Text file: 2430.txt
author: markoj
downvotes: 5
end consideration date: 2012-04-04
id: '2430'
number comments: 16
number views: 3132
proposal type: Competent authority response
response: "Response from the Ministry of Finance\nPlease note: Under the current regime,\
  \ the income tax scale has three tax brackets with a maximum rate of 41%, which\
  \ is applied to the net annual tax base exceeding \u20AC15,681 (for the 2012 income\
  \ tax assessment). This annual tax base is comparable to an income of approximately\
  \ 1.3 times the average annual salary of employees in Slovenia (assuming that the\
  \ taxpayer does not claim any other allowances in addition to the general allowance).\
  \ This means that the part of an individual's total annual active income that exceeds\
  \ the income threshold is taxed at a rate of 41%. Introducing a higher tax rate\
  \ for the highest earners would impose an additional burden on the income of individuals\
  \ in higher income brackets. All aspects need to be considered as changes in the\
  \ top tax rates have a significant impact on the behaviour of these taxpayers, who\
  \ are generally considered to have greater tax planning power and are more geographically\
  \ mobile than most other citizens, and are therefore more likely to change their\
  \ country of residence in response to higher income tax rates.  The highest income\
  \ tax rate is also important in terms of international comparability and competitiveness\
  \ in terms of labour costs. According to the European Commission, there has been\
  \ a clear and steady downward trend in top tax rates in the period since 2000 to\
  \ 2011. During this period, 20 Member States reduced their top tax rate, while three\
  \ countries (Portugal, the United Kingdom and Sweden) increased their top tax rate\
  \ and four countries kept their top rate unchanged.  In view of the above, we believe\
  \ that introducing a higher rate of income tax for the highest earners is a possible\
  \ solution, but that the competitiveness, international comparability and high responsiveness\
  \ of the highest earners require particular attention in defining concrete solutions.\
  \ Under point 3, we would like to clarify: The Ministry of Finance has been working\
  \ on the draft law on property tax for a long time. Under the Bill, the system of\
  \ building land use allowance, property tax and forest road maintenance fee would\
  \ be abolished, as the new property tax will replace all three levies. The property\
  \ tax would be entirely a municipal revenue and, in principle, would be introduced\
  \ as an annual obligation, payable by both natural and legal persons. The tax liability\
  \ would be linked to the existence of immovable property registered in the immovable\
  \ property register. A single tax rate would be set for the different types of immovable\
  \ property or the tax rates would be set in a range. As the tax base would be determined\
  \ on the basis of the market value of the real estate, taxpayers who own more valuable\
  \ real estate would pay more tax on the basis of a uniform tax rate. In this way,\
  \ the tax burden would be more properly distributed and would fall more heavily\
  \ on the owners of more expensive, luxury properties.  \nResponse from the Ministry\
  \ of Infrastructure and Spatial Planning\nThe annual road vehicle use tax is regulated\
  \ by the Act on the Annual Road Vehicle Use Tax (Official Gazette of the RS, No\
  \ 57/08) , the Regulation on the method of setting and amount of the annual road\
  \ vehicle use tax (Official Gazette of the RS, No 100/08 and 12/10) and the Regulation\
  \ on the Certificate of Payment of the Annual Road Vehicle Use Tax (Official Gazette\
  \ of the RS, No 10/10). The method of determining and the amount of the annual road\
  \ vehicle duty payable for each type of road motor vehicle and trailer registered\
  \ in the Republic of Slovenia is laid down in detail in the aforementioned Regulation,\
  \ which takes into account the technical characteristics of each category of vehicle\
  \ when determining the amount of the annual duty:\n for motorcycles and passenger\
  \ cars - the engine capacity of the vehicle; for buses - the number of seats; for\
  \ goods vehicles - the maximum permissible weight; for towing vehicles - the rated\
  \ engine power of the towing vehicle, the maximum permissible weight or the maximum\
  \ permissible weight of a group of vehicles; for trailers - the maximum permissible\
  \ weight.\nIn determining the amount of the annual levy for each category or subcategory\
  \ of vehicles, the air pollutant emissions and the method of suspension of the vehicles\
  \ shall also be taken into account as a criterion.  The annual levy is automatically\
  \ calculated for each vehicle on the basis of the data in the register of registered\
  \ vehicles. The proposal implies that, in the context of the luxury vehicle tax,\
  \ the annual charge for the use of a vehicle on the road would be increased for\
  \ all vehicles with an engine capacity of more than 2500 cc. This proposal is inappropriate\
  \ in view of the stated purpose, since according to the proposal, taxable persons\
  \ would also have to pay a 'luxury tax' on vehicles which are not in fact luxury\
  \ vehicles at all, but which, by virtue of their purpose or function, have to have\
  \ such powerful power units. This would impose an additional tax on all buses, lorries,\
  \ special purpose vehicles, work vehicles and, in all likelihood, on old vehicles\
  \ that needed larger capacity power units to function normally. In addition, this\
  \ proposal would also require changes to the entire computer programme for the calculation\
  \ of the annual charge, which would result in additional costs for the proposed\
  \ amendment. In view of the above, we consider that the proposal is not suitable\
  \ for further consideration."
response date: 2012-05-10
response due date: null
sent date: 2012-03-06
title: Luxury tax
upvotes: 29
url: https://predlagam.vladi.si/predlog/2430
