兩岸財產稅比較之研究（2003-2012）－以賦稅公平理論之探討

Abstract

財產稅具有轉嫁不易符合社會公平、課稅超額負擔小合乎效率原則、具地區性適合充裕地方財源以及可作為所得稅之補充稅等特性。而地方政府在徵收財產稅時，是否得宜，還是過為已甚，本論文以賦稅理論及財產稅歸宿觀點作為主軸，比較現行的制度及財政收支，並以租稅公平理論來探討。\n以理論來看，將房屋稅及土地稅分開，依其不同彈性課徵不同稅率較符合效率原則。而兩岸財產稅均採分別計價課稅，符合租稅理論，惟臺灣與中國大陸並未完全符合傳統觀點的重課土地稅、輕課房屋稅等原則。兩岸的稅基稅率設計主要目的係為社會公平、地方財源及風俗民情考量。但不論採用那一種稅基稅率組合均有稅制設計上的不周全與缺漏，甚至進而造成人為操作規避稅負，導致違反公平原則。\n此外，兩岸的租稅負擔率相較於國外均偏低，而就兩岸比較，中國大陸整體的租稅負擔率及全部不動產財產稅占GDP比率均比臺灣還要高，但在各地區土地稅與房屋稅等財產稅占GDP、總稅收及地方稅稅收比率又比臺灣來得低，這表示中國大陸租稅負擔率高主要係因財產稅以外之稅目的關係，而就土地使用稅及房產稅來看相較於臺灣地價稅及房屋稅則相對偏低。以使用費觀點來看，臺灣臺北市之財政支出為全臺灣最高，但其房屋稅稅收並非最高，房屋稅納稅人可能因為在臺北市可獲取較佳的公共服務而其房屋稅相對不高而選擇遷入，而中國大陸北京、天津、上海及重慶土地使用稅也有相同情形。再以量能原則來看，以每戶（人均）可支配所得及每戶（人均）消費支出來衡量時，臺灣地價稅相對於中國大陸土地使用稅符合公平原則，而中國大陸房產稅相對於臺灣房屋稅符合公平原則，兩岸不妨以彼此作為借鏡來進行改革。

Property tax is conform to social equity because shifting taxation is not easy, and conform to efficiency because the excess burden of taxation is small, also property tax have regional feature so it fit to local taxation, and it can be used as supplementary tax of income tax. But there have a problem that the amount of property tax to be paid is appropriate or not. In this paper, we will investigate the tax systems and state revenues and expenditures, compare to tax equity theories.\nIn the tax theories, it is efficiency to take the tax rate different of house tax and land tax, because they have different price elasticity. We can see that Cross-Strait property tax is also take the tax rate different of house tax and land tax, but they are not conform to the principle of tradition view - land tax levy heavy and house tax levy light. The goals of Cross-Strait property tax systems were to accomplish the social equity and increase tax revenues. But the shortcomings still exist in Cross-Strait property tax systems, which lead to taxpayers to avoid the tax burden, as a result of the tax inequities.\nIn addition, the rate of tax burden in Cross-Strait is lower than other countries. Compared to Taiwan, the rate of tax burden and the proportion of overall property taxes in GDP in China are high. But the proportion of local property taxes in GDP and accounted for total taxes and accounted for local taxes in all regions of China lower than Taiwan. This shows the high rate of tax burden is mainly due to the other taxes higher than property taxes in China, while compared to Taiwan, China’s land tax and house tax are low. As a User Fee View angle, Taipei city government spending in Taiwan is the highest, but the house tax revenue is not the highest, house taxpayers probably moved to Taipei because better public services available to relatively of low house tax, and the same situation probably happened to Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai and Chongqing in China because of the low land tax. As the Ability to Pay Principle angle, Taiwan`s land tax is more equitable than China`s land tax, and China`s house tax is more equitable than Taiwan`s house tax, measure with Cross-Strait household (per capita) disposable income and household (per capita) consumption expenditure. Therefore, Taiwan and China can learn from each other to make the property tax more equitable.