Penyesuaian Lapisan dan Tarif PPh Orang Pribadi: Agresif atau Progresif?

In 2022, Indonesia would apply changes in tax brackets and rates for personal income tax. This adjustment is based on the Article 17 Paragraph 1 Tax Harmonization Law Number 7 of 2021. The government tries to accommodate the needs of the community through formulating process of this regulation. In particular, it provides convenience to the lower-middle income community and encourages an even distribution of income. People belonging to the high wealth income will be subject to the highest tariffs that have just been set through this law. Through a qualitative descriptive method in which data collection is carried out by taking from literature review; law, articles, books, and website, the author tries to analyze changes in brackets and rates of personal income tax. This study presents illustrations of the calculation to explain the difference in the amount of income tax payable before and after the implementation of the Tax Harmonization Law. In addition, the analysis of the principles of equity and democracy on the adjustment of layers and tax rates is elaborated in this paper. The results obtained explain that with the application of the new tax rate, taxpayers get a tax burden relief because the tax expense is lower due to the broadening of income range. However, wealthy taxpayers will pay more taxes because of the higher tax rates. This condition proves that the new tax rate supports vertical fairness in the taxation system. In addition, the implementation of regulations related to tax rates adjustment provides evidence that the implementation of democracy has been implemented. The adjustment of tax brackets and rates has a positive impact on the community and the government so that the allocation of tax revenues can run optimally to support the welfare of the community.

Analisis Perbandingan Tax Amnesty Jilid I dan Jilid II (Program Pengungkapan Sukarela) Serta Peluang Keberhasilannya

The government has implemented the tax amnesty volume I in July 2016 and ended in March 2017. In early 2022, the government will plan to implement the tax amnesty volume II, which was introduced as the Voluntary Disclosure Program (PPS). This program refers to the Tax Harmonization Law Number 7 of 2021. Although the results obtained during the tax amnesty volume, I did not meet the target, in 2022 the government still plans to implement the tax amnesty volume II. For this reason, it is necessary to analyze the difference between the tax amnesty volume I and the tax amnesty volume II (PPS), as well as predict its effectiveness if this tax amnesty will be implemented later. This study method focuses on a comparative qualitative descriptive method in which data collection is carried out by taking from the library, website, law and articles discussing this tax amnesty. The results obtained are that there are fundamental differences between tax amnesty I and tax amnesty II. The differences are found in the data, rates, and tax subjects. For taxpayers who have participated in the 2016 tax amnesty volume I, the tariff charged is cheaper than those who do not participate in the first volume I tax amnesty and there are restrictions on subjects who may participate in the second tax amnesty. The effectiveness of this second volume of tax amnesty is predicted to be successful with a record that socialization must be maximal, there is no perception that the tax amnesty endangers honest taxpayers, and the view of taxpayers that this tax amnesty is the last tax amnesty so that there is a fear of not paying taxes and being subject to fines.

Free Competition and Fiscal Policy in European Union

Fiscal policy and the harmonization of tax laws are extremely important in order to prevent distortions of free competition in UE. The process of European Union construction is based on integration and liberalization of markets in order a loyal and free competition. This issue is really important in order to crisis superaction. In this context the fiscal policy has a very significant impact on countries economics in EU and on company’s management, especially for those most exposed to globalization. The impact of taxes on free competition, economic growth and employment is quite evident since the EU foundation. So, it would be expected a more significant progress towards fiscal harmonization among EU countries. However, until now the question of tax harmonization had no results. It remains a sensitive question in EU. Almost two decades after the entry of the Euro, after a deep economic crisis that endangered the European project, face to BREXIT, we raised some questions as base to this work: what are the political and institutional limitations to tax harmonization in EU? Why there are no further progress was made in the field of tax harmonization, at least, in company’s income? How does this affect social cohesion? What are the effects on economic and social cohesion? This study intends to reflect on the political and institutional constraints of the tax harmonization, quite necessary to the effective process of economic and social integration within the EU. As methodology, we will use a comparative study about income taxes in several EU countries and the relation to GDP, as well the deductive method to analyze the results we find and some reference studies on the subject. In conclusion, we will present the analyze the results and try to answer to these questions. With this study we pretend give a contribution in order to find an answer to the investigation questions.

HARMONIZATION OF PERSONAL INCOME TAXATION: IS IT POSSIBLE AND IF SO, DOES IT MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE?

The main research question is based on the thesis that harmonization of personal income taxation in the European Union is, on the one hand, not possible and, on the other hand, not advisable Harmonization of income taxes is much more difficult than harmonization of indirect taxes from the practical, technical and legal perspective and is a result of: (a) when creating the Treaty of Rome it was decided that direct taxes would not have a notable impact on the operations of the internal market, and that approach led to a lack of appro-priate regulations, especially in the area of personal income taxes; (b) income taxes, as forms of direct taxation are an important tool for fiscal policy that affects social and eco-nomic activities and it is difficult for politicians to abandon this tool for managing national policies; (c) directives requiring the formulation of direct tax harmonization must be agreed upon with a majority vote in the national Assemblies (Parliaments), which leads to a lack of consensus on desired aims, costs and benefits, procedures; (d) progress in direct tax harmonization creates an aura of challenges to the tax independence if nations and leads to entrenchment of state and elite positions; (e) EU States Mmember states have different rules for remunerating employees, setting incomes from retirement funds and affecting the structure of income-generating costs and expenditures that reduce the tax base.

Globalization, fiscal policy and free competition: The impact in EU

Research background: Globalization has profoundly changed the rules of play in the international economy. A new world order, new challenges and new difficulties have arisen as well new strategies to avoid the consequences of global free competition. Fiscal policy is a crucial tool in new global competition model, in special for regions with a high level of economic integration, as EU. In this context tax harmonization is extremely important to prevent distortions of competition in European market. Purpose of the article: Study the political and institutional constraints of the tax harmonization and disclosure a small part of the initial results of a investigation project about “tax competition in EU”. Understand if and how lack of tax harmonization between the member states is one of the causes of inequity between them, in special the Euro zone countries. Methods: Comparative study about income tax’s in Euro zone countries and the relation to PIB, as well the deductive method to analyse the results we find and some reference studies on the subject. Findings & Value added: The goal is answer to the follow questions: what are the political and institutional limitations to tax harmonization in EU? Why there are no further progress in the field of tax harmonization? Can EU and Euro zone survive face a globalization challenge with the present fiscal disloyal competition between member states? What future for EU in a globalization era? Findings show that tax harmonization never was considered as a priority in EU, and maybe never will, what is a weakness in a globalization world.

Is Environmental Tax Harmonization Desirable in Global Value Chains?

The spatial unbundling of parts production and assembly currently characterizes globalization, leading to the worldwide dispersion of pollution. We consider socially optimal (cooperative) environmental taxes in a two-country model of global value chains in which the location of both parts and assembly can differ. When unbundling costs are so high that parts and assembly must colocate in the pre-globalized world, pollution is spatially concentrated, and harmonizing environmental taxes maximizes global welfare. In contrast, with low unbundling costs triggering the dispersion of parts and thus pollution throughout the world as today, harmonization fails to maximize global welfare. Similar results hold when the two countries non-cooperatively choose their environmental taxes.