scholarly journals A TAX REFORM PROPOSAL FOR TURKEY: FLAT TAX SYSTEM

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (117) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Burcu Özgün ◽  
Pınar Güre
1998 ◽  
Vol 13 (0) ◽  
pp. 51-75
Author(s):  
Keakook Song

This paper analyzes the effects of the Armey-Shelby tax reform proposal among the flat tax proposals on new owner-occupied housing market in USA on the basis of partial equilibrium. The effects in the short- and long-run are examined based on the Kenneth T. Rosen's regression result focusing on the effects of the user costs on home ownership. The Armey-Shelby plan would cause housing price in the short run to decrease with unchanged quantity because of nondeductibility of mortgage interest and property tax payments in the short-run. But the plan would cause housing market in the long run to be more activated, that is, increase in housing quantity and decrease in housing price, through lower interest rate caused by untaxed savings and investments that mean tax neutrality against savings and investments.


2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (190) ◽  
pp. 7-26
Author(s):  
Sasa Randjelovic ◽  
Jelena Zarkovic-Rakic

There is a consensus, in both academia and economic policy circles, that the reform of the personal income tax system in Serbia is necessary one. Two frequently discussed reform scenarios are East European style flat tax and the comprehensive income tax model of Western Europe. Most Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries have recently reformed their income tax systems by introducing some form of flat tax scheme, while in numerous countries of Western Europe the possibility of flat tax reform is also seriously considered. Opponents of the reform usually stress the adverse distributional effects of flat tax schemes. The aim of our paper is to contribute to the empirical literature on the distributional effects of alternative tax reform scenarios. The analysis is based on the tax and benefit micro-simulation model for Serbia (SRMOD). The results suggest that redesigning the existing income tax system so as to introduce a uniform tax rate and increase the basic allowance would somewhat reduce inequality and improve vertical inequity in taxation. On the other hand, in the case of the introduction of comprehensive income tax, considerably larger equalizing and progressivity effects would be achieved. At the same time, since in both cases redistribution will not affect the bottom decile group, no significant effects (in either cases) on poverty reduction will be achieved.


1987 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry A Hausman ◽  
James M Poterba

President Reagan's May 1985 letter to Congress, accompanying his tax reform proposal, argued that the existing tax system hindered economic growth because “most Americans labor under excessively high tax rates that discourage work and cut drastically into savings.” This paper analyzes how the Tax Reform Act of 1986 affects these aspects of household behavior.


2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary M. Fleischman ◽  
Paul D. Hutchison

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 37.8pt 0pt 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Batang; font-size: x-small;">The George W. Bush presidency&rsquo;s mandate<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </strong>for tax cuts, combined with predictions of substantial budget surpluses during the next ten years, is fueling two related debates:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>(1) elimination of the estate tax, and (2) reduction of tax rates by reforming and simplifying the tax code.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>This paper uses the results of a survey of accounting tax professors to assess opinions regarding the elimination of the estate tax, as well as, the feasibility of reducing tax rates through reform by using a flat tax.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The results of this study suggest that tax professors do not favor the repeal of the estate tax and are lukewarm to replacing the current tax system with a flat tax.</span></p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 118 (10) ◽  
pp. 365-372
Author(s):  
Jayanti.G ◽  
Dr. V.Selvam

India being a democratic and republic country, has witnessed the biggest indirect tax reform after much exploration, GST bill roll out on 1 April 2017.  The concept of this reform is for a unified country-wide tax reform system.  Enterprises particularly SMEs are caught in a state of instability.  Several taxes such s excise, service tax etc., have been subsumed with a single tax structure. it is the responsibilities of both centre and state government to shoulder the important responsibility to cater the needs of the people and the nation as a whole.  The main basis of income to the government is through levy of taxes.  To meet the so called socio-economic needs and economic growth, taxes are considered as a main source of revenue for the government.  As per Wikipedia “A tax is a mandatory financial charge or some other type of levy imposed upon tax payer by the government in order to fund various public expenditure”   it is said that tax payment is mandatory, failure to pay such taxes will be punishable under the law.   The Indian tax system is classified as direct and indirect tax.   The indirect taxes are levied on purchase, sale, and manufacture of goods and provision of service.  The indirect tax on goods and services increases its price, this can lead to inflationary trend.  Contribution of indirect taxes to total tax revenue is more than 50% in India, therefore, indirect tax is considered as a major source of tax revenue for the government, which in turn is one of source for GDP growth.  Though indirect tax is a major source of revenue, it had lot of hassles.  To overcome the major issues of indirect tax system the government of India subsumed most of the indirect tax which in turn gave birth to the concept called Goods and Service Tax.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 73-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Slemrod

Based on the experience of recent decades, the United States apparently musters the political will to change its tax system comprehensively about every 30 years, so it seems especially important to get it right when the chance arises. Based on the strong public statements of economists opposing and supporting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, a causal observer might wonder whether this law was tax reform or mere confusion. In this paper, I address that question and, more importantly, offer an assessment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The law is clearly not “tax reform” as economists usually use that term: that is, it does not seek to broaden the tax base and reduce marginal rates in a roughly revenue-neutral manner. However, the law is not just a muddle. It seeks to address some widely acknowledged issues with corporate taxation, and takes some steps toward broadening the tax base, in part by reducing the incentive to itemize deductions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document