Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/106731
Authors: 
Lemmer, Jens
Year of Publication: 
2014
Citation: 
[Journal:] Wirtschaftsdienst [ISSN:] 1613-978X [Publisher:] Springer [Place:] Heidelberg [Volume:] 94 [Year:] 2014 [Issue:] 12 [Pages:] 872-878
Abstract: 
Während in Deutschland wieder einmal der Abbau der kalten Progression angemahnt wird, gibt es in vielen anderen Staaten bereits Regelungen zur Vermeidung von inflationsbedingten Steuererhöhungen. Aber welchen genauen Befund liefert ein internationaler Vergleich und welche Einsichten lassen sich für die hiesige Reformdiskussion gewinnen? Der Autor vergleicht die bestehenden Indexierungsregeln in ausgewählten OECD-Staaten und bewertet ihre Eignung für einen dauerhaften Abbau der kalten Progression in Deutschland.
Abstract (Translated): 
The additional income tax burden that results from inflation and an unadjusted progressive tax schedule is called bracket creep. Recently, the reduction of the impact of bracket creep has become a controversial issue of fi scal policy in Germany. Inflationinduced rises of the tax burden have many negative effects on taxpayers. Such bracket creep is unjust because it violates the ability-topay principle. Therefore it should be abolished permanently by adjusting the income tax schedule as well as tax deductions und tax allowances to inflation on a yearly basis. In many OECD countries, the personal income tax is already inflation indexed. This paper describes and compares the existing indexing provisions and recommends an appropriate set of rules to abolish bracket creep in Germany.
JEL: 
H11
H24
K34
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Document Type: 
Article

Files in This Item:
File
Size
173.96 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.