Piecemeal Tax Reform Will Undermine President Ma's Public Support

Piecemeal Tax Reform Will Undermine President Ma's Public Support
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 6, 2009

Over the past several weeks, the Executive Yuan Tax Reform Commission has made a complete about face regarding energy and pollution taxes. They have left outside observers' heads spinning. It has reminded the general public of the Tax Reform Commission's blundering and blindness. Let us review these events and the machinations behind them.
The Republic of China's energy conservation and carbon reduction measures are ineffective. Per capita carbon dioxide emissions are among the highest in the world. This is common knowledge. If the Ma administration wants to use taxation as a means of curbing energy use and reducing emissions, it must adopt the correct policies. According to the Tax Reform Commission's research report, it will integrate the various ministries' random taxes, surcharges, and fees. These will be replaced by a combination energy tax and environmental tax. The rates will be gradually increased over the coming decade. The study used computer simulations. A decade from now, energy and pollution taxes alone will bring in about 800 billion in tax revenue, They will be enough to replace the current income tax. Based on the figures cited above, such large-scale changes are very different from the existing income tax and sales tax-based system.

Prior to the August 3 about face on Green Taxes, the Executive Yuan had already mentioned the case in numerous internal conference reports. Senior officials had already ruled. It made available to members of a joint conference with the Advisory Committee only on June 19. During the conference, Vice-President Chiu of the Executive Yuan publicly announced that "The tax rates will be adjusted annually. The conference has reached a consensus... a public hearing should be held to explain the impact of the policy on industry." During that day's conference there was some debate, but scant dissent. Everyone went along with the program. Six weeks later however, special interest groups had clearly found a number of entry points. They openly overturned the previously approved policy consensus.

Have Green Taxes been given adequate discussion? They have not. Energy and pollution taxes are "sin taxes." Their purpose is to conserve energy and reduce carbon, rather than to generate revenues. By their very nature, they should not be used to generate revenue. It is even less appropriate to talk about an energy tax in the same breath as revenue neutrality. Energy and pollution taxes are by nature consumption taxes. They are indirect taxes. They are passed on to others. The income tax is based on the ability to pay. Energy/pollution taxes and the income tax are as different as night and day. To propose that the income tax be replaced with consumption taxes such as energy and pollution taxes, within the decade, is a controversial move. Besides, energy reduction and carbon reduction are not part of the Tax Reform Commission's mandate. One should not expect taxation to bear the entire responsibility for environmental protection. Jumping from Green Taxes to tax neutrality tells us that amateurs are in charge of the Executive Yuan.

The Tax Reform Commission was a plank in President Ma's campaign platform. It has bee discussing a dozen large and small tax cut proposals for over a year. So many tax cuts and so many tax increases. But according to what criteria? According to what principles? The question has no technical answer. But it does have a political answer - just count the votes. President Ma knows that individual tax cuts mean more votes. But one cannot cut every tax. Therefore a nation's tax structure must optimize tax increases and tax cuts. Only then can one both win votes and broaden one's public support. Piecemeal responses to special interest group demands may allow Tax Reform Commission politicians to engage in deception. But they will be a detriment to voter support.

We are not necessarily opposed to Green Tax policy changes. But we must condemn the Executive Yuan's decision-making process. National taxes are a necessary evil. They are decisions that must be made on a discretionary basis, out of many options. They must not be made individually. If the Tax Reform Commission addresses estate taxes, income taxes, Green Taxes, investment taxes, tonnage taxes, capital gains, and luxury taxes individually, they are bound to encounter internal contradictions. When decisions are reached on an individual basis, it facilitates special interest group lobbying efforts. When push comes to shove, this makes it impossible for the ruling administration to resist. The result is a tax structure that favors a small number of wealthy industries and businesses. The Tax Reform Commission's "reforms" over the past year have been a patchwork quilt. They can only undermine President Ma's public support.

Procedurally speaking, the Tax Reform Commission is a clear vestige of authoritarianism. Major cases must be approved by high-level administration officials before the Tax Reform Commission even discusses them. A professional committee has been reduced to a rubber stamp for the Executive Yuan. Substantively speaking, a major Green Tax reform proposal involving 800 billions in tax revenues was decided during a single high-level Executive Yuan session. The decision-making process is clearly permeated with the sycophantic premise that "the higher one's rank, the greater one's wisdom."

The Tax Reform Commission has been in existence for over a year. The Executive Yuan repeatedly approves or disapproves proposals, then goes through the motions of "consulting" the Tax Reform Commission. The charade is nauseating. One year later, the Republic of China tax system has been shattered. Tax rates continue to fall. Tax revenues continue to fall. The government's sovereign rating continues to fall. The farce has no audience. But the public on Taiwan is forced to be part of it. But can President Ma turn a blind eye to his falling public support?

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.08.06
片斷式稅改 將侵蝕馬總統民意基礎
本報訊

在過去數周，行政院賦改會對於能源與汙染稅的規畫有一百八十度的轉變，不僅讓外界看得頭昏眼花，也令社會大眾再一次領教了賦改會整體運作的錯誤與盲點。讓我們先回顧事件發展，再評論其背後的運作機制。

台灣節能減碳效果不彰，平均每人二氧化碳排放名列世界前茅，皆為眾所周知。因此，馬政府若要以課稅方式抑制能源使用與減少汙染排放，當然是個正確的方向。依賦改會研究報告，將來要統合目前散見於各部會的稅、捐、費諸多項目，改以能源稅、環境稅整合，並在十年間逐步調升稅率。研究報告用電腦模擬估算，十年後單單從能源汙染稅項下就能收到約八千億的稅收，將可取代目前的若干所得稅。由前引數字可知，這樣的變革規模，實在與現行所得稅與營業稅為主的稅制「差很大」。

在八月三日綠稅「翻案」之前，該案已經在賦改會工作會議與行政院內部會議中提出多次報告，經高層裁定之後，才發交六月十九日賦改會的委員與諮詢委員聯席會議討論。會中行政院邱副院長公開裁示：「稅額逐年調整，會議上已達共識。…衝擊應舉行公聽會向產業界說明。」在當天會中，會場雖有爭辯但雜音不多，大家都行禮如儀。無奈六周之後，利益團體顯然還是找到了遊說切入點，活生生地把先前通過的共識方向給推翻。

平心而論，綠稅議案有沒有經過充分討論呢？其實沒有。能源與汙染稅都是「寓禁於徵」的稅種，其目的是為節能減碳而非稅收，本質上就不應以未來稅收做為估算標的，更不宜由能源稅所增稅收去談所謂租稅中立。能源與汙染稅是消費稅的性質，其為間接稅、可以轉嫁，與所得稅「量能課稅」的本質天差地遠。要在十年之內以能源汙染的消費稅大幅取代所得稅現制，本身就是個有爭議的議題。更何況，節能減碳終究不是「賦稅」改革委員會的任務宗旨，也不該以租稅扛起環境保護的所有重責大任。由綠稅研議跳躍到租稅中立，也凸顯了行政院主事者的外行。

成立賦改會是馬總統的政見；該會一年多來已經討論了十數種大小稅目的加加減減。這麼多的稅目稅項加減之間，究竟有什麼總體判準原則呢？這個問題在學理上無解，但是在政治實務上，答案卻非常簡單，惟「選票」二字而已矣。馬總統當然了解，個別的減稅有利於其選票擴充，但由於稅收不可能樣樣都減，故在國家租稅與建設的整體架構中，必然有一個升升降降的最佳組合，依此施為才能夠增加選票、擴大民意的支持。支離破碎地回應利益團體的個別要求，固然讓賦改會政客得以輕鬆地糊弄，卻是有害於整體選票布局的。

因此，我們並不非難綠稅政策的轉變，但必須要責怪賦改會與行政院的決策模式。國家租稅是必要之惡，也是一個整體，總要在諸多選項之中斟酌取捨，萬萬不宜一項一項分開來談。一旦賦改會將遺產稅、所得稅、綠稅、投資保單稅、噸位稅、資本利得稅、奢侈稅、租稅補貼等議題切割討論，就必然會產生諸多前後矛盾。此外，個別議題逐一定案，也方便利益團體動員遊說，導致行政當局無法在關鍵處予以抵擋，最後往往形成租稅架構向工商團體與少數富人一面倒的局面。過去一年間賦改會拼拼湊湊的所謂改革，對於馬總統的民意基礎，絕對只有侵蝕作用。

就程序而言，賦改會顯然也還拘泥於威權體制的餘緒，諸多重大案件都要先呈報高層拍板，才敢提到賦改會討論，直將一個專業的委員會貶抑為行政院的橡皮圖章。就議題實質內容而言，一個涉及八千億稅收的綠稅重大改革案，居然也能在短短一次會議中由行政院高層定案，也顯示出整個決策體制「官大智慧高」的阿諛氣氛。

賦改會成立一年多了，經歷了若干次政院先拍板、會議再討論的「真戲假做」場景，令人作嘔。一年多下來，台灣的租稅架構支離破碎：稅率一個一個降、稅收一分一分減、主權評等一日一日落。歹戲拖棚，台灣人民沒有什麼選擇，但民意流失的凌遲，馬總統不能坐視不理吧？