瑞典视角下的投票权与所得税和福利待遇的比较

Yvette Lind
{"title":"瑞典视角下的投票权与所得税和福利待遇的比较","authors":"Yvette Lind","doi":"10.5744/ftr.2020.2009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ongoing globalization and increased taxpayer mobility not only exacerbate already existing shortcomings when allocating taxing rights but also legal mismatches in regard of access to welfare benefits and voting rights. All three legal areas (taxation, access to welfare benefits and voting rights) are of importance for those individuals who choose to cross-border work or relocate themselves to another state on a more permanent basis. The extent of this importance will, naturally, vary between taxpayer groups due to individual circumstances and needs. Yet some more general deductions may still be made. <br><br>This paper identifies and analyses, through a traditional legal study, legal mismatches between taxation, access to welfare benefits and voting rights in Sweden. These three legal areas are analysed through the application of a taxpayer case study consisting of six classical taxpayer groups commonly found within international taxation. The result of the study illustrates that there are apparent mismatches between taxpayer groups, some more comprehensible than others. <br><br>In conclusion, mobile individuals may as a result of disparities between tax allocation, formal citizenship and voting privileges contribute financially to a state yet not having the possibility to exercise influence over their tax situation due to the lack of formal citizenship and voting privileges in said state. The group who may influence taxation and public spending (tax and spend) through voting is therefore not always the same as those who pay taxes. This issue is naturally complex as the group of individuals excluded from such political influence is a highly diverse one, reaching from high-net individuals to state-less persons seeking asylum, subject to individual circumstances and needs. The paper in itself form part of a larger body of work, done under the umbrella of Political (Tax) equity in a global context, in which I explore how increased taxpayer mobility challenges not only traditional legal frameworks associated to taxation but also the allocation of political rights and benefits. The traditional perception of citizenship as the basis for voting rights is, as is illustrated through various publications linked to the project, found inadequate when dealing with mobile taxpayers.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Voting Rights Compared to Income Taxation and Welfare Benefits Through the Swedish Lens\",\"authors\":\"Yvette Lind\",\"doi\":\"10.5744/ftr.2020.2009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ongoing globalization and increased taxpayer mobility not only exacerbate already existing shortcomings when allocating taxing rights but also legal mismatches in regard of access to welfare benefits and voting rights. All three legal areas (taxation, access to welfare benefits and voting rights) are of importance for those individuals who choose to cross-border work or relocate themselves to another state on a more permanent basis. The extent of this importance will, naturally, vary between taxpayer groups due to individual circumstances and needs. Yet some more general deductions may still be made. <br><br>This paper identifies and analyses, through a traditional legal study, legal mismatches between taxation, access to welfare benefits and voting rights in Sweden. These three legal areas are analysed through the application of a taxpayer case study consisting of six classical taxpayer groups commonly found within international taxation. The result of the study illustrates that there are apparent mismatches between taxpayer groups, some more comprehensible than others. <br><br>In conclusion, mobile individuals may as a result of disparities between tax allocation, formal citizenship and voting privileges contribute financially to a state yet not having the possibility to exercise influence over their tax situation due to the lack of formal citizenship and voting privileges in said state. The group who may influence taxation and public spending (tax and spend) through voting is therefore not always the same as those who pay taxes. This issue is naturally complex as the group of individuals excluded from such political influence is a highly diverse one, reaching from high-net individuals to state-less persons seeking asylum, subject to individual circumstances and needs. The paper in itself form part of a larger body of work, done under the umbrella of Political (Tax) equity in a global context, in which I explore how increased taxpayer mobility challenges not only traditional legal frameworks associated to taxation but also the allocation of political rights and benefits. The traditional perception of citizenship as the basis for voting rights is, as is illustrated through various publications linked to the project, found inadequate when dealing with mobile taxpayers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":330166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5744/ftr.2020.2009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5744/ftr.2020.2009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

持续的全球化和纳税人流动性的增加不仅加剧了税收权利分配方面已经存在的缺陷,而且加剧了福利和投票权获得方面的法律不匹配。所有三个法律领域(税收、获得福利和投票权)对那些选择跨境工作或在更永久的基础上迁移到另一个国家的人来说都很重要。由于个人情况和需要,这种重要性的程度自然会因纳税人群体而异。然而,一些更普遍的扣除额仍可能被扣除。本文通过传统的法律研究,识别和分析了瑞典税收、获得福利和投票权之间的法律错配。这三个法律领域是通过纳税人案例研究的应用进行分析的,该案例研究由国际税收中常见的六个经典纳税人群体组成。研究结果表明,纳税人群体之间存在明显的不匹配,有些群体比其他群体更容易理解。最后,由于税收分配、正式公民身份和投票特权之间的差异,流动个人可能在财政上为一个国家作出贡献,但由于在该国家缺乏正式公民身份和投票特权,他们无法对其税收状况施加影响。因此,可能通过投票影响税收和公共支出(税收和支出)的群体并不总是与纳税群体相同。这个问题自然是复杂的,因为被排除在这种政治影响之外的个人群体是一个高度多样化的群体,从高净值个人到寻求庇护的无国籍人士,视个人情况和需要而定。该论文本身是在全球背景下政治(税收)公平的框架下完成的更大工作的一部分,其中我探讨了纳税人流动性的增加如何不仅挑战与税收相关的传统法律框架,而且挑战政治权利和利益的分配。正如与该项目有关的各种出版物所表明的那样,将公民身份视为投票权基础的传统观念在处理流动纳税人时是不充分的。
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
Voting Rights Compared to Income Taxation and Welfare Benefits Through the Swedish Lens
Ongoing globalization and increased taxpayer mobility not only exacerbate already existing shortcomings when allocating taxing rights but also legal mismatches in regard of access to welfare benefits and voting rights. All three legal areas (taxation, access to welfare benefits and voting rights) are of importance for those individuals who choose to cross-border work or relocate themselves to another state on a more permanent basis. The extent of this importance will, naturally, vary between taxpayer groups due to individual circumstances and needs. Yet some more general deductions may still be made.

This paper identifies and analyses, through a traditional legal study, legal mismatches between taxation, access to welfare benefits and voting rights in Sweden. These three legal areas are analysed through the application of a taxpayer case study consisting of six classical taxpayer groups commonly found within international taxation. The result of the study illustrates that there are apparent mismatches between taxpayer groups, some more comprehensible than others.

In conclusion, mobile individuals may as a result of disparities between tax allocation, formal citizenship and voting privileges contribute financially to a state yet not having the possibility to exercise influence over their tax situation due to the lack of formal citizenship and voting privileges in said state. The group who may influence taxation and public spending (tax and spend) through voting is therefore not always the same as those who pay taxes. This issue is naturally complex as the group of individuals excluded from such political influence is a highly diverse one, reaching from high-net individuals to state-less persons seeking asylum, subject to individual circumstances and needs. The paper in itself form part of a larger body of work, done under the umbrella of Political (Tax) equity in a global context, in which I explore how increased taxpayer mobility challenges not only traditional legal frameworks associated to taxation but also the allocation of political rights and benefits. The traditional perception of citizenship as the basis for voting rights is, as is illustrated through various publications linked to the project, found inadequate when dealing with mobile taxpayers.
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
Misdirected Recipients of Tax Reform: Section 199A, its True Beneficiaries, and Application to Low- and Middle- Income Residents Consistent Taxation in a Cashless Society Is It Time to Eliminate Federal Corporate Income Taxes? Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service Allocating COVID-19 State Aid Equitably – The Case of Denmark
×
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