IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/arqudp/181.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vermögensteuer und ihre Implikationen für den Wirtschaftsstandort Deutschland: Eine betriebswirtschaftliche Analyse

Author

Listed:
  • Hoppe, Thomas
  • Maiterth, Ralf
  • Sureth, Caren

Abstract

Die (Wieder-)Einführung einer Vermögensteuer ist in den vergangenen Jahren erneut in den Fokus der politischen Diskussion gerückt. Der vorliegende Beitrag vermittelt einen Eindruck von den Belastungswirkungen, die aus der Umsetzung von aktuell vorliegenden Besteuerungskonzepten resultieren würden. Auf der Basis von realen Jahresabschlussdaten wird eine mehrperiodige Veranlagungssimulation durchgeführt, die insbesondere ermöglicht, den zu erwartenden Eigenkapitalverzehr sowie den Anstieg der Steuerbelastung für die betrachtete Unternehmensgruppe zu quantifizieren. Von besonderem Interesse sind hierbei Unternehmen deren laufende Erträge nicht ausreichen, um die Belastungen durch die Vermögensteuer zu tragen und damit einem Substanzverzehr ausgesetzt sind. Es zeigt sich, dass etwa die Hälfte der Unternehmen im Untersuchungszeitraum von sechs Jahren in mindestens einem Jahr einen Substanzverzehr erfährt. Der Vermögensteuer kommt somit keinesfalls der vielfach postulierte Charakter einer eher mäßig belastenden und im Wesentlichen substanzverschonenden Steuer zu. Zusatzbelastungen von knapp 100 bis zu 300% der Ertragsteuerlast sind keine Seltenheit und veranschaulichen das Gefährdungspotenzial dieser Steuer für den Wirtschaftsstandort Deutschland.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoppe, Thomas & Maiterth, Ralf & Sureth, Caren, 2015. "Vermögensteuer und ihre Implikationen für den Wirtschaftsstandort Deutschland: Eine betriebswirtschaftliche Analyse," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 181, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:arqudp:181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/106213/1/813250978.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caren Sureth & Ralf Maiterth, 2008. "The impact of minimum taxation by an imputable wealth tax on capital budgeting and business strategy of German companies," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 81-110, July.
    2. Anthony B. Atkinson & Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2011. "Top Incomes in the Long Run of History," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 49(1), pages 3-71, March.
    3. Markus M. Grabka & Jan Goebel & Jürgen Schupp, 2012. "Höhepunkt der Einkommensungleichheit in Deutschland überschritten?," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 79(43), pages 3-15.
    4. Joachim R. Frick & Markus M. Grabka, 2009. "Gestiegene Vermögensungleichheit in Deutschland," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 76(4), pages 54-67.
    5. Marika Cabral & Caroline Hoxby, 2012. "The Hated Property Tax: Salience, Tax Rates, and Tax Revolts," NBER Working Papers 18514, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Feld, Lars P. & Heckemeyer, Jost H. & Overesch, Michael, 2013. "Capital structure choice and company taxation: A meta-study," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2850-2866.
    7. Emmanuel Saez & Michael R. Veall, 2005. "The Evolution of High Incomes in Northern America: Lessons from Canadian Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 831-849, June.
    8. Tiefensee, Anita & Grabka, Markus M., 2016. "Comparing Wealth - Data Quality of the HFCS," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 119-142.
    9. Christoph Spengel & Lisa Evers & Maria Theresia Evers, 2013. "Probleme einer Vermögensteuer in Deutschland: eine ökonomische Analyse," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 82(1), pages 129-146.
    10. Jan Goebel & Martin Gornig & Hartmut Häußermann, 2010. "Polarisierung der Einkommen: die Mittelschicht verliert," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 77(24), pages 2-8.
    11. Stefan Bach & Martin Beznoska, 2012. "Vermögensteuer: erhebliches Aufkommenspotential trotz erwartbarer Ausweichreaktionen," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 79(42), pages 12-17.
    12. Markus M. Grabka, 2014. "Private Net Worth in Eastern and Western Germany Only Converging Slowly," DIW Economic Bulletin, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 4(11), pages 25-32.
    13. Dirrigl, Hans, 2009. "Unternehmensbewertung für Zwecke der Steuerbemessung im Spannungsfeld von Individualisierung und Kapitalmarkttheorie: Ein aktuelles Problem vor dem Hintergrund der Erbschaftsteuerreform," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 68, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Thomas Hoppe & Ralf Maiterth & Caren Sureth-Sloane, 2016. "Eigenkapitalverzehr und Substanzbesteuerung deutscher Unternehmen durch eine Vermögensteuer – eine empirische Analyse [Wealth Tax-Induced Equity Loss and Asset Erosion of German Companies – An Empi," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 3-45, April.
    2. Rainer Niemann & Caren Sureth-Sloane, 2015. "Investment Effects of Wealth Taxes under Uncertainty and Irreversibility," CESifo Working Paper Series 5610, CESifo.
    3. Niemann, Rainer & Sureth-Sloane, Caren, 2015. "Investment effects of wealth taxes under uncertainty and irreversibility," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 192, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    4. Paul Makdissi & Myra Yazbeck, 2012. "On the Measurement of Indignation," Working Papers 1213E, University of Ottawa, Department of Economics.
    5. Nicolas Hérault & Dean Hyslop & Stephen P. Jenkins & Roger Wilkins, 2024. "Rising top‐income persistence in Australia: Evidence from income tax data," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 70(1), pages 154-186, March.
    6. Vincent Geloso & Peter Lindert, 2020. "Relative costs of living, for richer and poorer, 1688–1914," Cliometrica, Springer;Cliometric Society (Association Francaise de Cliométrie), vol. 14(3), pages 417-442, September.
    7. Cabral, René & García-Díaz, Rocío & Mollick, André Varella, 2016. "Does globalization affect top income inequality?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 916-940.
    8. Zeng, Ting & Zhu, Shenghao, 2022. "The mobility of top earnings, income, and wealth in China: Facts from the 2011–2017 China household finance survey," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    9. Atanu Ghoshray & Issam Malki & Javier Ordóñez, 2022. "On the long-run dynamics of income and wealth inequality," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 375-408, February.
    10. Richard Burkhauser & Shuaizhang Feng & Stephen Jenkins & Jeff Larrimore, 2011. "Estimating trends in US income inequality using the Current Population Survey: the importance of controlling for censoring," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 9(3), pages 393-415, September.
    11. Kontbay-Busun, Sine & Peichl, Andreas, 2014. "Multidimensional affluence in income and wealth in the eurozone: A cross country comparison using the HFCS," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-124, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. Audra Bowlus & Émilien Gouin‐Bonenfant & Huju Liu & Lance Lochner & Youngmin Park, 2022. "Four decades of Canadian earnings inequality and dynamics across workers and firms," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(4), pages 1447-1491, November.
    13. Liliana Cano, 2015. "Income mobility in Ecuador: New evidence from individual income tax returns," WIDER Working Paper Series 040, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    14. Emmanuel Saez & Joel Slemrod & Seth H. Giertz, 2012. "The Elasticity of Taxable Income with Respect to Marginal Tax Rates: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(1), pages 3-50, March.
    15. Fernholz, Ricardo T., 2016. "A Model of economic mobility and the distribution of wealth," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 168-192.
    16. Fernholz, Ricardo & Fernholz, Robert, 2014. "Instability and concentration in the distribution of wealth," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 251-269.
    17. Salvatore Morelli & Timothy Smeeding & Jeffrey Thompson, 2014. "Post-1970 Trends in Within-Country Inequality and Poverty: Rich and Middle Income Countries," CSEF Working Papers 356, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    18. Christoph A. Schaltegger & Christoph Gorgas, 2011. "The Evolution of Top Incomes in Switzerland over the 20th Century," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 147(IV), pages 479-519, December.
    19. Mollick, André Varella, 2012. "Income inequality in the U.S.: The Kuznets hypothesis revisited," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 127-144.
    20. Stephanie Houle & Pau Pujolas & Michael Veall, 2019. "The Curious Incident of Luxury Imports during the Top-Income Surge," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(2), pages 1479-1487.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Steuerbelastung; Substanzbesteuerung; ungleiche Vermögensverteilung; Veranlagungssimulation; Vermögensteuer; Equity Loss; Tax Assessment Simulation; Tax Burden; Wealth Inequality; Wealth Tax;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies
    • C54 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Quantitative Policy Modeling

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:arqudp:181. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.arqus.info/ .

    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.