Content uploaded by Chang Woon Nam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chang Woon Nam on Oct 23, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
eJournal
of Tax
Research
Volume 14, Number 3 December 2016
CONTENTS
531
Understanding tax morale of SMEs: A qualitative study
Recep Yücedoğru and John Hasseldine
567
Business process management as a tax risk identification and
management method
Evadne Bronkhorst and Elze Leask
587
Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden and
tax progressivity in Germany under the particular consideration
of bracket creep
Chang Woon Nam and Christoph Zeiner
601
The implementation of informal sector taxation: Evidence from
selected African countries
Godwin Dube and Daniela Casale
624
The UK general anti abuse rule: Lessons for Australia?
Benjamin Kujinga
650
Are Australians under or over confident when it comes to tax
literacy, and why does it matter?
Toni Chardon, Brett Freudenberg and Mark Brimble
683
Tax policy challenges in an era of political transition: The case
of Egypt
Mahmoud M Abdellatif and Binh Tran-Nam
707
Developing a sustainable tax base through a financial transaction
tax: An analysis of suitability for the New Zealand environment
Simoné Pycke, Jagdeep Singh-Ladhar and Howard Davey
719
Filling the land tax void: New Zealand standpoint
Ranjana Gupta
CONTENTS CONTINUED
741
Delineating the fiscal borders of Australia’s non-profit tax
concessions
Natalie Silver, Myles McGregor-Lowndes and
Julie-Anne Tarr
766
Does selecting a taxpayer for audit violate civil rights—a
critical analaysis of the Pakistani High Court’s decision?
Najeeb Memon and Christian Lorenz
© School of Taxation and Business Law (Atax), UNSW Business School
UNSW Australia
ISSN 1448-2398
eJournal of Tax Research (2016) vol. 14, no. 3, pp.587-600
587
Effects of tax reform on average personal
income tax burden and tax progressivity in
Germany under the particular consideration of
bracket creep
Chang Woon Nam1 and Christoph Zeiner2
Abstract
This study primarily aims to contribute to the ongoing debates on bracket creep and examine whether Germany needs to
integrate inflation indexation into its personal income tax system in order to reduce distortions of tax liabilities and additional
tax burdens. Germany has continuously flattened the personal income tax rates in the context of a series of tax reforms and
modified its tax system. Under the consideration of the major goals of these reforms, this study compares the extent to which
previous reform efforts, made in this country since 1958, led to changes in the real, inflation-adjusted average personal
income tax burden of single earners in 2014. Furthermore this study examines the changes in progressivity of tax rates over
the same period of time, which is measured by the coefficient of residual income progression (CRIP). According to the long-
term real view adopted in this study, the evolution of the German personal income tax system made middle-income single
earners worse off, while both the lower and higher income groups are significantly better off.
Keywords: personal income taxation; bracket creep; real average tax burden; single earners; tax progressivity; coefficient of
residual income progression; Germany
JEL-Classification: H21, H23, H24, H31
1 Ifo Institute Munich, CESifo and University of Applied Management Erding, Poschingerstrasse 5,
81679 Munich. Email: nam@ifo.de.
2 Ifo Institute Munich, Poschingerstrasse 5, 81679 Munich. Email: zeiner@ifo.de.
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
588
1. INTRODUCTION
Personal income tax generates a major share of tax revenue in Germany, whereas it
has traditionally been adopted as a policy instrument aimed at rectifying inequality in
disposable income and achieving better redistribution among rich and poor households
worldwide (Atkinson, 1970; Bach, Corneo & Steiner, 2013; Mirrlees, 1971; Slemrod,
1992; Tuomala, 1990). On the other hand, personal income tax system affects
economic growth as well as the labour supply decision of households, since it distorts
the relative price for leisure and consumption (Aaberge & Colombino, 2008; Atkinson
& Stiglitz, 1980; Boeters, 2010; Triest, 1990).3 For this reason, progressivity and
efficiency of the income tax system and their changes in the context of income tax
reform have always been a popular topic of academic research and political discussion
(see also Egger et al., 2013; Heady, 2004; Keen et al., 2000).
While the conservative and liberal parties in Germany have recently suggested the
compensation of extra income tax burden in the middle and higher income groups
caused by the so-called ‘bracket creep’, the left-wing parties would like to see stronger
income tax reductions for the lower-income households and a significant increase in
income tax for high incomes, emphasising the growing income divergence in this
country (Bach, Haan & Ochmann., 2013). Although annual inflation rates have
recently been quite modest in this country, the extra bracket-creep tax burden
emerging over the period of continuous growth in the country’s tax revenue has been
assessed as unfair (Broer, 2011; Heer & Süssmuth, 2013; Lemmer, 2014). In this
context, the real, that is, inflation-adjusted, personal income is also widely seen in
Germany as the indicator that more appropriately reflects the individual taxpayer’s
‘ability to pay’ (see also Rietzler et al., 2014).
Bracket creep is not a new tax policy issue. The term refers to the situation where
inflation pushes income into higher tax brackets, although real income remains
unchanged, and consequently this fictitious extra income causes increases in the real
tax burden for taxpayers (see also, Altig & Carlstrom, 1991; Bailey, 1976; Immervoll,
2005; Jarvis, 1977; Sunley & Pechman, 1976; von Furstenberg, 1975). Taxpayers
near the top-end of a tax bracket in particular are more likely to creep into a higher
bracket and thus experience a rapid rise in marginal rates (Saez, 2003). Since the
1970s there have been intensive discussions over the possibilities of an indexation by
adopting various measures, including (i) lowering statutory tax rates aimed at
eliminating nominal income increase due to inflation; (ii) cost-of-living adjustments;
(iii) the introduction of price escalators into the income tax structure, to name a few.
In a number of countries such efforts have remained less successful, partly due to the
problems of time lag between current inflation and the rate reflected in the adjustment
index, as well as the time lag between the earning of income and the collection of
taxes (see also Gutierrez et al., 2005; Johnson, 20154; OECD, 1976; Tanzi, 1976).
3 ‘A high degree of tax progressivity means high marginal tax rates at the upper end of the income
distribution. This leads to large labour supply distortions in the high-income group and, as a result,
decreases the overall scope for redistribution’ (Boeters, 2010, p. 1).
4 Highlighting the needs of tax reform in the UK, Johnson (2015) urges an introduction of a coherent
system of inflation indexation into the tax system. He argues that increasing indirect taxes in line with
the retail price index and most direct tax thresholds in line with the consumer price index erodes
confidence in the honesty of policymaking in this country.
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
589
Furthermore, international experiences demonstrate that ‘lower income taxpayers and
those with more dependents have generally experienced larger percentage increases in
average tax than have high-income families or those with few dependents, both
because inflation erodes the real value of exemptions and because the rate structure
are progressive’ (Tanzi, 1976: 215–216). As a result, the annual adjustment of the
statutory tax rate in combination with tax deduction according to the price trend has
recently been the most popular means adopted in many OECD countries to rectify the
negative effects caused by bracket creep (Lemmer, 2014). In countries like Germany
a personal income tax reduction and other changes (including those to the basic
personal allowance) carried out in the context of tax reform (see Table 1), for
example, barely improve the net income of taxpayers in a high inflation phase as
originally intended without such an indexation, but merely compensate for their
increased income tax liability.
Table 1: Evolution of German Personal Income Tax System
Period
Basic personal
allowance
(nominal in €)
Basic tax
rate
(%)
Top income
threshold
(nominal in €)
Highest tax rate
(%)
Solidarity
surcharges (%
of nominal
income tax
liability in €)
1958–1964
859
20
56 263
53
1965–1974
859
19
56 263
53
1975–1977
1549
22
66 478
56
1978
1702
22
66 478
56
1979–1980
1887
22
66 468
56
1981–1985
2154
22
66 468
56
1986–1987
2319
22
66 484
56
1988–1989
2430
22
66 484
56
1990
2871
19
61 376
53
1991–1992
2871 19 61 376 53
3.75
1993–1994
0.00
1995
7.50
1996–1997
6184
25.9
61 376
53
1998
6322
25.9
61 376
53
5.50
1999
6681
23.9
61 376
53
2000
6902
22.9
58 643
51
2001
7206
19.9
54 998
48.5
2002–2003
7235
19.9
55 008
48.5
2004
7664
16
52 152
45
2005–2006
7664
15
52 152
42
2007–2008 7664 15
52 152
from 250 001
42
45
2009 7834 14
52 552
from 250 401
42
45
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
590
Period
Basic personal
allowance
(nominal in €)
Basic tax
rate
(%)
Top income
threshold
(nominal in €)
Highest tax rate
(%)
Solidarity
surcharges (%
of nominal
income tax
liability in €)
2010–2012 8 004 14
52 882
from 250 731
42
45
2013 8 130 14
52 882
from 250 731
42
45
2014 8 354 14
52 882
from 250 731
42
45
Source: Authors’ compilation based on information from German Federal Ministry of Finance
(https://www.bmf-steuerrechner.de/ekst/?) .
At first glance, when a ‘nominal view’ is applied (Immervoll, 2005), the performance
of a number of German personal income tax reforms made between 1958 and 2014
appears to be quite promising. The tax-free basic personal allowance
(Grundfreibetrag) increased steadily from 859 euros to 8354 euros, the basic tax rate
has gradually decreased from 20 per cent to 14 per cent (with the exception of the
1996–1998 period where the rate reached 25.9 per cent). In 1958 the highest statutory
income tax rate of 53 per cent was due on a taxable income of 56 263 euros. In 2014
the highest tax rate of 42 per cent was imposed on amounts from 52 882 euros,
whereas the rate further increases to 45 per cent of a taxable income of 250 731 euros
(see Table 1). However, this is not the end of the story, but only the beginning—such
a nominal view alone does not adequately take account of all the partly unfavourable,
real changes in the average tax burden, when the serious tax distortion emerges due to
inflation.
There are two major motivations for this study. Firstly, although inflation rates have
recently been quite low, the additional integration of inflation-adjustment mechanisms
into the personal income tax system still appears to be necessary in this country to
reduce the distortions in tax liabilities that lead to additional tax burdens. Secondly,
Germany’s personal income tax system has never been equipped with any kind of
inflation-indexation mechanism, which, in turn, suggests that various tax reforms and
modifications in the last sixty years have been carried out without adequately
considering the effect of bracket creep (see also Boss et al., 2014; Immervoll, 2005).
Adopting CPI deflation, this study attempts to investigate the extent to which all of
these previous reform efforts made in this country since 1958, have contributed to
changes in the real, inflation-adjusted average personal income tax burden, as well as
to changes in progressivity of the tax rate on single earners in 2014.5
5 Repeatedly this study primarily aims to highlight the long-term income tax distortions caused by the
lack of an inflation-indexation mechanism in the German personal income tax system. To this end, the
application of CPI deflation appears to be suitable. In the case of additional consideration of the
increases in real personal incomes, it would certainly be more appropriate to compare average tax rates
and CRIP measures for average income or tax rates/CRIP on different quintiles or deciles of income.
However, the consideration of historical real income development (and standards of living) is beyond
the scope of this study.
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
591
2. SOME SIMPLE MODELS FOR CALCULATING AND COMPARING THE REAL AVERAGE
INCOME TAX BURDEN
Paragraph 32a of German income tax law (§ 32a EStG - Einkommensteuergesetz)
prescribes how income tax will be calculated each year according to the different tax-
base brackets with a top taxable income threshold. This tax schedule also contains a
basic personal allowance. When T denotes income tax and Y shows annual taxable
income (measured in nominal term), the computation of the income tax liability of
single taxpayers in a given year is carried out on the basis of the following simple
formulas:
For the period of 1958–19646
Y to 1680 DM: T = 0; a)
Y ranges from 1681 DM to 8009 DM: T = 0.20*(Y – 1680); b)
Y ranges from 8010 DM to 23 999 DM: T = 1264 + 272*{(Y – 8000)/1000} + c) 2.9*{(Y – 8000)/1000}²;
Y ranges from 24 000 DM to 110 039 DM: T = 6358 + 382*{(Y – 24 d) 000)/1000} + 1.572*{(Y – 24 000)/1000}² – 0.006*{(Y – 24 000)/1000}³; and
Y from 110 040 DM: T = 0.53*Y – 11 281 e)
For the fiscal year 2014 the calculation scheme has been changed:7
Y to 8354 euros: T = 0; a)
Y ranges from 8355 euros to 13 469 euros: T = [(974.58*{(Y – 8354)/10 000} b) + 1400)]*{(Y – 8354)/10 000};
Y ranges from 13 470 euros to 52 881 euros: T = [(228.74*{(Y – 13 469)/10 c) 000} + 2397]*{(Y – 13 469)/10 000} + 971;
Y ranges from 52 882 euros to 250 730 euros: T = 0.42*Y – 8239; and d)
Y from 250 731 euros: T = 0.45*Y – 15 761 e)
The splitting rule is applied when married couples are taxed, ‘a tax rate for a single
taxpayer with taxable income Y equals the tax rate of couple with a taxable income of
2Y’ (Corneo, 2005: 161) in the aforementioned computation schedules.
It is generally acknowledged that a progressive tax system should be defined as one
whereby the average rate of taxation increases with income before tax. Such a system
is structured with marginal tax rates exceeding average rates and increasing with the
tax base (Boeters, 2010; Jakobsson, 1976; Kakwani, 1977). This paper adopts a
widely-used method for the purpose of measuring and comparing the degree of
progression between the investigated years 1958 and 2014: the coefficient of residual
income progression (CRIP).
6 In Germany the current income of family taxation with income splitting for spouses was introduced in
1958.
7 The calculation schedule was changed a total of twenty-five times between 1964 and 2014 (see
<https://www.bmf-steuerrechner.de/ekst/?>).
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
592
The CRIP shows the elasticity of net, that is, after-tax, income to taxable income, and
is defined as:
ρ(Y) = {Δ(Y-T) / (Y-T)} / {ΔY / Y}
= (1 – tmar) / (1-tave)
= [d ln {(1 – T/Y) Y}] / [d ln Y]
where Y = taxable income; tmar = marginal tax rate; and tave = average tax rate. Hence,
in a proportional tax regime the CRIP is 1. The tax progressivity exists at a certain
level of taxable income Y, when ρ(Y) < 1. The smaller this coefficient, the higher the
degree of progressivity (see Boeters, 2010; Bovenberg, 2006; Corneo, 2005;
Jakobsson, 1976).
3. REAL EFFECTS OF GERMAN PERSONAL INCOME TAX REFORMS BETWEEN 1958 AND
2014
In the following section the real average income tax rates of German single earners are
measured and compared for the years 1958 and 2014. In this context the nominal tax
base has to be firstly adjusted and expressed in real terms (see also Boss & Ente, 1988;
Brügelmann, 2008). Such an inflation-indexation comparison between the two
selected years is carried out in this study via the cumulative inflation rate which is
calculated based on the ‘official’ annual average CPI in the same period of time (see
also Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 2011). Secondly, changes in tax-
deductible professional outlays and expenses, as well as other types of tax-free
allowances over the course of time can lead to significant differences in taxable
incomes, although the gross income remains unchanged. For this reason the following
analysis is based on information on taxable income, which is also applied by Boss and
Ente (1988).
Figure 1 compares the real average personal income tax burden of the year 1958 with
that of 2014; both are computed using the tax-bases expressed in terms of 2014 prices.
As mentioned above, Germany has experienced a number of changes to the personal
income tax system, mainly motivated by a desire to generally reduce the overall tax
burden, as well as to better guarantee income redistribution. In contrast to this
political intention, the same chart demonstrates rather surprisingly that a segment
within the taxable income group of German single earners with the increased real
average tax burden is currently worse off due to a series of tax reforms implemented
between 1958 and 2014. This group’s taxable income ranges from approximately 50
000 to 120 000 euros (and from 40 000 to 180 000 euros when the solidarity surcharge
is additionally considered in the calculation of average tax rate). With an income of 70
000 euros, for example, the average tax rate amounts to 29 per cent in 1958, which
delivers an after-tax income of 49 491 euros (again in 2014 prices). By comparison,
the average tax rate was 30 per cent in 2014 (and 32 per cent with the solidarity
surcharge) while net income decreased to 48 839 euros (and to 47 675 euros with the
solidarity surcharge).
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
593
Figure 1: Real Average Personal Income Tax Burden for Single Earner:
Comparison between 1958 and 2014
Source: German Federal Ministry of Finance; German Federal Statistical Office; own calculations by
authors.
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
594
By contrast, the real average tax rate on a taxable income of 15 000 euros amounted to
15 per cent in 1958, while the figure for 2014 was approximately 9 per cent
(regardless of whether the solidarity surcharge is taken into consideration in the
calculation). As a result, from this sum of taxable income, for example, a net income
of 12 768 euros was obtained in 1958. This figure grew to 13 657 euros (or 13 583
euros including the solidarity surcharge) in 2014. In this context the obvious real
income tax reductions for the lower-income single earners8 can be observed, which
appears to correspond closely to the basic idea of the German personal income tax
reform (see also Boss et al., 2014). At an income level of around 40 000 euros and at
an average tax rate of 24 per cent, the real average tax curves of 1958 and 2014 (with
the solidarity surcharge) intersect.9
The series of German personal income tax reforms implemented since 1958 have also
helped to reduce the real average tax burden for the upper-income class in Germany.
The average personal income tax gap continued to grow between 1958 and 2014 and
becomes more significant as taxable income rises, starting from approximately 120
000 euros (and 180 000 euros if the solidarity surcharge is taken into account), as
shown by Figure 1. For example, a taxable income of 160 000 euros (in 2014 prices)
is subject to an average tax rate of 37 per cent (without the solidarity surcharge) in
2014, resulting in an after-tax income of 101 039 euros; the valid tax rate for the same
taxable income amounted to 38 per cent in 1958, which led to a reduction in net
income to 98 949 euros. All these facts suggest that, in real terms, the current German
personal income tax system makes those upper-income single earners considerably
better off compared to the system in 1958.
Apart from the increased basic personal allowance and the lowered top taxable income
threshold, from which the highest statutory personal income tax rate applies in 2014
(see Table 1), the increased real average tax burden in this year (compared to that of
1958) for those single earners whose taxable income ranges from approximately 50
000 to 120 000 euros (and from 40 000 to 180 000 euros with the solidarity surcharge)
can also be explained by changes in tax progressivity. For this purpose, the
coefficients of residual income progression (CRIP) at the given level of taxable
income are compared between 1958 and 2014 (Figure 2).
8 According to the calculation made by the German Federal Statistical Office in cooperation with the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, around 75 per cent of the tax payers in Germany earn an annual
income of less than approximately 38 200 euros (expressed at 2014 prices). Moreover, the average
gross salary of German employees is around this level. In comparison, those who earn a gross income
of more than approximately 148 000 euros (in 2014 prices) annually belong to the upper class in
Germany (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2011).
9 It has always been an uneasy task to estimate the average personal-income-tax functions (Gourveia &
Strauss, 1994). Despite that we attempted to statistically identify this function for the taxable personal
income of German single earners, ranging from 10 000 to 300 000 euros (see Table A1 in annex).
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
595
Figure 2: Comparison of the Coefficient of Residual Income Progression (CRIP)
between 1958 and 2014
Source: Authors’ own calculation and Table A2 in Annex.
The development of CRIP, shown in Figure 2 as well as in Table A2 in the annex,
clearly reveals that there was a significantly higher progression in 2014 in the range of
taxable income between 10 000 to 80 000 euros, compared to the situation in 1958. A
more ‘compressed’ personal income tax system in 2014, equipped with the increased
basic personal allowance, calls for a greater progression in the lower taxable income
group to reach a higher real average tax rate at the given higher level of taxable
income. More precisely, a faster and more excessive increase in marginal tax rate in
relation to the prevailing average tax rate existed in 2014 for the range of taxable
income mentioned above, which is reflected by the CRIP curve of 2014 running below
that of 1958, and by changes in the CRIP-gap. This also implies that the lower and
middle-income single earners currently pay relatively higher taxes than those upper-
income earners when there is a marginal change in the taxable income. Moreover,
when this process slows down and becomes less significant as taxable income grows,
the CRIP of 2014 starts to grow, indicating shrinking tax progressivity. This
phenomenon becomes increasingly apparent when the taxable income exceeds 80 000
euros.
4. CONCLUSION
This brief study aims at to contribute to the ongoing political and scientific debates on
bracket creep and examines whether Germany needs to integrate inflation indexation
into its personal income tax system to reduce distortions of tax liabilities and
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
596
additional tax burdens. At present, such an inflation accounting system is lacking in
Germany. On the other hand, in the context of a series of tax reforms, Germany has
continuously flattened its personal income tax rates and modified its tax system. The
major political motives for all of these previous reform efforts appear to have been to
generally reduce the overall tax burden, as well as to better reflect the ability-to-pay
principle in the personal income tax system and to better guarantee the income
redistribution among the different income groups in this country. In view of the
aforementioned goals of these reforms, this study compares the extent to which
previous reform efforts made in this country since 1958 have led to changes in the
real, inflation-adjusted average personal income tax burden of single earners in 2014.
By doing so, it highlights that understanding the tax reform from a ‘nominal’ point of
view alone can fail to capture all of the real changes in the average tax burden, when
the ‘hidden’ distortion caused by inflation prevails.
The comparison of real average personal income tax rates in 1958 and 2014
demonstrates that the annual taxable income group earning around 50 000 to 120 000
euros (and from 40 000 to 180 000 euros with the solidarity surcharge both expressed
in terms of 2014 prices) are worse off under the previously implemented series of tax
reforms, for example, for a taxable income of 70 000 euros, tave = 29 per cent in 1958,
while the tax rate slightly grew to 30 per cent (and 32 per cent with the solidarity
surcharge) in 2014. Over the same period, by contrast, there were clear real income
tax reductions for lower-income single earners (that is, Y < 40 000 euros), even
although solidarity surcharges also prevail. In addition, the previous tax reforms
accompanied by the solidarity surcharge also reduced the real average tax burden for
the upper-income class (with Y > 180 000 euros) in Germany (see Figure 1).
Moreover, a comparison of the coefficient of residual income progression (CRIP)
between 1958 and 2014 indicates that a higher degree of progressivity applies for the
taxable income from 10 000 to 80 000 euros in 2014, compared to that of 1958, which,
in turn, implies that lower and middle-income single earners currently pay relatively
higher taxes than upper-income earners when there is a marginal change in taxable
income (see Figure 2). Such rather surprising effects on different income groups not
only violate the basic ability-to-pay principle and disturb the smooth progressivity
development, but also make the entire German personal income tax system less
equitable in the long run, particularly for the middle-income group. More precisely,
this study demonstrates the mismatch between the policy intention and the long-term
real effects of personal income tax reforms in Germany and, at the same time,
questions the effectiveness of income tax as a policy instrument aimed at rectifying
inequality of disposable income and achieving greater redistribution among rich and
poor single earners.
Timely inflation-indexation and its integration into the personal income tax system
appears to be necessary in Germany, not only to effectively prevent the emergence of
an extra bracket-creep tax burden in the short term, but also to avoid some of the
adverse effects caused by individual tax reforms from a ‘real’ point of view, and
ultimately to better shape its progressive tax system in the long run.
5. REFERENCES
Altig, D & Carlstrom, CT 1991, ‘Bracket creep in the age of indexing: Have we solved the problem?’,
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Working Paper 9108.
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
597
Atkinson, AB 1970, ‘On the measurement of inequality’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 2, pp.
244–263.
Aaberge, R & Colombino, U 2008, ‘Designing optimal taxes with a microeconomic model of
household labour supply’, CHILD Working Paper 06/2008.
Atkinson, AB & Stiglitz, JE 1980, Lectures on public economics, McGraw-Hill, London.
Bach, S, Corneo, G & Steiner, V 2013, ‘Effective taxation of top incomes in Germany’, German
Economic Review, vol. 14, pp. 115–137.
Bach, S, Haan, P & Ochmann, R 2013, ‘Reformvorschläge zur Einkommensteuer: Mehr echte und
weniger kalte Progression’, DIW Wochenbericht, vol. 30, pp. 3–12.
Bailey, MJ 1976, ‘Inflationary distortions and taxes’, in HJ Aaron (ed.), Inflation and the income tax,
Brookings Institution, Washington DC, pp. 291–330.
Boeters, S 2010, ‘Optimal tax regressivity in unionised labour markets: Simulation results for
Germany’, ZEW Discussion Paper 10–035.
Boss, A & Ente, W 1988, ‘Die Einkommensteuertarife 1965, 1986 und 1990: Wo liegen die
Unterschiede’, Finanzarchiv, vol. 46, pp. 85–97.
Boss, A, Müller, HC & Schrinner, A 2014, ‘Einkommensteuerbelastung ausgewählter Haushaltstypen
in Deutschland 1958 bis 2013’, Wirtschaftsdienst, vol. 94, pp. 187–193.
Bovenberg, AL 2006, ‘Tax policy and labor market performance’, in J Agell & PB Sørensen (eds.),
Tax policy and labor market performance, MIT Press, Massachusetts, pp. 3–74.
Broer, M 2011, ‘Kalte Progression in der Einkommensbesteuerung’, Wirtschaftsdienst, vol. 91, pp.
694–698.
Brügelmann, R 2008, ‘Zur Reform der Einkommensteuer—Ein IW-Vorschlag’, Trends, vol. 35, no. 3,
<http://www.iwkoeln.de/Portals/0/pdf/trends03_08_3.pdf>.
Corneo, G 2005, ‘The rise and likely fall of the German income tax, 1958–2005’, CESifo Economic
Studies, vol. 51, pp. 159–186.
Egger, P, Radulescu, D & Rees, R 2013, The determinants of personal income tax progressivity
around the globe, ETH Zurich and LMU Munich, Mimeo.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2011, ‘Arme Obersicht - So lebt das reichste Prozent der Deutschen’,
(Online) May 29, 2011, <http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftswissen/arme-
oberschicht-so-lebt-das-reichste-prozent-der-deutschen-1637673.html>.
Gourveia, M & Strauss, RP 1994, ‘Effective federal individual income tax functions: An exploratory
empirical analysis’, National Tax Journal, vol. 47, pp. 317–339.
Gutierrez, R, Immervoll, H & Sutherland, H 2005, ‘How European Union member states adjust tax
and benefit systems for inflation’, EUROMOD Working Paper.
Heady, C 2004, ‘The “taxing wages” approach to measuring the tax burden on labor’, in PB Sørensen,
Measuring the tax burden on capital and labor, MIT Press, Massachusetts, pp. 263–287.
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
598
Heer, B & Süssmuth, B 2013, ‘Tax bracket creep and its effects on income distribution’, Journal of
Macroeconomics, vol. 38, pp. 393–408.
Immervoll, H 2005, ‘Falling up the stairs: The effects of “bracket creep” on household incomes’,
Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 51, pp. 37–62.
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy 2011, ‘Indexing income taxes for inflation: Why it
matters’, Policy Brief, August 2011.
Jakobsson, U 1976, ‘On the measurement of the degree of progression’, Journal of Public Economics,
vol. 5, pp. 161–168.
Jarvis, G 1977, ‘Real income and average tax rates: An extension for the 1970–75 period’, Canadian
Tax Journal, vol. 25, pp. 206–215.
Johnson, P 2015, Time for tax reform, Institute for Fiscal Studies,
<http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7831>.
Kakwani, N 1977, ‘Measurement of tax progressivity: An international comparison’, Economic
Journal, vol. 87, pp. 71–80.
Keen, M, Papapanagos H & Shorrocks, A 2000, ‘Tax reform and progressivity’, Economic Journal,
vol. 110, pp. 50–68.
Mirrlees, JA 1971, ‘An exploration into the theory of optimal income taxation’, Review of Economic
Studies, vol. 38, pp. 175–208.
Lemmer, J 2014, ‘Indexierung der Einkommensbesteuerung im internationalen Vergleich’,
Wirtschaftsdienst, vol. 94, pp. 872–878.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 1976, The adjustment of personal income
tax systems for inflation, OECD, Paris.
Rietzler, K, Teichmann, D & Truger, A 2014, ‘Abbau der kalten Progression: Nüchterne Analyse
geboten’, Wirtschaftsdienst, vol. 94, pp. 864–871.
Saez, E 2003, ‘The effect of marginal tax rates on income: A panel study of “bracket creep”’, Journal
of Public Economics, vol. 87, pp. 1231–1258.
Slemrod, J 1992, ‘Taxation and inequality: A time-exposure perspective’, in JM Poterba (ed.), Tax
policy and the economy, MIT Press, Massachusetts, pp. 105–128.
Sunley, EM Jr & Pechman, JA 1976, ‘Inflation adjustment for the individual income tax’, in HJ Aaron
(ed.), Inflation and the income tax, Brookings Institution, Washington DC, pp. 153–171.
Tanzi, V 1976, ‘Adjusting personal income taxes for inflation: The foreign experiences’, in HJ Aaron
(ed.), Inflation and the income tax, Brookings Institution, pp. 215–231.
Tuomala, M 1990, Optimal income taxation and redistribution, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Triest, R 1990, ‘The effect of income taxation on labor supply in the United States’, Journal of Human
Resources, vol. 25, pp. 491–516.
von Furstenberg, GM 1975, ‘Individual income taxation and inflation’, National Tax Journal, vol. 27,
pp. 117–125.
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
599
6. APPENDICES
6.1 Appendix 1
Table A1: Estimated Real Average Personal Income Tax Function for Taxable Personal Income
Range between 10 000 and 300 000 euros: 1958 and 2014
Real average tax function
R²
1958
t
ave
= -0.00000902725594x4 + 0.00151268116206x3 –
0.09349617017108x2 + 2.79155224693159x +
4.06269344903740
0.9931
2014
t
ave
= -0.00001506601961x4 + 0.00257502270136x3 –
0.15836489559227x2 + 4.25412262468126x –
5.87076390678340
0.9928
2014 (with solidarity
surcharge)
t
ave
= -0.00001593188675x4 + 0.00272259717316x3 –
0.16740281526725x2 + 4.49525620537543x –
6.24337980875862
0.9926
Note: x = Y/5000 + 1, where Y = taxable income.
Source: Authors’ own calculation.
eJournal of Tax Research Effects of tax reform on average personal income tax burden
600
6.2 Appendix 2
Table A2: Coefficients of Residual Income Progression (CRIP): A Comparison between 1958
and 2014
Taxable income
(€ in 2014 prices)
CRIP 1958
CRIP 2014
CRIP 2014
with solidarity surcharge
5000
0.8115
1.0000
1.0000
10 000
0.9081
0.8415
0.8415
20 000
0.8756
0.8407
0.8305
30 000
0.8819
0.8387
0.8277
40 000
0.8778
0.8210
0.8081
50 000
0.8691
0.7953
0.7799
60 000
0.8435
0.8086
0.7936
70 000
0.8465
0.8313
0.8177
80 000
0.8466
0.8492
0.8367
90 000
0.8409
0.8637
0.8522
100 000
0.8411
0.8756
0.8650
110 000
0.8362
0.8856
0.8757
120 000
0.8360
0.8942
0.8849
130 000
0.8313
0.9015
0.8928
140 000
0.8305
0.9079
0.8997
150 000
0.8281
0.9135
0.9058
160 000
0.8242
0.9185
0.9111
170 000
0.8235
0.9229
0.9159
180 000
0.8232
0.9269
0.9202
190 000
0.8233
0.9304
0.9241
200 000
0.8237
0.9337
0.9276
Source: Authors’ own calculation.
