{"title":"证券税与全球资本征税问题","authors":"Mark P. Gergen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3619211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An earlier paper, How to Tax Capital, 70 Tax L. Rev. 1 (2016), proposed a new approach to taxing capital owned by U.S. households and nonprofits. The cornerstone is a flat periodic tax on the market value of U.S. publicly traded securities. An annual tax rate of around .8 percent (80 basis points) would roughly approximate the average tax burden on capital income in the U.S. under the existing patchwork system for taxing capital income. A security issuer would remit the tax based on the market value of its securities. A security issuer would receive a credit for U.S. publicly traded securities it holds so that wealth that is represented by a string of publicly traded securities would be taxed once. Wealth held in forms other than publicly traded securities (e.g, private equity and closely held companies) would be taxed by a complementary tax at the same rate on their estimated value. The earlier paper explained why the securities tax is superior to the individual income tax and the corporate income tax as a tax on capital. It eliminates most distortions created by the existing system, it is easy to administer, and it is impossible to evade other than by holding wealth in illiquid forms (which is costly). \n \nThis paper examines how the securities tax would function in a global context assuming that other nations do not change their approach to taxing cross-border investment. The current system involves a bifurcated tax on capital income with the nation in which capital is used imposing a company-level tax on income and the state in which owners of capital reside imposing an owner-level tax of dividends, interest, and capital gains. The securities tax is a unitary tax on capital imposed at the company level. Integrating a unitary tax with the current bifurcated system requires several modifications in the securities tax: the corporate income tax would need to be retained to tax foreign direct investment in the U.S.; the U.S. would probably want to give a U.S. company a partial credit against the securities tax for foreign taxes paid by a company on foreign source income; and the U.S. probably would want to rebate a significant part of the securities tax to identified foreign owners of U.S. securities (the rebate would not be paid to unidentified owners). These modifications would mean that the securities tax would not remedy the problems that currently plague the taxation of global capital. One modest benefit is that not rebating the tax to unidentified foreign owners of U.S. assets would allow the U.S. government to share in the profit from the U.S. serving as a haven for hidden wealth, which would make the U.S. somewhat less attractive as a haven. But the modified securities tax would be no worse than the status quo with respect to taxing cross border investment.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Securities Tax and the Problems of Taxing Global Capital\",\"authors\":\"Mark P. Gergen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3619211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An earlier paper, How to Tax Capital, 70 Tax L. Rev. 1 (2016), proposed a new approach to taxing capital owned by U.S. households and nonprofits. The cornerstone is a flat periodic tax on the market value of U.S. publicly traded securities. An annual tax rate of around .8 percent (80 basis points) would roughly approximate the average tax burden on capital income in the U.S. under the existing patchwork system for taxing capital income. A security issuer would remit the tax based on the market value of its securities. A security issuer would receive a credit for U.S. publicly traded securities it holds so that wealth that is represented by a string of publicly traded securities would be taxed once. Wealth held in forms other than publicly traded securities (e.g, private equity and closely held companies) would be taxed by a complementary tax at the same rate on their estimated value. The earlier paper explained why the securities tax is superior to the individual income tax and the corporate income tax as a tax on capital. It eliminates most distortions created by the existing system, it is easy to administer, and it is impossible to evade other than by holding wealth in illiquid forms (which is costly). \\n \\nThis paper examines how the securities tax would function in a global context assuming that other nations do not change their approach to taxing cross-border investment. The current system involves a bifurcated tax on capital income with the nation in which capital is used imposing a company-level tax on income and the state in which owners of capital reside imposing an owner-level tax of dividends, interest, and capital gains. The securities tax is a unitary tax on capital imposed at the company level. Integrating a unitary tax with the current bifurcated system requires several modifications in the securities tax: the corporate income tax would need to be retained to tax foreign direct investment in the U.S.; the U.S. would probably want to give a U.S. company a partial credit against the securities tax for foreign taxes paid by a company on foreign source income; and the U.S. probably would want to rebate a significant part of the securities tax to identified foreign owners of U.S. securities (the rebate would not be paid to unidentified owners). These modifications would mean that the securities tax would not remedy the problems that currently plague the taxation of global capital. One modest benefit is that not rebating the tax to unidentified foreign owners of U.S. assets would allow the U.S. government to share in the profit from the U.S. serving as a haven for hidden wealth, which would make the U.S. somewhat less attractive as a haven. But the modified securities tax would be no worse than the status quo with respect to taxing cross border investment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of California, Davis law review\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of California, Davis law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3619211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of California, Davis law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3619211","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
早期的一篇论文《如何对资本征税,70 Tax L. Rev. 1(2016)》提出了一种对美国家庭和非营利组织拥有的资本征税的新方法。其基础是对美国公开交易证券的市场价值定期征收统一税。大约0.8%(80个基点)的年税率大致相当于美国现有的资本收入拼凑税制下的平均资本收入税负。证券发行人将根据其证券的市场价值缴纳税款。证券发行人持有的美国公开交易证券将获得信贷,这样一系列公开交易证券所代表的财富将被一次性征税。以公开交易证券以外的形式持有的财富(例如,私人股本和少数人持股的公司)将按其估计价值按相同的税率征收补充税。前面的文章解释了为什么证券税作为资本税优于个人所得税和企业所得税。它消除了现有制度造成的大多数扭曲,易于管理,除了以非流动性形式持有财富(这是昂贵的)之外,不可能逃避。本文考察了证券税如何在全球范围内发挥作用,假设其他国家不改变他们对跨境投资征税的方法。目前的制度涉及对资本收入的双重征税,资本使用国对收入征收公司级税,资本所有者居住的州对股息、利息和资本收益征收所有者级税。证券税是在公司层面对资本征收的单一税。将单一税与目前的分税制相结合,需要对证券税进行几项修改:企业所得税需要保留,以便对在美外国直接投资征税;美国可能希望给予美国公司部分抵免证券税,以抵免公司因外国来源收入而缴纳的外国税款;而且,美国可能希望将很大一部分证券税退还给持有美国证券的已确认的外国所有者(退税不会支付给未确认的所有者)。这些修改将意味着,证券税将无法解决目前困扰全球资本征税的问题。一个小小的好处是,不向持有美国资产的身份不明的外国所有者返还税款,将使美国政府能够分享美国作为隐藏财富避风港所带来的利润,这将使美国作为避风港的吸引力有所下降。但在对跨境投资征税方面,修改后的证券税不会比现状更糟糕。
A Securities Tax and the Problems of Taxing Global Capital
An earlier paper, How to Tax Capital, 70 Tax L. Rev. 1 (2016), proposed a new approach to taxing capital owned by U.S. households and nonprofits. The cornerstone is a flat periodic tax on the market value of U.S. publicly traded securities. An annual tax rate of around .8 percent (80 basis points) would roughly approximate the average tax burden on capital income in the U.S. under the existing patchwork system for taxing capital income. A security issuer would remit the tax based on the market value of its securities. A security issuer would receive a credit for U.S. publicly traded securities it holds so that wealth that is represented by a string of publicly traded securities would be taxed once. Wealth held in forms other than publicly traded securities (e.g, private equity and closely held companies) would be taxed by a complementary tax at the same rate on their estimated value. The earlier paper explained why the securities tax is superior to the individual income tax and the corporate income tax as a tax on capital. It eliminates most distortions created by the existing system, it is easy to administer, and it is impossible to evade other than by holding wealth in illiquid forms (which is costly).
This paper examines how the securities tax would function in a global context assuming that other nations do not change their approach to taxing cross-border investment. The current system involves a bifurcated tax on capital income with the nation in which capital is used imposing a company-level tax on income and the state in which owners of capital reside imposing an owner-level tax of dividends, interest, and capital gains. The securities tax is a unitary tax on capital imposed at the company level. Integrating a unitary tax with the current bifurcated system requires several modifications in the securities tax: the corporate income tax would need to be retained to tax foreign direct investment in the U.S.; the U.S. would probably want to give a U.S. company a partial credit against the securities tax for foreign taxes paid by a company on foreign source income; and the U.S. probably would want to rebate a significant part of the securities tax to identified foreign owners of U.S. securities (the rebate would not be paid to unidentified owners). These modifications would mean that the securities tax would not remedy the problems that currently plague the taxation of global capital. One modest benefit is that not rebating the tax to unidentified foreign owners of U.S. assets would allow the U.S. government to share in the profit from the U.S. serving as a haven for hidden wealth, which would make the U.S. somewhat less attractive as a haven. But the modified securities tax would be no worse than the status quo with respect to taxing cross border investment.