The land price and land-value increment tax framework has always been flawed. When the land-tax system was created in the early 1900s, in an attempt to implement Sun Yat-sen’s (孫逸仙) ideas about the equalization of land rights and the idea that price increases should be borne by the state, it was discovered that if the state absorbs any increases in price, land use rights could be separated from ownership rights so that the land owner could transfer the right of use, but still make a profit.
The Land Evaluation Committee was established to determine land prices, replacing the absorption of land prices by the state with a highly progressive tax rate.
In other words, instead of the state absorbing price increases, they were wed to the private sector.
When the law was implemented, the committee announced official land values once every three years, and these values were used as a basis for the land-value tax, while the land-value increment tax was based on the current land value which was announced once a year.
The substantial differences between real market values and the two other land values on which taxation was based created an unreasonable situation with three different prices for any lot of land.
This confusing system was in use for 60 years. Beginning in 1986, real-estate bubbles came and went, which lead to social injustices as landlords who were not involved in production sat idle and waited for prices to go up to increase their wealth.
If the suggestion that taxes should be levied on real transaction prices could begin with luxury housing before spreading down to the general public, that would be a great step forward. The problem is that the crippled tax system is full of problems that need solving.
First, one of the things most commonly discussed in the media is that the average overall tax burden is too low at 12.8 percent.
However, a closer analysis shows that many past taxes have been replaced by fees, and the fees have the same effect as taxes although they are not counted as such.
In addition, health insurance premiums and state-owned enterprise profits are all quasi-taxes.
At the same time, today’s government debt is tomorrow’s taxes. Including taxes that are created by today’s debt issuance, the average tax burden is not 12.8 percent.
Most of that burden is probably made up for by issuing currency, which forcibly creates purchasing power.
This is also no different from a tax, and inflation induced by currency policy is yet another quasi-tax.
People with greater economic resources should carry a greater part of the lax burden. This is what is called “vertical fairness.”
The tax system offers the wealthy an enormous number of ways to cut or evade taxes, and despite the minimum tax system, the tax burden on the middle class is far greater than it is on the wealthy.
Ironically, some wealthy people are announcing that they want to pay a bit more in taxes, but according to tax laws they do not have to. If the income tax exemption point and the standard deduction are raised, the wealthy will benefit even more.
“Horizontal fairness” means that those with equal economic resources should face an equal tax burden.
However, thanks to the considerate efforts of the tax office, a wage earner’s every source of income is taxed, while capital gains on security transactions remain untaxed despite a short period of chaos in the legislature.
Although social fairness demands intergenerational equality, that has all but evaporated after the estate and gift tax was changed from a highly progressive tax into a 10 percent proportional tax.
Without the wealth tax and the estate and gift tax to adjust the wealth gap, and with a lame income tax and a regressive consumer tax, the unfairness and the divide between rich and poor has become an overwhelming social problem.
Tax fairness must be judged based on the changes to the progressiveness of the overall tax structure. Over the past 30 years or more, incentives, deductions and benefits have destroyed the tax framework and reduced the tax base.
Functions originally established to promote social fairness no longer exist and this remnant of a system is only capable of catching wage earners while it is incapable of maintaining fairness.
Tax reform requires daring and resolution and a complete makeover, and small surgical changes to this or that individual tax subsystem will not do.
Norman Yin is a professor of financial studies at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS