Table Of ContentPhilosophical 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.
