Αρχική Διάλογος για ένα Δίκαιο και Aποτελεσματικό φορολογικό σύστημα6) Προτείνεται η φορολόγηση της υπεραξίας από βραχυχρόνιες χρηματιστηριακές συναλλαγές με συμψηφισμό των ζημιών.Σχόλιο του χρήστη Δημήτρης Ανδρεάδης | 23 Δεκεμβρίου 2009, 16:06
- Αρχική
- Πρωθυπουργός της Ελλάδας
- Ανοικτή Διακυβέρνηση
- Δικτυακός Τόπος Υπουργείου
- Διαβουλεύσεις Υπουργείων
H επιβολή capital gains tax στις χρηματιστηριακές συναλλαγές προφανώς θα υποβαθμίσει το ήδη υποβαθμισμένο Ελληνικό χρηματιστήριο και θα την πληρώσουν οι συνήθεις ύποπτοι, νομοταγείς μισθωτοί, αφού οι φοροφυγάδες που δηλώνουν λιγότερα εισοδήματα (εφόσων μπει στην κλίμακα), μεγάλοι παίκτες που θα επενδύουν από το εξωτερικό και οι ξένοι (που ελέγχουν το %50 της κεφαλαιοποίησης) με τις συμφωνίες αποφυγής φορολογίας δεν θα τον υποστούν. Επιπλέον θα έχει και κάποιες τεχνικές δυσκολίες εφαρμογής. Αξίζει να δείτε απόψεις ειδικών από άλλες χώρες με πολύχρονη εμπειρία στο θέμα, όπως ο Καναδάς, που αμφισβητούν την χρησιμότητα του φόρου και καταλήγουν ότι μπορεί να κάνει περισσότερο κακό από καλό: http://fraser.stg.devlin.ca/Commerce.Web/product_files/Why%20there%20should%20be%20no%20Capital%20Gains%20Tax-grubel_paper_2.pdf ... Summary and Policy Implications At the risk of oversimplification, the battle over the retention or abolition of the capital gains tax is fought along lines characterized by two catchy slogans: “A buck is a buck” and “Tax the fruit but not the tree”. The first slogan is about the distribution of income and the fairness of the taxation system. The second is about the efficiency implications of the tax and how much it reduces economic growth and per capita incomes. Most people agree that both fairness and efficiency should be considered in the design and operation of Canada’s tax system. The crucial issue arises around the magnitudes of these two social objectives. This paper discussed the growing evidence on the size of the efficiency losses due to the tax. The large number of studies using the concept of the marginal efficiency cost of taxes implies that the cost is substantial. The study of the Swiss experience is powerful and adds to direct evidence on the effects of thet tax on income. These results support the notion that capital gains are not like other income from a number of points of view that are important from an economic point of view. The prediction of higher income levels in the wake of the elimination of the tax imply that tax revenues from all sources are likely to increase if the capital gains tax is eliminated. On the issue of vertical equity, recent calculations have shown that the incidence of the capital gains tax is much less progressive than had been believed. Over half of it is paid by families with incomes other than capital gains, which most people would consider to 22 be moderate rather than high. On the issue of horizontal equity, the evidence from Hong Kong and New Zealand suggests that revenue authorities are able effectively to limit attempts at shifting taxable income into non-taxable capital gains. The quality of the empirical evidence available is not sufficient to engage in a formal benefit/cost analysis of the elimination of the capital gains tax. However, in my view the evidence is strong and clear enough to suggest that the elimination of the tax will improve the incomes and well being of Canadians by a margin large enough to outweigh the expected costs of administration and in the form of reduced fairness.