IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jns/jbstat/v224y2004i6p696-730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Verteilungswirkungen alternativer Konzepte zur Familienförderung / Distributional Effects of Alternative Concepts of Family Support: Eine empirische Analyse auf Grundlage der Einkommensteuerstatistik des Statistischen Bundesamtes / An Empirical Analysis Based on the Income Tax Statistics of the German Federal Statistical Office

Author

Listed:
  • Maiterth Ralf

    (Willibald Alexisstr. 18, D-10965 Berlin. Tel.: ++49/+30/20 93-56 13, Fax: ++49/+30/20 93-56 11, Germany)

Abstract

The article analyses for the first time distributive effects of family support implied in German income tax law for the different legal states of 1995,2003,2005 and for the so called „Karlsruher Entwurf“ on the basis of single data sets from the 10 % sample of the income tax statistics provided by the German Federal Statistical Office. Family support within the scope of the income splitting method induces a very inhomogeneous tax relief for married couples which increases with higher family incomes. About one third of the married couples do not or only very scarcely benefit from income splitting independent of the legal state. About one quarter of the entire national tax loss of approximately 30 billion € p.a. due to the splitting method accounts for less than 7 % of all married couples. In contrast to the varying income taxation of married couples child support is – except for the legal state of 1995 – widely independent of family income. Within the current national child support, which amounts to about 32 billion € p.a. in 2003 and therefore nearly doubles the amount of 1995, the current child allowance is – according to amount – only marginal. The „Karlsruher Entwurf“ solely grants direct monetary child benefits that amount to 49 billion € and therefore offers the by far highest support of families with children. To substitute the current national child support for a family splitting of income for tax purposes would – accordant with the splitting of income between spouses – induce a very inhomogeneous child support. However, the national budget would be – on the other hand – burdened to a clearly lesser extent. A child support that combines family income splitting with child benefit would have impacts that are similar to the current national child support

Suggested Citation

  • Maiterth Ralf, 2004. "Verteilungswirkungen alternativer Konzepte zur Familienförderung / Distributional Effects of Alternative Concepts of Family Support: Eine empirische Analyse auf Grundlage der Einkommensteuerstatistik ," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 224(6), pages 696-730, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:jns:jbstat:v:224:y:2004:i:6:p:696-730
    DOI: 10.1515/jbnst-2004-0605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2004-0605
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jbnst-2004-0605?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerhard Wagenhals, 2001. "Incentive and Redistribution Effects of the German Tax Reform 2000," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 57(3), pages 316-332, May.
    2. Bork, Christhart, 2001. "Verteilungswirkungen des Karlsruher Entwurfs zur Einkommensteuerreform," Wirtschaftsdienst – Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik (1949 - 2007), ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 81(8), pages 480-488.
    3. Homburg, Stefan, 2000. "Das einkommensteuerliche Ehegattensplitting," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 261-268.
    4. Scherf, Wolfgang, 1999. "Das Ehegattensplitting ist kein Steuervorteil," Wirtschaftsdienst – Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik (1949 - 2007), ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 79(1), pages 27-34.
    5. Stefan Bach & Hermann Buslei, 2003. "Fiskalische Wirkungen einer Reform der Ehegattenbesteuerung," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 70(22), pages 345-353.
    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. 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.
    2. Fritzsche, Bernd & Haisken-DeNew, John & Kambeck, Rainer & Siemers, Lars-H. R. & Bergs, Christian & Fuest, Clemens & Peichl, Andreas & Schaefer, Thilo & Thöne, Michael, 2007. "Der Zusammenhang zwischen Steuerlast- und Einkommensverteilung: Forschungsprojekt für das Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales. Endbericht - Dezember 2007," RWI Projektberichte, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, number 70874.

    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. Bergs Christian & Schaefer Thilo & Fuest Clemens & Peichl Andreas, 2007. "Reformoptionen der Familienbesteuerung: Aufkommens-, Verteilungs- und Arbeitsangebotseffekte," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 58(1), pages 1-27, April.
    2. Bofinger, Peter & Buch, Claudia M. & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Wieland, Volker, 2013. "Gegen eine rückwärtsgewandte Wirtschaftspolitik. Jahresgutachten 2013/14 [Against a backward-looking economic policy. Annual Report 2013/14]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201314.
    3. Hermann Buslei & Katharina Wrohlich, 2014. "Besteuerung von Paaren: das Ehegattensplitting und seine Alternativen," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 21, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Hackmann, Johannes, 2009. "Ungereimtheiten Der Traditionell In Deutschland Vorherrschenden Rechtfertigungsansaetze Fuer Das Ehegattensplitting," Working Paper 93/2009, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
    5. Schätzlein, Uwe, 2019. "Ehegattensplitting und negative Arbeitsanreize: Ein mikroökonomischer Ansatz zur Negation der steuerrechtlichen Relevanz," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 244, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    6. Bechara, Peggy & Beimann, Boris & Kambeck, Rainer & Schaffner, Sandra & von den Driesch, Ellen, 2013. "Gutachten zur Reform des Ehegattensplittings," RWI Projektberichte, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, number 111424.
    7. Jörg Althammer, 2002. "Familienbesteuerung - Reformen ohne Ende?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 71(1), pages 67-82.
    8. Gruber, Magdalena & Höhenberger, Nicole & Höserle, Silke & Niemann, Rainer, 2009. "Familienbesteuerung in Österreich und Deutschland: Eine vergleichende Analyse unter Berücksichtigung aktueller Steuerreformen," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 82, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    9. Eichfelder, Sebastian, 2006. "Ehegattensplitting und ALG II: Nettoeinkommensoptimierung bei Erwerbslosigkeit," Discussion Papers 2006/12, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    10. Kroh Tanja, 2016. "Wie wirken Steuern auf die Einkommens- und Vermögensverteilung?," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 65(1), pages 022-046, May.
    11. Schlick, Gregor, 2005. "Das Splitting-Verfahren bei der Einkommensteuerveranlagung von Ehegatten," Wirtschaftsdienst – Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik (1949 - 2007), ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 85(5), pages 312-319.
    12. Truger, Achim & Jacoby, Wade, 2002. "Tax Reforms and "Modell Deutschland": Lessons from Four Years of Red-Green Tax-Policy," Institute of European Studies, Working Paper Series qt31866224, Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley.
    13. Beznoska, Martin & Hentze, Tobias, 2017. "Steuerklassenwahl beim Ehegattensplitting," IW-Kurzberichte 41.2017, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute.
    14. Richard Ochmann, 2014. "Differential income taxation and household asset allocation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(8), pages 880-894, March.
    15. Beznoska, Martin & Hentze, Tobias, 2017. "Ehegattensplitting auf dem Prüfstand," IW-Kurzberichte 59.2017, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute.
    16. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2006. "Introducing Family Tax Splitting in Germany: How Would It Affect the Income Distribution and Work Incentives," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 612, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Peichl, Andreas, 2008. "The benefits of linking CGE and Microsimulation Models - Evidence from a Flat Tax analysis," FiFo Discussion Papers - Finanzwissenschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 08-6, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    18. Homburg, Stefan, 2010. "Allgemeine Steuerlehre: Kapitel 1. Grundbegriffe der Steuerlehre," EconStor Books, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 92547, July.
    19. Heiko Müller & Caren Sureth, 2009. "Income tax statistics analysis: A comparison of microsimulation versus group simulation," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 2(1), pages 32-48.
    20. Merz, Joachim & Stolze, Henning & Zwick, Markus, 2006. "Wirkungen alternativer Steuerreformmodelle auf die Einkommensverteilung von Freien und anderen Berufen," MPRA Paper 5844, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:jns:jbstat:v:224:y:2004:i:6:p:696-730. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.