IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clr/wugarc/y2009v35i1p45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Geschlechtergerechtigkeit des Einkommensteuersystems Mythos oder Wahrheit?

Author

Listed:
  • Vanessa Mühlböck

Abstract

Anhand eines Vergleichs des österreichischen Einkommensbesteuerungssystems der Individualbesteuerung und des französischen Familiensplittingsystems kann gezeigt werden, dass ein Familiensplittingmodell nicht frauen- und familienfreundlich ist, sondern vielmehr Alleinverdienende mit hohen Einkommen steuerlich begünstigt. Weiters ist festzustellen, dass Alleinverdienende vorwiegend männlich und im oberen Einkommensbereich vorzufinden sind. Dies und die Tatsache, dass von derartigen Besteuerungsmodellen negative Arbeitsanreize auf ZuverdienerInnen ausgehen, lässt darauf schließen, dass solche Modelle keine Förderung der Geschlechtergerechtigkeit bewirken. Doch auch das österreichische Einkommensteuersystem, obschon ein System der Individualbesteuerung, ist keineswegs gendergerecht. Aufgrund von Analysen diverser Steuerstatistiken offenbart sich, dass steuerfreie Einkommensbestandteile bei Frauen ein geringeres Ausmaß annehmen als bei Männern. Frauen beziehen weiters im Durchschnitt nur 61,3% des Einkommens des durchschnittlichen Männereinkommens, wodurch für sie die Zugänglichkeit gewisser Steuerbegünstigungen erschwert wird und die daraus resultierende steuerliche Wirkung für sie geringer ist. Von Gendergerechtigkeit kann somit wegen der spezifischen Ausgestaltung des Einkommensteuersystems selbst in Österreich nicht gesprochen werden. Um eine solche zu verwirklichen, wären Maßnahmen von Nöten, die die wirtschaftliche Gleichstellung von Frauen und Männern im Erwerbsleben induzieren.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanessa Mühlböck, 2009. "Geschlechtergerechtigkeit des Einkommensteuersystems Mythos oder Wahrheit?," Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - WuG, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik, vol. 35(1), pages 45-64.
    • Handle: RePEc:clr:wugarc:y:2009v:35i:1p:45
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://emedien.arbeiterkammer.at/viewer/pdf/AC08890876_2009_001/wug_2009_35_1_0045.pdf
    File Function: PDF-file of article
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helene Dearing & Helmut Hofer & Christine Lietz & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer & Katharina Wrohlich, 2007. "Why Are Mothers Working Longer Hours in Austria than in Germany? A Comparative Microsimulation Analysis," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 28(4), pages 463-495, December.
    2. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2008. "Introducing Family Tax Splitting in Germany: How Would It Affect the Income Distribution, Work Incentives, and Household Welfare?," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 64(1), pages 115-142, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Margit Schratzenstaller & Fanny Dellinger, 2018. "Genderdifferenzierte Lenkungswirkungen des Abgabensystems auf das Arbeitsangebot," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 91(2), pages 105-120, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Kurowska & Michal Myck & Katharina Wrohlich, 2012. "Family and Labor Market Choices: Requirements to Guide Effective Evidence-Based Policy," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1234, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Kai-Uwe Müller & Michael Neumann & Katharina Wrohlich, 2018. "Labor Supply under Participation and Hours Constraints," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1758, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    3. Müller, Kai-Uwe & Neumann, Michael & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2018. "Labor Supply under Participation and Hours Constraints: An Extended Structural Model for Policy Evaluations," IZA Discussion Papers 12003, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Denis Beninger & Holger Bonin & Julia Horstschräer & Grit Mühler, 2010. "Wirkungen eines Betreuungsgeldes bei bedarfsgerechtem Ausbau frühkindlicher Kindertagesbetreuung: eine Mikrosimulationsstudie," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 79(3), pages 147-168.
    5. Stefan Bach & Peter Haan & Richard Ochmann, 2013. "Taxation of Married Couples in Germany and the UK: One-Earner Couples Make the Difference," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 6(3), pages 3-24.
    6. Felix Hüfner & Caroline Klein, 2012. "The German Labour Market: Preparing for the Future," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 983, OECD Publishing.
    7. Kai-Uwe Müller & Katharina Wrohlich, 2016. "Two Steps Forward—One Step Back? Evaluating Contradicting Child Care Policies in Germany," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, vol. 62(4), pages 672-698.
    8. Neumann, Michael & Müller, Kai-Uwe & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2014. "Is The Equal Sharing Of Market Work And Family Duties Hampered By Financial Means Or Constraints? Evidence From A Structural Labor Supply Model With Involuntary Unemployment And Hours Constraints," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100390, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. Wrohlich, Katharina & Müller, Kai-Uwe, 2014. "Two steps forward - one step back? Evaluating recent child care policies in Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100438, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. C. Spiess & Katharina Wrohlich, 2008. "The Parental Leave Benefit Reform in Germany: Costs and Labour Market Outcomes of Moving towards the Nordic Model," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 27(5), pages 575-591, October.
    11. Wrohlich, Katharina, 2006. "Labor Supply and Child Care Choices in a Rationed Child Care Market," IZA Discussion Papers 2053, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Bargain, Olivier & Orsini, Kristian & Peichl, Andreas, 2011. "Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the US," IZA Discussion Papers 5820, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2014. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the United States: New Results," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(3), pages 723-838.
    14. Hans Fehr & Manuel Kallweit & Fabian Kindermann, 2013. "Reforming Family Taxation in Germany - Labor Supply vs. Insurance Effects," CESifo Working Paper Series 4386, CESifo.
    15. Florencia Lopez Boo & Lucia Madrigal & Carmen Pages, 2010. "Part-Time Work, Gender and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from a Developing Country," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(9), pages 1543-1571.
    16. Kamila Cygan-Rehm & Miriam Maeder, 2012. "The Effect of Education on Fertility: Evidence from a Compulsory Schooling Reform," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 528, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    17. Olivier Bargain & Mathias Dolls & Dirk Neumann & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2011. "Tax-Benefit Systems in Europe and the US: Between Equity and Efficiency," CESifo Working Paper Series 3534, CESifo.
    18. Olivier Bargain & Andreas Peichl, 2013. "Steady-State Labor Supply Elasticities: An International Comparison," AMSE Working Papers 1322, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    19. Hanel Barbara & Riphahn Regina T., 2012. "The Employment of Mothers – Recent Developments and their Determinants in East and West Germany," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 232(2), pages 146-176, April.
    20. Welteke, Clara & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2019. "Peer effects in parental leave decisions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 146-163.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clr:wugarc:y:2009v:35i:1p:45. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael Birkner (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/awakwat.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.