論家庭養(yǎng)老背景下我國(guó)個(gè)人所得稅課稅單位選擇的稅收公平考量
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-09-07 18:05
【摘要】：收入分配與人們的利益密切相關(guān),社會(huì)分配是否公平一直是社會(huì)關(guān)注的熱點(diǎn)問題。從分配法則中“初次分配注重效率,再分配注重公平”到“初次分配和再分配都要處理好效率和公平的關(guān)系,再分配更加注重公平”中亦可見公平的重要性。稅收作為公民收入的二次分配方式,其征稅方式方法等是否公平一直備受關(guān)注。因此,在具體的稅收制度設(shè)計(jì)時(shí),也一直將稅收公平原則放在重要的位置。 本文正是以稅收公平原則為出發(fā)點(diǎn),來對(duì)當(dāng)前我國(guó)個(gè)人所得稅的課稅單位進(jìn)行考量,看當(dāng)前個(gè)人所得稅的課稅單位是否符合稅收公平原則。同時(shí),本文對(duì)美國(guó)以及歐洲國(guó)家的個(gè)人所得稅課稅單位進(jìn)行了考察,研究其個(gè)人所得稅課稅單位制度設(shè)計(jì)的背景,并且努力從中找尋可為我國(guó)的個(gè)人所得稅的課稅單位能夠借鑒的地方。 在本文的寫作中,主要是通過五個(gè)部分來展開自己的論述。 首先是導(dǎo)論部分,在這一部分,作者對(duì)文章的研究背景,本文的研究擬達(dá)到的目的以及主要的研究方法進(jìn)行了闡述。同時(shí),對(duì)本文的邏輯結(jié)構(gòu)進(jìn)行了介紹。 第一部分,論述了稅收公平原則的意蘊(yùn)。由法律形式正義帶來的困境開始,闡述了稅收實(shí)質(zhì)公平的理念。因?yàn)楸疚恼撌龅氖俏覈?guó)個(gè)人所得稅課稅單位選擇的稅收公平考量,并且,在稅收制度的設(shè)計(jì)上,其是否公平也一直是社會(huì)關(guān)注的問題。因此,在第一部分,作者主要對(duì)稅收公平原則進(jìn)行闡述。對(duì)稅收公平原則的闡述離不開對(duì)法律上公平理念的研究。作者在本文的論述中,對(duì)法律公平理念的發(fā)展脈絡(luò)進(jìn)項(xiàng)了梳理。對(duì)法律公平理念的闡釋可追溯至古希臘時(shí)期,在這一時(shí)期,許多先賢們對(duì)公平的理念進(jìn)項(xiàng)了解說。在19世紀(jì)的西方,法律形式公平的理念發(fā)展完善,法律形式主義者認(rèn)為,法律本身是一個(gè)邏輯嚴(yán)密的體系,法律的判決結(jié)果應(yīng)該只遵循其內(nèi)部的體系,而不應(yīng)該受外界所干擾。由于對(duì)法律形式主義主張,法官在適用法律時(shí)完全忽視了當(dāng)事人主體之間經(jīng)濟(jì)地位的差異,以及法律規(guī)則本身固有的滯后性、不確定性等問題。由此,讓主張公平正義的法律實(shí)質(zhì)上變成了專門用來保護(hù)社會(huì)強(qiáng)者的工具,表面上的正義下掩蓋著非正義的事實(shí)。最終法律形式主義因過分追求內(nèi)部的邏輯和演繹而忽略了政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、倫理、風(fēng)俗習(xí)慣等對(duì)法律的影響,將法律至于一個(gè)完全密閉的空間內(nèi)。這偏離了法律最終的價(jià)值目標(biāo)。為了擺脫形式公平的困境,19世紀(jì)末開始,相應(yīng)的法律制度開始出現(xiàn)了一系列的變化。學(xué)者們開始追求法律的實(shí)質(zhì)公平理念,體現(xiàn)弱者的利益,實(shí)現(xiàn)真正的公平。正如羅爾斯在其《正義論》中所論述的那樣,法律學(xué)者們對(duì)實(shí)質(zhì)公平的追求亦是體現(xiàn)在政治領(lǐng)域平等自由的前提下,主張對(duì)社會(huì)中的弱勢(shì)群體,給予經(jīng)濟(jì)利益和機(jī)會(huì)方面的傾斜性配置。這正是羅爾斯所論述的差別原則,差別原則體現(xiàn)了實(shí)質(zhì)公平的內(nèi)涵�，F(xiàn)代稅收法律制度作為調(diào)節(jié)社會(huì)分配,改善貧富差距的重要法律,其所體現(xiàn)的稅收公平原則亦是實(shí)質(zhì)上的公平。具體表現(xiàn)就是,納稅人的納稅能力與其稅收負(fù)擔(dān)相一致。 第二部分,對(duì)當(dāng)前我國(guó)以個(gè)人為課稅單位的所得稅制度進(jìn)行了研究,并對(duì)其是否符合稅收實(shí)質(zhì)公平原則做出了論證。當(dāng)前我國(guó)的個(gè)人所得稅課稅單位是以個(gè)人為課稅單位,其工薪所得費(fèi)用扣除額主要考慮的是居民用于購買食品、接受醫(yī)療、文化投資、參與交通、居住成本以及生活日用品的全國(guó)人均費(fèi)用,而未將納稅人實(shí)際家庭負(fù)擔(dān)差異考慮在內(nèi)。沒有充分體現(xiàn)差別原則,忽略納稅人家庭收入構(gòu)成的差別,與稅收公平原則中,稅負(fù)與其納稅能力的核心理念不相一致。同時(shí),在這一部分中,論述了將家庭養(yǎng)老支出計(jì)算在納稅人的扣除標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中的必然性。我國(guó)已經(jīng)進(jìn)入老齡化社會(huì),老齡化對(duì)現(xiàn)有的社會(huì)保障體系提出了新的挑戰(zhàn),給我國(guó)當(dāng)前的養(yǎng)老金制度帶來了極大的壓力。當(dāng)前,國(guó)家還沒有足夠的財(cái)政來為達(dá)到法定退休年齡的城鄉(xiāng)居民承擔(dān)養(yǎng)老金。另外,在興辦福利院、老年公寓方面,也無法滿足老年人的需求�？梢�,在“以居家養(yǎng)老為主”的現(xiàn)實(shí)選擇下,家庭在養(yǎng)老中承擔(dān)著主要的經(jīng)濟(jì)責(zé)任,但我國(guó)現(xiàn)行個(gè)人所得稅制度在個(gè)人所得稅課稅單位的選擇上,是以個(gè)人為課稅單位,其扣除額是以個(gè)人人均消費(fèi)支出為計(jì)算標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的,并沒有將養(yǎng)老支出充分計(jì)算在扣除標(biāo)準(zhǔn)范圍內(nèi),不僅削弱了養(yǎng)老家庭的經(jīng)濟(jì)能力,也使個(gè)人所得稅的實(shí)施效果更加有違稅收公平。 第三部分,對(duì)個(gè)人所得稅的課稅單位進(jìn)行了域外考察,觀察美國(guó)、歐洲國(guó)家的所得稅制度。并將所得稅制度與養(yǎng)老保障制度相結(jié)合進(jìn)行了研究。美國(guó)在以個(gè)人為課稅單位向以家庭為課稅單位轉(zhuǎn)變的過程中,主要考慮的是家庭的負(fù)擔(dān)。歐洲許多國(guó)家個(gè)人所得稅課稅單位雖經(jīng)歷了由家庭向個(gè)人的轉(zhuǎn)變,但為了確保稅收公平原則,多數(shù)選擇以家庭為課稅單位的國(guó)家也允許納稅人在個(gè)人和家庭納稅單位間自由選擇。而且不論美國(guó)還是歐洲國(guó)家,其都有相對(duì)完善的社會(huì)養(yǎng)老保障制度�？梢�,課稅單位的重新選擇如果有利于實(shí)現(xiàn)稅收公平,就應(yīng)當(dāng)進(jìn)一步優(yōu)化,重新設(shè)計(jì)。 第四部分,提出本文的觀點(diǎn),作者認(rèn)為,在當(dāng)前我國(guó)家庭承擔(dān)主要養(yǎng)老責(zé)任的背景下,將家庭養(yǎng)老支出計(jì)算在納稅人個(gè)人所得稅扣除標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的范圍內(nèi),是更加符合稅收實(shí)質(zhì)公平的。這也是變革課稅單位的要求。但是考慮到我國(guó)當(dāng)前稅收征管水平不高、家庭戶數(shù)難以確定等原因,作者建議當(dāng)前宜采取以個(gè)人為課稅單位與以家庭為課稅單位并存的稅制,讓納稅人自由選擇。
[Abstract]:Income distribution is closely related to people's interests. Whether social distribution is fair or not has always been a hot issue of social concern. Necessity. Taxation as a way of secondary distribution of citizens'income, the fairness of taxation methods has always been concerned. Therefore, in the design of specific tax system, the principle of tax fairness has always been placed in an important position.
Based on the principle of tax fairness, this paper examines the taxation units of individual income tax in China to see whether the taxation units of individual income tax conform to the principle of tax fairness. The background of the system design, and strive to find out from it for our country's individual income tax taxation unit can draw lessons from.
In the writing of this article, mainly through five parts to start their own discussion.
The first part is the introduction. In this part, the author elaborates the research background, the purpose of the study and the main research methods. At the same time, the logical structure of this paper is introduced.
The first part discusses the implication of the principle of tax fairness.Beginning with the dilemma brought about by the legal form of justice,this paper expounds the concept of tax substantive fairness.Because this paper discusses the consideration of tax fairness in the choice of individual income tax levier in China,and whether it is fair or not has always been a social concern in the design of the tax system. Therefore, in the first part, the author mainly expounds the principle of tax fairness. The principle of tax fairness can not be separated from the study of the concept of legal fairness. In the 19th century, in the West, the concept of formal justice of law developed and perfected. Legal formalists believed that the law itself was a logical and rigorous system, and that the results of legal judgments should follow only its internal system, and should not be disturbed by the outside world. In applying the law, the judge completely neglects the differences of the economic status between the parties, and the inherent lag and uncertainty of the legal rules. Thus, the law that advocates fairness and justice becomes a tool specially used to protect the strong in society, and the superficial justice conceals the unjust facts. Legal formalism neglects the influence of politics, economy, ethics, customs and habits on law because of its excessive pursuit of internal logic and deduction, and puts law into a completely closed space. This deviates from the ultimate value goal of law. In order to get rid of the dilemma of formal justice, the corresponding legal system began to appear at the end of the 19th century. A series of changes. Scholars began to pursue the concept of substantive justice of law, embodying the interests of the weak, and realizing real justice. As Rawls stated in his Theory of Justice, the pursuit of substantive justice by legal scholars is also reflected in the premise of equality and freedom in the political field, advocating that the disadvantaged groups in society should be given. This is the principle of difference discussed by Rawls, which embodies the connotation of substantive fairness. As an important law to adjust social distribution and improve the gap between the rich and the poor, the modern tax law system embodies the principle of tax fairness. The ability to pay taxes is consistent with the tax burden.
The second part studies the current income tax system in which the individual is the taxpayer and demonstrates whether it conforms to the principle of substantial fairness of taxation. The difference of taxpayers'actual family burden is not taken into account. The principle of difference is not fully embodied, and the difference of taxpayers' family income is neglected. It is inconsistent with the core concept of tax burden and tax ability in the principle of tax equity. In this part, the inevitability of calculating the family pension expenditure in the taxpayer's deduction standard is discussed. Our country has entered the aging society, the aging has put forward the new challenge to the existing social security system, and has brought the enormous pressure to our present pension system. In addition, it can not meet the needs of the elderly in establishing welfare homes and apartments for the elderly. It can be seen that the family bears the main economic responsibility in providing for the aged, but the current personal income tax system in China is based on the individual income tax levies. As for the choice of the standard, the deduction is based on the individual's per capita consumption expenditure, and the old-age expenditure is not fully calculated within the deduction standard. This not only weakens the economic ability of the old-age families, but also makes the implementation effect of individual income tax more contrary to tax equity.
In the third part, the author makes an extraterritorial study of the taxation units of individual income tax, observes the income tax systems of the United States and European countries, and studies the combination of the income tax system and the old-age security system. Although many countries have experienced the transition from family to individual, most countries that choose the family as the taxation unit allow taxpayers to choose freely between individual and family taxation units in order to ensure the principle of tax equity. Obstacles system. It can be seen that if the re-selection of Taxation units is conducive to the realization of tax equity, it should be further optimized and redesigned.
In the fourth part, the author puts forward the viewpoint of this paper. Under the background that the family bears the main responsibility for providing for the aged in our country, it is more in line with the real fairness of Taxation to calculate the family pension expenditure within the scope of the tax deduction standard of the individual income tax of the taxpayer. This is also the requirement of reforming the taxation units. Because of the low level and the difficulty in determining the number of households, the author suggests that the current tax system should be based on the coexistence of individual taxation units and family taxation units, so that taxpayers can choose freely.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：F812.42;D669.6
本文編號(hào)：2229016
[Abstract]:Income distribution is closely related to people's interests. Whether social distribution is fair or not has always been a hot issue of social concern. Necessity. Taxation as a way of secondary distribution of citizens'income, the fairness of taxation methods has always been concerned. Therefore, in the design of specific tax system, the principle of tax fairness has always been placed in an important position.
Based on the principle of tax fairness, this paper examines the taxation units of individual income tax in China to see whether the taxation units of individual income tax conform to the principle of tax fairness. The background of the system design, and strive to find out from it for our country's individual income tax taxation unit can draw lessons from.
In the writing of this article, mainly through five parts to start their own discussion.
The first part is the introduction. In this part, the author elaborates the research background, the purpose of the study and the main research methods. At the same time, the logical structure of this paper is introduced.
The first part discusses the implication of the principle of tax fairness.Beginning with the dilemma brought about by the legal form of justice,this paper expounds the concept of tax substantive fairness.Because this paper discusses the consideration of tax fairness in the choice of individual income tax levier in China,and whether it is fair or not has always been a social concern in the design of the tax system. Therefore, in the first part, the author mainly expounds the principle of tax fairness. The principle of tax fairness can not be separated from the study of the concept of legal fairness. In the 19th century, in the West, the concept of formal justice of law developed and perfected. Legal formalists believed that the law itself was a logical and rigorous system, and that the results of legal judgments should follow only its internal system, and should not be disturbed by the outside world. In applying the law, the judge completely neglects the differences of the economic status between the parties, and the inherent lag and uncertainty of the legal rules. Thus, the law that advocates fairness and justice becomes a tool specially used to protect the strong in society, and the superficial justice conceals the unjust facts. Legal formalism neglects the influence of politics, economy, ethics, customs and habits on law because of its excessive pursuit of internal logic and deduction, and puts law into a completely closed space. This deviates from the ultimate value goal of law. In order to get rid of the dilemma of formal justice, the corresponding legal system began to appear at the end of the 19th century. A series of changes. Scholars began to pursue the concept of substantive justice of law, embodying the interests of the weak, and realizing real justice. As Rawls stated in his Theory of Justice, the pursuit of substantive justice by legal scholars is also reflected in the premise of equality and freedom in the political field, advocating that the disadvantaged groups in society should be given. This is the principle of difference discussed by Rawls, which embodies the connotation of substantive fairness. As an important law to adjust social distribution and improve the gap between the rich and the poor, the modern tax law system embodies the principle of tax fairness. The ability to pay taxes is consistent with the tax burden.
The second part studies the current income tax system in which the individual is the taxpayer and demonstrates whether it conforms to the principle of substantial fairness of taxation. The difference of taxpayers'actual family burden is not taken into account. The principle of difference is not fully embodied, and the difference of taxpayers' family income is neglected. It is inconsistent with the core concept of tax burden and tax ability in the principle of tax equity. In this part, the inevitability of calculating the family pension expenditure in the taxpayer's deduction standard is discussed. Our country has entered the aging society, the aging has put forward the new challenge to the existing social security system, and has brought the enormous pressure to our present pension system. In addition, it can not meet the needs of the elderly in establishing welfare homes and apartments for the elderly. It can be seen that the family bears the main economic responsibility in providing for the aged, but the current personal income tax system in China is based on the individual income tax levies. As for the choice of the standard, the deduction is based on the individual's per capita consumption expenditure, and the old-age expenditure is not fully calculated within the deduction standard. This not only weakens the economic ability of the old-age families, but also makes the implementation effect of individual income tax more contrary to tax equity.
In the third part, the author makes an extraterritorial study of the taxation units of individual income tax, observes the income tax systems of the United States and European countries, and studies the combination of the income tax system and the old-age security system. Although many countries have experienced the transition from family to individual, most countries that choose the family as the taxation unit allow taxpayers to choose freely between individual and family taxation units in order to ensure the principle of tax equity. Obstacles system. It can be seen that if the re-selection of Taxation units is conducive to the realization of tax equity, it should be further optimized and redesigned.
In the fourth part, the author puts forward the viewpoint of this paper. Under the background that the family bears the main responsibility for providing for the aged in our country, it is more in line with the real fairness of Taxation to calculate the family pension expenditure within the scope of the tax deduction standard of the individual income tax of the taxpayer. This is also the requirement of reforming the taxation units. Because of the low level and the difficulty in determining the number of households, the author suggests that the current tax system should be based on the coexistence of individual taxation units and family taxation units, so that taxpayers can choose freely.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：F812.42;D669.6
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 梅夏英,方春暉;優(yōu)先權(quán)制度的理論和立法問題[J];法商研究;2004年03期
2 楊小強(qiáng);論稅法與私法的聯(lián)系[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1999年06期
3 陳茂國(guó);袁希;;我國(guó)個(gè)人所得稅課稅單位改革探究[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2013年01期
4 熊偉;王宗濤;;中國(guó)稅收優(yōu)先權(quán)制度的存廢之辯[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2013年02期
5 杜鵬,翟振武,陳衛(wèi);中國(guó)人口老齡化百年發(fā)展趨勢(shì)[J];人口研究;2005年06期
6 鄭春榮;;個(gè)人所得稅納稅單位選擇:基于婚姻中性的視角[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)家;2008年02期
7 翟繼光;;從“以人為本”看我國(guó)個(gè)人所得稅制度的缺陷與完善[J];稅務(wù)研究;2009年03期
8 馬君;詹卉;;美國(guó)個(gè)人所得稅課稅單位的演變及其對(duì)我國(guó)的啟示[J];稅務(wù)研究;2010年01期
9 蔡宏標(biāo);;美國(guó)個(gè)人所得稅稅率結(jié)構(gòu)演變對(duì)我國(guó)個(gè)稅改革的啟示[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2011年04期
10 彭海艷;;中美比較視域下個(gè)人所得稅制演進(jìn)邏輯與改革效應(yīng)[J];稅務(wù)與經(jīng)濟(jì);2012年05期
，本文編號(hào)：2229016
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/guanlilunwen/shuishoucaizhenglunwen/2229016.html
最近更新
教材專著
