美国和德国的投资收益扣缴

Lily Kahng
{"title":"美国和德国的投资收益扣缴","authors":"Lily Kahng","doi":"10.5744/ftr.2010.1003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a reversal from its historical roots, the United States income tax system now taxes income from labor significantly more heavily than income from capital. It does so not only facially, through explicit preferences for income from capital, but also more subtly, through more hidden features of the tax system - specifically, enforcement strategies. This Article focuses on a prominent disparity in enforcement between the two forms of income: Wage income is subject to withholding while investment income is not. In its critical examination of this disparity, the Article first offers a brief history of withholding in the United States, in which withholding on wage income was eagerly embraced as a part of a patriotic war effort, while withholding on investment income was rejected again and again. The Article then contrasts the United States experience with that of Germany. Under Germany's remarkably robust constitutional principle of equality in taxation, the failure to withhold on interest income was held unconstitutional, and the German legislature was required to enact it. However, instead of leading to greater equality in tax enforcement, the new withholding law led to widespread evasion. The German experience is cited as a cautionary tale on the dangers of international tax competition. Yet, ultimately, it may prove to have been the tipping point for countries to engage in the cooperative behavior needed to overcome undesirable tax competition. The last Part of the Article draws upon lessons learned from past U.S. and German experiences to make the normative and practical case that now is the time to adopt investment income withholding in the United States.","PeriodicalId":341058,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Primary Taxonomy (Topic)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investment Income Withholding in the United States and Germany\",\"authors\":\"Lily Kahng\",\"doi\":\"10.5744/ftr.2010.1003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a reversal from its historical roots, the United States income tax system now taxes income from labor significantly more heavily than income from capital. It does so not only facially, through explicit preferences for income from capital, but also more subtly, through more hidden features of the tax system - specifically, enforcement strategies. This Article focuses on a prominent disparity in enforcement between the two forms of income: Wage income is subject to withholding while investment income is not. In its critical examination of this disparity, the Article first offers a brief history of withholding in the United States, in which withholding on wage income was eagerly embraced as a part of a patriotic war effort, while withholding on investment income was rejected again and again. The Article then contrasts the United States experience with that of Germany. Under Germany's remarkably robust constitutional principle of equality in taxation, the failure to withhold on interest income was held unconstitutional, and the German legislature was required to enact it. However, instead of leading to greater equality in tax enforcement, the new withholding law led to widespread evasion. The German experience is cited as a cautionary tale on the dangers of international tax competition. Yet, ultimately, it may prove to have been the tipping point for countries to engage in the cooperative behavior needed to overcome undesirable tax competition. The last Part of the Article draws upon lessons learned from past U.S. and German experiences to make the normative and practical case that now is the time to adopt investment income withholding in the United States.\",\"PeriodicalId\":341058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Primary Taxonomy (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Primary Taxonomy (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5744/ftr.2010.1003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Primary Taxonomy (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5744/ftr.2010.1003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与历史根源相反,美国所得税制度现在对劳动收入的征税明显高于对资本收入的征税。它不仅表面上通过对资本收入的明确偏好来实现这一目标,而且更微妙地通过税收体系中更隐蔽的特征来实现这一目标——具体来说,就是执法策略。本文关注的是两种收入形式在执行上的显著差异:工资收入需要扣缴,而投资收入则不需要。在对这种差异进行批判性审查时,文章首先简要介绍了美国的代扣代缴历史,在这段历史中,对工资收入的代扣代缴作为卫国战争努力的一部分受到热烈欢迎,而对投资收入的代扣代缴却一再遭到拒绝。然后,文章将美国的经验与德国的经验进行了对比。根据德国非常强有力的税收平等宪法原则,未能预扣利息收入被认为是违宪的,德国立法机构必须颁布这一规定。然而,新的预扣税法非但没有使税收执法更加平等,反而导致了广泛的逃税行为。德国的经验被引用为国际税收竞争危险的警世故事。然而,最终,它可能被证明是各国参与合作行为以克服不受欢迎的税收竞争所需的转折点。文章的最后一部分借鉴了美国和德国过去的经验教训,提出了现在是美国采取投资收益预扣税的规范性和实践性案例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investment Income Withholding in the United States and Germany
In a reversal from its historical roots, the United States income tax system now taxes income from labor significantly more heavily than income from capital. It does so not only facially, through explicit preferences for income from capital, but also more subtly, through more hidden features of the tax system - specifically, enforcement strategies. This Article focuses on a prominent disparity in enforcement between the two forms of income: Wage income is subject to withholding while investment income is not. In its critical examination of this disparity, the Article first offers a brief history of withholding in the United States, in which withholding on wage income was eagerly embraced as a part of a patriotic war effort, while withholding on investment income was rejected again and again. The Article then contrasts the United States experience with that of Germany. Under Germany's remarkably robust constitutional principle of equality in taxation, the failure to withhold on interest income was held unconstitutional, and the German legislature was required to enact it. However, instead of leading to greater equality in tax enforcement, the new withholding law led to widespread evasion. The German experience is cited as a cautionary tale on the dangers of international tax competition. Yet, ultimately, it may prove to have been the tipping point for countries to engage in the cooperative behavior needed to overcome undesirable tax competition. The last Part of the Article draws upon lessons learned from past U.S. and German experiences to make the normative and practical case that now is the time to adopt investment income withholding in the United States.
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信