İkili Gelir Vergilemesi Modeli ve İskandinav Ülkelerindeki Uygulaması

Öz

İkili gelir vergilemesi DIT modeli 1980’li yılların başlarından itibaren OECD üyesi ülkeler tarafından gerçekleştirilen gelir vergisi reformlarında gittikçe önem kazanmaya başlamıştır. DIT modeline karşı artan ilginin en önemli nedenlerinden biri de İskandinav ülkele‐ rinin 1990’lı yıllardan itibaren bu modeli fiilen uygulamaya başlamaları ve bundan olumlu sonuç almaları olmuştur. Her ne kadar modelin ilk uygulandığı Danimarka sonradan DIT mod‐ elinden biraz sapma gösterse de Norveç, İsveç ve Finlandiya çeşitli ısrar derecelerinde DIT modeli‐ ni uygulamayı sürdürmektedirler. DIT modelin en önemli özelliği emek ve sermaye gelirlerini ayrı vergi tarifelerine tabi tutması ve sermaye gelirlerini emek gelirlerinden daha düşük oranda vergilendirmesidir. Ancak bu durum zaman zaman vergi arbitrajına neden olmaktadır. İskandinav ülkeleri bu sorunu çözmek için çeşitli alternatif arayışlarına girmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İkili gelir vergilemesi, kapsamlı gelir vergilemesi, İskandinav ülkeleri, vergi arbitrajı, vergi reformu.

Dual Income Taxation Model and Its Practice in Nordic Countries

Öz

Dual Income Taxation DIT model developed as a part of income taxation reforms in OECD countries gained progressively increased recog‐nition since the early 1980s. One of the most important reasons for the wide recognition of DIT model is its defacto implementations with successive outcomes from the beginning of 1990s in Scandinavian countries. Denmark was the first country to introduce the DIT model in 1987 even though it subsequently moved to a more hybrid system with some post facto modifi‐cations. On the other hand, Norway, Sweden, and Finland continue to put into operation the DIT model with varying degrees of persistence. The distinct feature of the DIT model covers the separate taxation of the capital incomes and earned incomes. Moreover, although DIT model taxes capital income uniform low and propor‐tional rates, it continues to tax labor incomes at high and progressive rate schedules. However, the large difference between top marginal tax rate on earned incomes and on capital incomes causes tax arbitrage, a main disadvantage of the DIT model. Therefore, Scandinavian countries have been seeking alternative approaches to reduce this tax arbitrage.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dual income tax,comprehensive ıncome tax,Nordic countries,tax arbitrage,tax reforms.

Kaynakça

1. Aarbu, K. O. ve Thor, O. T. (2001), “Income Responses to Tax Changes‐Evidence from the Norwegian Tax Reform”, National Tax Journal, LIV (2), 319‐335.
2. Agell, J., P. Englund, J. Södersten. (1996), “Tax Reform of the Century—the Swedısh Experıment”, National Tax Journal, 49(4), 643‐64.
3. Alstadsaeter, A. (2003), “The Dual Income Tax and the Firms’Income Shifting Through the Choice of Organizational Form and Real Capital Investments”, Discussion Paper, 10/2003, 1‐41.
4. Bird, R. (2007), “Taxing Capital Income: Problems and Possibilities”, http://www.atax.unsw.edu.au/research/pitr‐symposium‐07/papers/Bird‐Pres‐ Paper01‐PITRS07.ppt, (Erişim: 08/03/2010).
5. Bird, R. M. and E. M. Zolt. (2008), “Dual Income Taxation: A Potentially Promising Approach to Tax Reform in Developing Countries”, http://aysps.gsu.edu/ISP_BirdRichard_111108.pdf, (Erişim: 19/02/2010).
6. Boadway, R. (2005), “Income Tax Reform for a Globalized World: The Case for a Dual Income Tax”, Journal of Asian Economics, 16(2005), 910‐927.
7. Edizdoğan, N. ve A. Çelikkaya. (2010), Vergilerin Ekonomik Analizi, Dora Yayıncılık, Bursa.
8. European Commission. (2009), “Taxation trends in the European Union, Main results”,http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS‐30‐08 421/EN/KS‐30‐08‐421‐EN.PDF, (Erişim: 02/04/2010).

9. Frande, J. (2008), “The Taxation of Capital and Earned Income in Finland”, http://www.nsfr.net/seminare/fors07/fin/Fin_jur_nat.doc. (Erişim: 30/03/2010).
10. Ganghof, S. (2006), “Tax Mixes and the Size of the Welfare State: Causal Mechanism and Policy Implications”, Journal of European Social Policy, Sage Publication, 16(4), 360‐373.
11. Ganghof, S. (2005), “Globalization, Tax Reform Ideals and Social Policy Financing”, Global Social Policy, 5, 77‐95.
12. Genser, B. ve Andreas R. (2007), “Moving Towards Dual Income Taxation ın Europe”,http://www.uni‐konstanz.de/fiwi/struktur/Publikationen/2007 Dateien/Genser_Reutter_l.pdf, (Erişim: 18/02/2010).
13. Kanniainen, V., S. Kari, J. Y. Leidenpohja, (2007). “Nordic Dual Income Taxation of Entrepreneurs”, Int Tax Public Finance, 14, 407‐426.
14. Lındhe, T., J. Södersten, A. Öberg. (2004), “Economic Effects of Taxing Different Organizational Forms Under the Nordic Dual Income Tax”, International Tax and Public Finance, 11, 469‐485.
15. Loughlin, J. ve S. Martin. (2004), “Local Income Tax in Sweden: Reform and Continuity”, School of European Studies and the Centre for Local & Regional Government Research, Cardiff University, February Paper BoF (20), 1‐20, http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/balance/bof20.pdf, (Erişim: 31/03/2010).
16. Morınobu, S. (2004), “Capital Income Taxation and the Dual Income Tax”, PRI Discussion Paper Series (No.04A‐17), MOF, 2004.7, 1‐27.
17. OECD. (2006), “Reforming Personal Income Tax”, Policy Brief March 2006, www.oecd.org, (Erişim: 31/03/2010).
18. Onshus, M. ve Ø. B. Skeie. (2008), “Non‐Fiscal Objectives in the Norwegian Tax Structure”, http://www.nsfr.net/seminare/stockholm08/norsk_oko_national.doc, (Erişim: 26/03/2010).
19. Pirtilla, J. ve H. Selin, “How Successful is the Dual Income Tax? Evidence From Finnish Tax Reform of 1993”, Uppsala Universitet Working Paper 2006:26, 1‐40, www.nek.uu.se, (Erişim: 26/03/2010).
20. Radulescu, D. M. (2007), “CGE Models and Capital Income Tax Reforms The Case of Dual Income Tax for Germany”, Chapter 3, The Dual Income Tax (Lecture Notes Economic and Mathematical System), Springer Berlin Heidelberg, DOI, 10.1007/978‐3‐540‐73320‐1, August 28, 2007; 23‐54.
21. Randelovic, S. (2010), “Dual Income Tax ‐ An Optıon for The Reform of Personal Income Tax ın Serbıa?”, DOI:10.2298/EKA0879183R, 183‐197, http://ea.ekof.bg.ac.yu/pdf/178‐179/6.Sasa%20Randjelovic.pdf, (Erişim: 29/03/2010).
22. Sørensen, P. B. (2009), “Dual Income Taxes: A Nordic Tax System”, Tax Policy Conference 2009 ‐ Papers and Abstracts, http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/cagtr/tax‐policy‐2009‐abstracts.aspx, (Erişim: 23/02/2010).
23. Sørensen, P. B. (2007), “The Nordic Dual Income Tax: Principles, Practices, and Relevance for Canada”, Canadian Tax Journal, 55 (3), 557 – 602.
24. Sørensen, P. B. (2005), “Dual Income Taxation: Why and How?” CESifo Working Paper, No. 1551, Category 1: Public Finance, 1‐29, www.CESifo‐group.de, (Erişim: 26/03/2010).
25. Sørensen, P. B. (2001), “The Nordic Dual Income Taxe‐ In or Out?”, Invited Speech Delivered at the Meeting of Working Party 2 on Fiscal Affairs, OECD, http://www.econ.ku.dk/pbs/diversefiler/oecddual.pdf, (Erişim: 31/03/2010).
26. Thoresen, T. O. (2004), Reduced Tax Progressivity in Norway in the Nineties: The Effect from Tax Changes, International Tax and Public Finance, 11, 487–506.
27. Thoresen, T. O. ve A. Alstadsæter. (2008), “Shifts in Organizational Form Under a Dual Income Tax System”, Discussion Papers No. 529, February 2008, Statistics Norway, Research Department, 1‐36, http://www.ssb.no, (Erişim 26/03/2010).
28. Wıegard W. (2005), “For a Dual Income Tax”, CESifo Forum, 3/2005, http://www.ifo.de/pls/guestci/download/CESifo%20Forum%202005/CESifo%20Fo rum%203/2005/forum3‐05‐pro‐contra2.pdf, (Erişim: 02/04/2010).
29. Working in Sweden – Employee Guide. (2010), 1‐3, http://www.isa.se/Global/Global/Downloads/Fact_Sheets/Working‐in‐Sweden‐‐ employee‐guide.pdf, (Erişim: 31/03/2010).
30. Zee, H. H. (2005), “Personal Income Tax Reform: Concepts, Issues, and Comparative Country Developments”, IMF Working Paper, WP/05/87, 1‐59.