Impuestos y Justicia Tributaria

FATAUROS, CRISTIAN AUGUSTO; FATAUROS, CRISTIAN AUGUSTO

Santiago de Chile

Seminario; Seminario Internacional Justicia Social e Igualitarismo; 2018

Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Chile

Indirect taxes, such as consumption taxes, have been criticized as regressive and unfair. However, there is a more or less accepted view defended by two eminent scholars such as Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel (2004) that rejects any evaluation of particular institutions in terms of fairness or unfairness. The way to make an assessment in terms of fairness or unfairness should take into account the complete institutional setup, including taxation but also distribution. This paper develops two objections against that view. First, Murphy-Nagel?s view endorses an instrumental justification of taxation with only one purpose in mind: to raise revenue. I claim that the instrumental justification allows pursuing other purposes, such as to prevent excessive wealth accumulation or to disincentive certain actions. To show this, I build an argument taking consumption taxes with a flat rate (proportional) as a counterexample. In a Property-Owning Democracy, consumption taxes do not necessarily have to be proportional to treat citizens with equal respect, but also shows that indirect taxation is not necessarily unfair. The second objection discusses the thesis that evaluation of tax institutions must take into account the overall effects of the whole institutional structure. I argue that Property-Owning Democracy principles of tax justice must appeal to other considerations related to the distribution of tax burdens and to prevent excessive accumulation of wealth. If this is so, the potentiality to achieve other social outcomes different from raising revenue emerges as a relevant criterion for the assessment of particular institutions.