Philosophical Explorations of Justice and Taxation IUS GENTIUM COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON LAW AND JUSTICE VOLUME 40 Series Editors Mortimer Sellers University of Baltimore James Maxeiner University of Baltimore Board of Editors Myroslava Antonovych, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Nadia de Araújo, Pontifi cal Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro Jasna Bakšic-Muftic, University of Sarajevo David L. Carey Miller, University of Aberdeen Loussia P. Musse Félix, University of Brasilia Emanuel Gross, University of Haifa James E. Hickey, Jr., Hofstra University Jan Klabbers, University of Helsinki Cláudia Lima Marques, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul Aniceto Masferrer, University of Valencia Eric Millard, West Paris University Gabriël Moens, Curtin University Raul C. Pangalangan, University of the Philippines Ricardo Leite Pinto, Lusíada University of Lisbon Mizanur Rahman, University of Dhaka Keita Sato, Chuo University Poonam Saxena, University of Delhi Gerry Simpson, London School of Economics Eduard Somers, University of Ghent Xinqiang Sun, Shandong University Tadeusz Tomaszewski, Warsaw University Jaap de Zwaan, Erasmus University Rotterdam More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7888 Helmut P. Gaisbauer • Gottfried Schweiger Clemens Sedmak Editors Philosophical Explorations of Justice and Taxation National and Global Issues 1 3 Editors Helmut P. Gaisbauer Clemens Sedmak Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research University of Salzburg University of Salzburg Salzburg Salzburg Austria Austria Gottfried Schweiger Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research University of Salzburg Salzburg Austria ISSN 1534-6781 ISSN 2214-9902 (electronic) Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ISBN 978-3-319-13457-4 ISBN 978-3-319-13458-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-13458-1 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London Library of Congress Control Number: 2014958744 © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Contents 1 Outlining the Field of Tax Justice ............................................................. 1 Helmut P. Gaisbauer, Gottfried Schweiger and Clemens Sedmak I Grounding Taxation 2 Fiscal Justice and Justified Trust ............................................................. 17 Clemens Sedmak and Helmut P. Gaisbauer 3 T axation and the Duty to Alleviate Poverty ............................................. 33 Gottfried Schweiger 4 J ustice, Equality and Taxation .................................................................. 47 Dietmar von der Pfordten 5 ‘ You did not Build that Road’—Reciprocity, Benefits, Opportunities and Taxing the Extremely Rich ....................................... 67 Bruno Verbeek 6 The Challenge of Tax Avoidance for Social Justice in Taxation............. 83 Benjamin Alarie II Justifying different Types of Taxation 7 Why Taxing Consumption? ....................................................................... 101 Xavier Landes 8 Egalitarianism and Consumption Tax ..................................................... 119 Daniel Halliday 9 Ethical Taxation: Progressivity, Efficiency and Hourly Averaging ....... 135 Douglas Bamford v vi Contents 10 W hy Do the Public Oppose Inheritance Taxes? .................................... 151 Rajiv Prabhakar 11 The Role of Expressive Versus Instrumental Preferences in U.S. Attitudes Toward Taxation and Redistribution ........................ 167 Kirk J. Stark III International and Global Taxation 12 W hat Burden Should Fiscal Policy Bear in Fighting Global Injustice? .................................................................................. 185 Gillian Brock 13 T he Global Luxuries Tax ......................................................................... 203 Timothy Mawe and Vittorio Bufacchi 14 T axation: Its Justification and Application to Global Contexts........... 219 Teppo Eskelinen and Arto Laitinen Contributors Benjamin Alarie Facutly of Law, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Douglas Bamford Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Gillian Brock Faculty of Arts, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Vittorio Bufacchi Department of Philosophy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland Teppo Eskelinen Department of social sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland Helmut P. Gaisbauer Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research, University of Sal- zburg, Salzburg, Austria Daniel Halliday School of Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Arto Laitinen School of Social and Political Philosophy, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Xavier Landes Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Timothy Mawe Department of Philosophy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland Rajiv Prabhakar Faculty of Social Sciences, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK Gottfried Schweiger Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research, University of Salz- burg, Salzburg, Austria Clemens Sedmak Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria Kirk J. Stark School of Law, University of California, LA, Los Angeles, CA, USA Bruno Verbeek Institute for Philosophy, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands Dietmar von der Pfordten Philosophy of Law, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany vii Chapter 1 Outlining the Field of Tax Justice Helmut P. Gaisbauer, Gottfried Schweiger and Clemens Sedmak Abstract Taxation is one of the most fundamental and influential institutions in all modern societies. This importance of taxation gives rise to crucial normative, ethical, and moral questions—and assumptions about what is just and morally right are closely tied to the discussion, design and implementation of taxation and certain taxes. For that reason a normative examination of taxation, focusing on issues of justice, is of utmost importance. Tax justice is located in the interstices between the traditional tax disciplines of tax law, public finance, and microeco- nomics and it is connected to approaches from philosophy and some social sciences. It is clearly an inherently interdisciplinary topic. In order to arrive at a sufficiently coherent and defensible set of concepts within the field of tax justice, we propose to clarify at least four key concepts: (i) state, (ii) citizenship, (iii) property, and (iv) social justice. 1.1 Background Taxation is one of the most fundamental and influential institutions in all modern societies. It fills the coffers of the state and distributes and redistributes income and wealth. Without taxation no modern state could function and fulfill its public duties and, accordingly, there are only few who argue against taxation in general. How- ever, the extent and depth of this public interference with private property is still highly disputed, in academia as well as in the public discourse and in politics. Lay people and theorists alike hold different and contrary views about the proper height H. P. Gaisbauer () · G. Schweiger · C. Sedmak Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research, University of Salzburg, Mönchsberg 2a, 5020 Salzburg, Austria e-mail: [email protected] G. Schweiger e-mail: [email protected] C. Sedmak e-mail: [email protected] © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 1 H. P. Gaisbauer et al. (eds.), Philosophical Explorations of Justice and Taxation, Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 40, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-13458-1_1 2 H. P. Gaisbauer et al. and distribution of taxation and about the justification for it. Often such disputes are also influenced not only by personal interest but also moral views about what is just and what is not (Alm and Torgler 2006). Such differences can also be found at the state level, where different tax regimes developed over time, leading to the variety of “cultures of taxation” in today’s world (Birger 2008). The importance of taxation for the social, economic and political functioning of any society gives rise to crucial normative, ethical and moral questions—and assumptions about what is just and morally right are closely tied to the discussion, design and implementation of taxation and certain taxes. The distribution of tax burdens and benefits as well as the usage of the allocated tax revenue is decisive for justice, but like justice itself, these measures are highly disputed (Paul et al. 2006). Especially, in consideration of the ongoing economic crisis and the social, economic and political turmoil it has caused around the globe, the intensification of social inequality and the need to search for measures to overcome the crisis without hurting the most vulnerable, most questions of taxation, particularly regarding tax fairness, who should contribute and how much, have become vital and are widely discussed. Particularly the growing disparities in income and wealth have gained interest and earned criticism, and a change in the tax regime, as well as a higher tax burden on the wealthy, are possible measures against such disparities. Argu- ments for reducing these inequalities can also be found in their negative effects on the health and well-being of the whole population (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009). Over the course of the last decades a small minority of the super-rich has—looking back in time one has to say: again—detached itself from the rest of the population in terms of income and wealth, and, probably, also political power and influence (Piketty 2014). But how much inequality in income and wealth—within a society and globally—is justified? And on what grounds? As an effect of the financial crisis sovereign debts are increasing and also pose a significant challenge for intergenerational justice. Some critics argue that the “rich” should simply pay for the crisis in the form of much higher taxes (Crotty 2012), while others are more modest in this regard and warn about the possible negative consequences of excessive taxes on income and wealth (Arnold et al. 2011). Such disputes cannot be settled based on “empirical facts” alone but demand normative reasoning and also political debate (Gaisbauer et al. 2013). A political debate, in which the taxpayers are themselves stakeholders and not to be shut out, is neces- sary to ground tax politics and give it a wider legitimacy that goes beyond an expert opinion. This is also important for another reason: the functioning of a tax system is to some extent dependent on the cooperation of the taxpayers and on their tax morale and cannot be based on control and power alone (Kirchler et al. 2008). The individual tax morale and the actual obligations of taxpayers are not always congruent, which can motivate both tax avoidance and tax evasion. Prominent ex- amples like Uli Hoeneß, the former president of the football club Bayern Munich, who was convicted of tax evasion in 2014, are just the tip of the iceberg and it has been estimated by the Tax Justice Network that the super-rich hide between 21 and 32 trillion US-$ in tax havens Henry 2012; Palan et al. 2010). This is money that, as some would argue, should be used for the good, to fight poverty and unemployment.