. This paper examines the current tax treatment of pension contributions in Ireland and some widely discussed alternatives, including equalising the tax relief available to low and high earners. The analysis takes into account both explicit contributions in the private sector, and the implicit value of publicly funded pensions. INTRODUCTION Most OECD countries are facing the ‘twin challenge of ensuring both the adequacy and financial sustainability’ of their pension systems (OECD, 2014). Ageing populations, falling fertility rates and stagnating employment levels mean that funding the income of the elderly by using taxes paid by the working age population is becoming more and more difficult. Similar pressures affect Ireland although its relatively high fertility rate does afford some advantage compared to many European countries. Calls for reform of both public and private pension systems in Ireland have been frequent over the last decades and have come from many sources. The OECD, while acknowledging that Ireland is better positioned than many countries, recommends that Ireland ‘continue to adapt and fine-tune its pension system so that it can provide affordable and adequate benefits to Irish retirees in the long term’. Collins and Hughes (2017) also call for reform of the pension system, questioning the effectiveness of the current set of policy instruments focused on getting people to save for their retirement. Reform of State pension entitlement is already under way. The retirement age has increased from 65 to 66, and further increases – to 67 in 2021 and 68 in 2028 – have been announced and passed in legislation. 1 This paper represents a development of work initially conducted for the Pensions Council. We thank the Council for initiating this project, and Council members Helen McDonald and Shane Whelan for helpful comments. We thank Gerry Reilly and the SILC team at the CSO for access to SILC data on which the SWITCH tax-benefit model is based. * Karina Doorley is Research Officer at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Research Fellow at the Institute of Labor Economics and Adjunct Lecturer at Trinity College Dublin. Tim Callan is Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Research Fellow at the Institute of Labor Economics and Adjunct Professor at Trinity College Dublin. Mark Regan is Research Assistant and John Walsh is Senior Research Analyst at the Economic and Social Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.26504/qec2018sum_sa_doorley 70 | Q uar t er ly Eco nomi c C omme nt ary – S um me r 2 01 8 State pensions in Ireland are not earnings related. As a result, the attainment of adequate replacement of employment income depends, for those on middle and higher incomes, on being supplemented by private pensions. Policy instruments which can encourage such private sector provision include both tax incentives and, potentially, legislative provisions regarding the availability of pension schemes to employees, and the manner of their operation. These can range from making membership of a pension scheme mandatory, to arrangements by which membership is automatic unless individuals opt out of the scheme. In this paper we focus on the tax treatment of pension contributions, which forms an important element of the overall tax treatment of pensions through pension contributions, investment income from pensions, and pensions in payment. This is a partial view of the overall territory, but offers some new insights. It does not lead directly to policy recommendations; several other factors would need to be taken into account in order to reach such conclusions. There is wide variation the tax treatment of pension contributions across countries. Whitehouse (1999 and 2000) sets out four distinct options, characterised by whether or not contributions, pension fund income, and payments of pensions are taxable (T) or exempt (E). The current tax treatment of pensions in Ireland can be characterised as broadly following the principle that contributions are exempt from income tax. Pension fund income, which is the investment income derived from them, is also exempt, while income received from a pension is taxable in the normal way. Such an approach is not uncommon internationally and is labelled EET as contributions are Exempt, investment income is Exempt, and pensions in payment are Taxed. In the Irish system, there is a deviation from the strict EET framework, as lump sum payments at retirement are also exempted from tax. Whitehouse characterises EET as an expenditure tax, which could also be achieved under a TEE regime, taxing contributions on entry, but leaving pension fund income and pensions in payment exempt from tax. About half of the countries surveyed by Whitehouse (2000) had tax regimes which approximated an expenditure tax, or were more favourable to pensions than that. However, the other half of the countries surveyed had tax treatments closer to the comprehensive income tax approach, either TTE or ETT. Given this wide variation in country practice, there is no single standard approach to the tax treatment of pensions which commands universal acceptance. Our analysis focuses solely on potential changes to the tax treatment of contributions. Thus, in the Irish context, we can contrast the impact of the current system – with Q uar te r l y Eco nomic Comm en ta ry – S umm er 20 18 | 7 1 pension contributions exempt from tax – with alternatives where pension contributions are fully subject to tax, or have more restricted relief (e.g., through standardisation or hybridisation of the relief). It is not within the scope of this paper to move further to a full consideration of a move from EET to TEE (the prepaid expenditure tax) or TTE (one version of the comprehensive income tax). Nevertheless, the insights from this partial analysis of changes to the tax treatment of pensions may be of assistance in the broader debate regarding the tax treatment of pensions and alternative means (such as auto-enrolment) for the encouragement of pension savings. The Irish system exempts private pension contributions from income tax through its EET approach. EET systems are generally considered to result in higher pension contributions than TEE (Taxed, Exempt, Exempt) systems (Armstrong, 2015).There is limited evidence that this kind of tax relief is cost effective in incentivising individuals or households to save for retirement. Rather, findings from international policy reforms indicate that when these incentives are introduced or removed, households divert private savings into pension contributions or vice versa (Attanasio and Rohwedder, 2003; Attanasio et al., 2004; Chetty et al., 2014). Benjamin (2003) estimates that one-quarter of the savings under the US scheme known as 401(k) represents new national savings. In addition to this, households who normally save the most were found to be largely contributing funds that they would have saved anyway. This suggests that tax incentives for pension contributions face a ‘deadweight’ problem, whereby they subsidise savings that would have taken place anyway and this seems to be particularly so for those at higher incomes. As the tax relief afforded in Ireland is at the individual’s marginal tax rate, this makes it more beneficial to those with higher earnings. Potential paths to restructuring tax incentives for pension contributions were discussed in the Green Paper on Pensions (Department of Social and Family Affairs, 2007). Among other reforms suggested, equalising the tax relief available to low and high earners was considered in order to increase the financial incentive for low earners to make pension contributions. Callan et al. (2009) and Collins and Hughes (2018) also discuss the distributional implications of the provision of tax relief at the individual’s marginal tax rate: the research reported here provides a more up-to-date picture, and examines the distributional implications of a move to alternative forms of tax relief such as standard rating of the relief. Pension funds are exempt from income and capital gains tax while pension income is subject to partial taxation on withdrawal from the fund. Estimates of the revenue foregone due to tax relief on pension contributions are available from The Revenue Commissioners but should be interpreted with some caution. 72 | Q uar t er ly Eco nomi c C omme nt ary – S um me r 2 01 8 These estimates quantify the revenue foregone from exempting pension contributions from taxation, without adjustment for the change in pension contribution and investment behaviour that such a switch would result in. Nevertheless, the TET system provides a useful benchmark system against which we measure some reform scenarios – but the TET system is not proposed here as a policy reform. According to the Revenue Commissioners (2013), comparing the current EET Irish system with a hypothetical TET system yields a revenue foregone figure of approximately €1.3 billion.","PeriodicalId":343647,"journal":{"name":"Forecasting Report","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quarterly Economic Commentary, Summer 2018\",\"authors\":\"K. McQuinn, Conor O'Toole, P. Economides, Teresa Monteiro\",\"doi\":\"10.26504/qec2018sum\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Tax treatments of pensions vary widely across countries. This paper examines the current tax treatment of pension contributions in Ireland and some widely discussed alternatives, including equalising the tax relief available to low and high earners. The analysis takes into account both explicit contributions in the private sector, and the implicit value of publicly funded pensions. INTRODUCTION Most OECD countries are facing the ‘twin challenge of ensuring both the adequacy and financial sustainability’ of their pension systems (OECD, 2014). Ageing populations, falling fertility rates and stagnating employment levels mean that funding the income of the elderly by using taxes paid by the working age population is becoming more and more difficult. Similar pressures affect Ireland although its relatively high fertility rate does afford some advantage compared to many European countries. Calls for reform of both public and private pension systems in Ireland have been frequent over the last decades and have come from many sources. The OECD, while acknowledging that Ireland is better positioned than many countries, recommends that Ireland ‘continue to adapt and fine-tune its pension system so that it can provide affordable and adequate benefits to Irish retirees in the long term’. Collins and Hughes (2017) also call for reform of the pension system, questioning the effectiveness of the current set of policy instruments focused on getting people to save for their retirement. Reform of State pension entitlement is already under way. The retirement age has increased from 65 to 66, and further increases – to 67 in 2021 and 68 in 2028 – have been announced and passed in legislation. 1 This paper represents a development of work initially conducted for the Pensions Council. We thank the Council for initiating this project, and Council members Helen McDonald and Shane Whelan for helpful comments. We thank Gerry Reilly and the SILC team at the CSO for access to SILC data on which the SWITCH tax-benefit model is based. * Karina Doorley is Research Officer at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Research Fellow at the Institute of Labor Economics and Adjunct Lecturer at Trinity College Dublin. Tim Callan is Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Research Fellow at the Institute of Labor Economics and Adjunct Professor at Trinity College Dublin. Mark Regan is Research Assistant and John Walsh is Senior Research Analyst at the Economic and Social Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.26504/qec2018sum_sa_doorley 70 | Q uar t er ly Eco nomi c C omme nt ary – S um me r 2 01 8 State pensions in Ireland are not earnings related. As a result, the attainment of adequate replacement of employment income depends, for those on middle and higher incomes, on being supplemented by private pensions. Policy instruments which can encourage such private sector provision include both tax incentives and, potentially, legislative provisions regarding the availability of pension schemes to employees, and the manner of their operation. These can range from making membership of a pension scheme mandatory, to arrangements by which membership is automatic unless individuals opt out of the scheme. In this paper we focus on the tax treatment of pension contributions, which forms an important element of the overall tax treatment of pensions through pension contributions, investment income from pensions, and pensions in payment. This is a partial view of the overall territory, but offers some new insights. It does not lead directly to policy recommendations; several other factors would need to be taken into account in order to reach such conclusions. There is wide variation the tax treatment of pension contributions across countries. Whitehouse (1999 and 2000) sets out four distinct options, characterised by whether or not contributions, pension fund income, and payments of pensions are taxable (T) or exempt (E). The current tax treatment of pensions in Ireland can be characterised as broadly following the principle that contributions are exempt from income tax. Pension fund income, which is the investment income derived from them, is also exempt, while income received from a pension is taxable in the normal way. Such an approach is not uncommon internationally and is labelled EET as contributions are Exempt, investment income is Exempt, and pensions in payment are Taxed. In the Irish system, there is a deviation from the strict EET framework, as lump sum payments at retirement are also exempted from tax. Whitehouse characterises EET as an expenditure tax, which could also be achieved under a TEE regime, taxing contributions on entry, but leaving pension fund income and pensions in payment exempt from tax. About half of the countries surveyed by Whitehouse (2000) had tax regimes which approximated an expenditure tax, or were more favourable to pensions than that. However, the other half of the countries surveyed had tax treatments closer to the comprehensive income tax approach, either TTE or ETT. Given this wide variation in country practice, there is no single standard approach to the tax treatment of pensions which commands universal acceptance. Our analysis focuses solely on potential changes to the tax treatment of contributions. Thus, in the Irish context, we can contrast the impact of the current system – with Q uar te r l y Eco nomic Comm en ta ry – S umm er 20 18 | 7 1 pension contributions exempt from tax – with alternatives where pension contributions are fully subject to tax, or have more restricted relief (e.g., through standardisation or hybridisation of the relief). It is not within the scope of this paper to move further to a full consideration of a move from EET to TEE (the prepaid expenditure tax) or TTE (one version of the comprehensive income tax). Nevertheless, the insights from this partial analysis of changes to the tax treatment of pensions may be of assistance in the broader debate regarding the tax treatment of pensions and alternative means (such as auto-enrolment) for the encouragement of pension savings. The Irish system exempts private pension contributions from income tax through its EET approach. EET systems are generally considered to result in higher pension contributions than TEE (Taxed, Exempt, Exempt) systems (Armstrong, 2015).There is limited evidence that this kind of tax relief is cost effective in incentivising individuals or households to save for retirement. Rather, findings from international policy reforms indicate that when these incentives are introduced or removed, households divert private savings into pension contributions or vice versa (Attanasio and Rohwedder, 2003; Attanasio et al., 2004; Chetty et al., 2014). Benjamin (2003) estimates that one-quarter of the savings under the US scheme known as 401(k) represents new national savings. In addition to this, households who normally save the most were found to be largely contributing funds that they would have saved anyway. This suggests that tax incentives for pension contributions face a ‘deadweight’ problem, whereby they subsidise savings that would have taken place anyway and this seems to be particularly so for those at higher incomes. As the tax relief afforded in Ireland is at the individual’s marginal tax rate, this makes it more beneficial to those with higher earnings. Potential paths to restructuring tax incentives for pension contributions were discussed in the Green Paper on Pensions (Department of Social and Family Affairs, 2007). Among other reforms suggested, equalising the tax relief available to low and high earners was considered in order to increase the financial incentive for low earners to make pension contributions. Callan et al. (2009) and Collins and Hughes (2018) also discuss the distributional implications of the provision of tax relief at the individual’s marginal tax rate: the research reported here provides a more up-to-date picture, and examines the distributional implications of a move to alternative forms of tax relief such as standard rating of the relief. Pension funds are exempt from income and capital gains tax while pension income is subject to partial taxation on withdrawal from the fund. Estimates of the revenue foregone due to tax relief on pension contributions are available from The Revenue Commissioners but should be interpreted with some caution. 72 | Q uar t er ly Eco nomi c C omme nt ary – S um me r 2 01 8 These estimates quantify the revenue foregone from exempting pension contributions from taxation, without adjustment for the change in pension contribution and investment behaviour that such a switch would result in. Nevertheless, the TET system provides a useful benchmark system against which we measure some reform scenarios – but the TET system is not proposed here as a policy reform. According to the Revenue Commissioners (2013), comparing the current EET Irish system with a hypothetical TET system yields a revenue foregone figure of approximately €1.3 billion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":343647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forecasting Report\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forecasting Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26504/qec2018sum\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forecasting Report","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26504/qec2018sum","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

各国对养老金的税收待遇差别很大。本文研究了爱尔兰目前对养老金缴款的税收处理以及一些广泛讨论的替代方案,包括使低收入者和高收入者的税收减免平等。该分析既考虑了私营部门的显性贡献,也考虑了公共资助养老金的隐性价值。大多数经合组织国家都面临着“确保养老金制度充足性和财务可持续性的双重挑战”(OECD, 2014)。人口老龄化、生育率下降和就业水平停滞不前意味着,利用劳动年龄人口缴纳的税款来为老年人的收入提供资金正变得越来越困难。类似的压力也影响着爱尔兰,尽管其相对较高的生育率与许多欧洲国家相比确实有一些优势。在过去的几十年里,要求改革爱尔兰公共和私人养老金制度的呼声一直很频繁,而且来自许多方面。经合组织虽然承认爱尔兰比许多国家处于更好的位置,但建议爱尔兰“继续调整和微调其养老金制度,以便能够长期为爱尔兰退休人员提供负担得起的充足福利”。Collins和Hughes(2017)还呼吁改革养老金制度,质疑当前一套专注于让人们为退休储蓄的政策工具的有效性。国家养老金权利的改革已经在进行中。退休年龄已从65岁提高到66岁,并进一步提高——2021年提高到67岁,2028年提高到68岁——已宣布并通过立法。本文代表了最初为养恤金理事会进行的工作的发展。我们感谢理事会发起这个项目,并感谢理事会成员Helen McDonald和Shane Whelan提供的有益意见。我们感谢Gerry Reilly和CSO的SILC团队访问了SWITCH税收-利益模型所基于的SILC数据。* Karina Doorley是经济和社会研究所的研究员,劳动经济研究所的研究员,都柏林三一学院的兼职讲师。蒂姆·卡兰是经济与社会研究所的研究教授,劳动经济研究所的研究员,都柏林三一学院的兼职教授。马克·里根是经济与社会研究所的研究助理,约翰·沃尔什是高级研究分析师。https://doi.org/10.26504/qec2018sum_sa_doorley 70 | Q:在爱尔兰,国家养老金与收入无关。因此,对于中等收入和较高收入的人来说,实现充分替代就业收入取决于私人养恤金的补充。能够鼓励私营部门提供这种服务的政策手段包括税收优惠,可能还包括关于雇员是否有养恤金计划及其运作方式的立法规定。这些措施的范围可以从强制加入养老金计划,到除非个人选择退出该计划,否则自动加入的安排。在本文中,我们重点研究养老金缴款的税收处理,它通过养老金缴款、养老金投资收入和养老金支付构成了养老金整体税收处理的重要组成部分。这是对整个地区的部分看法,但提供了一些新的见解。它不会直接导致政策建议;为了得出这样的结论,还需要考虑到其他几个因素。各国对养老金缴款的税收待遇差别很大。怀特豪斯(1999年和2000年)提出了四种不同的选择,其特点是捐款、养老基金收入和养老金支付是否应纳税(T)或免税(E)。爱尔兰目前对养老金的税收待遇可以概括为大致遵循捐款免征所得税的原则。养老基金收入,即从养老基金中获得的投资收入,也可以免税,而从养老基金中获得的收入则按正常方式纳税。这种做法在国际上并不罕见,被称为EET,因为捐款是免税的,投资收入是免税的,支付中的养老金是征税的。在爱尔兰的制度中,有一个偏离严格的EET框架,因为退休时的一次性付款也免税。怀特豪斯将EET描述为一种支出税,这也可以在TEE制度下实现,即在进入时征税,但养老基金收入和养老金支付免税。在Whitehouse(2000)调查的国家中,大约有一半的国家的税收制度近似于支出税,或者对养老金更有利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Quarterly Economic Commentary, Summer 2018
Tax treatments of pensions vary widely across countries. This paper examines the current tax treatment of pension contributions in Ireland and some widely discussed alternatives, including equalising the tax relief available to low and high earners. The analysis takes into account both explicit contributions in the private sector, and the implicit value of publicly funded pensions. INTRODUCTION Most OECD countries are facing the ‘twin challenge of ensuring both the adequacy and financial sustainability’ of their pension systems (OECD, 2014). Ageing populations, falling fertility rates and stagnating employment levels mean that funding the income of the elderly by using taxes paid by the working age population is becoming more and more difficult. Similar pressures affect Ireland although its relatively high fertility rate does afford some advantage compared to many European countries. Calls for reform of both public and private pension systems in Ireland have been frequent over the last decades and have come from many sources. The OECD, while acknowledging that Ireland is better positioned than many countries, recommends that Ireland ‘continue to adapt and fine-tune its pension system so that it can provide affordable and adequate benefits to Irish retirees in the long term’. Collins and Hughes (2017) also call for reform of the pension system, questioning the effectiveness of the current set of policy instruments focused on getting people to save for their retirement. Reform of State pension entitlement is already under way. The retirement age has increased from 65 to 66, and further increases – to 67 in 2021 and 68 in 2028 – have been announced and passed in legislation. 1 This paper represents a development of work initially conducted for the Pensions Council. We thank the Council for initiating this project, and Council members Helen McDonald and Shane Whelan for helpful comments. We thank Gerry Reilly and the SILC team at the CSO for access to SILC data on which the SWITCH tax-benefit model is based. * Karina Doorley is Research Officer at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Research Fellow at the Institute of Labor Economics and Adjunct Lecturer at Trinity College Dublin. Tim Callan is Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Research Fellow at the Institute of Labor Economics and Adjunct Professor at Trinity College Dublin. Mark Regan is Research Assistant and John Walsh is Senior Research Analyst at the Economic and Social Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.26504/qec2018sum_sa_doorley 70 | Q uar t er ly Eco nomi c C omme nt ary – S um me r 2 01 8 State pensions in Ireland are not earnings related. As a result, the attainment of adequate replacement of employment income depends, for those on middle and higher incomes, on being supplemented by private pensions. Policy instruments which can encourage such private sector provision include both tax incentives and, potentially, legislative provisions regarding the availability of pension schemes to employees, and the manner of their operation. These can range from making membership of a pension scheme mandatory, to arrangements by which membership is automatic unless individuals opt out of the scheme. In this paper we focus on the tax treatment of pension contributions, which forms an important element of the overall tax treatment of pensions through pension contributions, investment income from pensions, and pensions in payment. This is a partial view of the overall territory, but offers some new insights. It does not lead directly to policy recommendations; several other factors would need to be taken into account in order to reach such conclusions. There is wide variation the tax treatment of pension contributions across countries. Whitehouse (1999 and 2000) sets out four distinct options, characterised by whether or not contributions, pension fund income, and payments of pensions are taxable (T) or exempt (E). The current tax treatment of pensions in Ireland can be characterised as broadly following the principle that contributions are exempt from income tax. Pension fund income, which is the investment income derived from them, is also exempt, while income received from a pension is taxable in the normal way. Such an approach is not uncommon internationally and is labelled EET as contributions are Exempt, investment income is Exempt, and pensions in payment are Taxed. In the Irish system, there is a deviation from the strict EET framework, as lump sum payments at retirement are also exempted from tax. Whitehouse characterises EET as an expenditure tax, which could also be achieved under a TEE regime, taxing contributions on entry, but leaving pension fund income and pensions in payment exempt from tax. About half of the countries surveyed by Whitehouse (2000) had tax regimes which approximated an expenditure tax, or were more favourable to pensions than that. However, the other half of the countries surveyed had tax treatments closer to the comprehensive income tax approach, either TTE or ETT. Given this wide variation in country practice, there is no single standard approach to the tax treatment of pensions which commands universal acceptance. Our analysis focuses solely on potential changes to the tax treatment of contributions. Thus, in the Irish context, we can contrast the impact of the current system – with Q uar te r l y Eco nomic Comm en ta ry – S umm er 20 18 | 7 1 pension contributions exempt from tax – with alternatives where pension contributions are fully subject to tax, or have more restricted relief (e.g., through standardisation or hybridisation of the relief). It is not within the scope of this paper to move further to a full consideration of a move from EET to TEE (the prepaid expenditure tax) or TTE (one version of the comprehensive income tax). Nevertheless, the insights from this partial analysis of changes to the tax treatment of pensions may be of assistance in the broader debate regarding the tax treatment of pensions and alternative means (such as auto-enrolment) for the encouragement of pension savings. The Irish system exempts private pension contributions from income tax through its EET approach. EET systems are generally considered to result in higher pension contributions than TEE (Taxed, Exempt, Exempt) systems (Armstrong, 2015).There is limited evidence that this kind of tax relief is cost effective in incentivising individuals or households to save for retirement. Rather, findings from international policy reforms indicate that when these incentives are introduced or removed, households divert private savings into pension contributions or vice versa (Attanasio and Rohwedder, 2003; Attanasio et al., 2004; Chetty et al., 2014). Benjamin (2003) estimates that one-quarter of the savings under the US scheme known as 401(k) represents new national savings. In addition to this, households who normally save the most were found to be largely contributing funds that they would have saved anyway. This suggests that tax incentives for pension contributions face a ‘deadweight’ problem, whereby they subsidise savings that would have taken place anyway and this seems to be particularly so for those at higher incomes. As the tax relief afforded in Ireland is at the individual’s marginal tax rate, this makes it more beneficial to those with higher earnings. Potential paths to restructuring tax incentives for pension contributions were discussed in the Green Paper on Pensions (Department of Social and Family Affairs, 2007). Among other reforms suggested, equalising the tax relief available to low and high earners was considered in order to increase the financial incentive for low earners to make pension contributions. Callan et al. (2009) and Collins and Hughes (2018) also discuss the distributional implications of the provision of tax relief at the individual’s marginal tax rate: the research reported here provides a more up-to-date picture, and examines the distributional implications of a move to alternative forms of tax relief such as standard rating of the relief. Pension funds are exempt from income and capital gains tax while pension income is subject to partial taxation on withdrawal from the fund. Estimates of the revenue foregone due to tax relief on pension contributions are available from The Revenue Commissioners but should be interpreted with some caution. 72 | Q uar t er ly Eco nomi c C omme nt ary – S um me r 2 01 8 These estimates quantify the revenue foregone from exempting pension contributions from taxation, without adjustment for the change in pension contribution and investment behaviour that such a switch would result in. Nevertheless, the TET system provides a useful benchmark system against which we measure some reform scenarios – but the TET system is not proposed here as a policy reform. According to the Revenue Commissioners (2013), comparing the current EET Irish system with a hypothetical TET system yields a revenue foregone figure of approximately €1.3 billion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Quarterly Economic Commentary, Spring 2020 Quarterly Economic Commentary, Summer 2019 Quarterly Economic Commentary, Winter 2020 Quarterly Economic Commentary, Autumn 2018 Quarterly Economic Commentary, Summer 2018
×
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