Text file: 8082.txt
author: robi2107
downvotes: 1
end consideration date: 2017-02-18
id: '8082'
number comments: 2
number views: 2119
proposal type: Competent authority response
response: "Response from the Ministry of Finance\nThe proposal for changes to the\
  \ personal income tax system is based on the proposed changes to the health insurance\
  \ system, which are currently under public consultation, namely, in connection with\
  \ the extension of the contribution bases or the inclusion of income subject to\
  \ ceded taxation (interest, dividends, rents, etc.) in the determination of the\
  \ health benefit, it is proposed that these incomes should also be eligible for\
  \ general and special income tax deductions.\nIt should be pointed out at the outset\
  \ that the new Health Care and Health Insurance Act is a proposal which falls within\
  \ the remit of the Ministry of Health and is currently still at the public hearing\
  \ stage. The purpose of this phase is to open up the possibility for discussion\
  \ and to gather reactions from the interested public, because only with a broad\
  \ social as well as political consensus can solutions be reached and adopted that\
  \ will pursue the fundamental objective of the state - that is, ensuring the principle\
  \ of an even and fair distribution of public burdens, while ensuring fiscal sustainability\
  \ and, consequently, ensuring an acceptable level of social security and, at the\
  \ same time, the conditions for economic development and progress in general. Further\
  \ steps or solutions will be adopted once the responses received in the public debate\
  \ have been evaluated.\nWhatever decision is taken with regard to passive income\
  \ in the compulsory health insurance system, it should be stressed that, although\
  \ the impact of contributions on economic and other development is similar to that\
  \ of personal income taxes, the substantive difference between taxes and compulsory\
  \ social security contributions must also be taken into account when evaluating\
  \ these impacts. Unlike taxes, which are non-targeted and the payment of which is\
  \ not linked to benefits/rights accruing directly to the taxpayer as a result of\
  \ the payment of the tax, social security contributions are in fact contributions\
  \ made by insured persons and their employers to provide specific rights. In view\
  \ of the above, it is essential to consider social security contributions in the\
  \ context of the social security system as a whole. Of course, the objectives of\
  \ ensuring a social market economy and an adequate level of social security based\
  \ on the principles of solidarity and fair burden-sharing must also be pursued when\
  \ designing measures in this area.\nHowever, the fundamental starting point for\
  \ the taxation of personal income is the inclusion in taxation of all personal income,\
  \ in order to achieve the most equal possible tax treatment of income and a more\
  \ even distribution of the tax burden among taxpayers. The taxation of personal\
  \ income is also intended to determine to a greater extent the burden on individuals\
  \ according to their level of income and personal circumstances, taking into account\
  \ the social component, while following the global principle of taxing all income,\
  \ regardless of its source. The taxation of personal income is also based on tax\
  \ neutrality in the taxation of the same type of income. The principle of equality\
  \ before the law obliges the legislator to regulate (treat) identical or similar\
  \ relationships in the same way. It also obliges it to provide for normative diversity\
  \ which corresponds to the diversity of the factual situations it regulates. The\
  \ specific features of the constitutional principle of equality in tax law are that\
  \ the legislator has a wide margin of discretion in the choice of the subject matter\
  \ of the tax, in the determination of the tax base, the tax rate and the tax exemptions,\
  \ but that, in the implementation of the decision taken, it must respect the equality\
  \ of burden which is a reflection of the general principle of equality in tax law,\
  \ and that it may not waive this requirement without a valid reason. Tax benefits\
  \ are constitutionally permissible if they promote socially beneficial actions by\
  \ taxpayers (protection of the environment, social security, provision of common\
  \ social needs and economic development). Taxes in modern society are therefore\
  \ not only financial objectives, but are also a means of economic, social, demographic\
  \ and other related policies, but always as a supportive measure to other, primary\
  \ policies.\nIn the context of the above specific objectives, a major conceptual\
  \ change in the taxation of personal income was adopted with effect from the 2006\
  \ tax year, namely a shift from the concept of synthetic taxation of all personal\
  \ income (irrespective of the type of income) by a single tax (personal income tax)\
  \ at a progressive rate and subject to tax relief, to the concept of differentiated\
  \ treatment of income according to its nature. Thus, active income (income earned\
  \ through work) is in principle taxed over the annual tax base, synthetically at\
  \ progressive tax rates and taking into account tax deductions, while passive income\
  \ (income linked to assets) is in principle taxed at income tax rates at proportional\
  \ rates and without taking into account tax deductions. The change in concept was\
  \ driven by individual taxpayers as well as the professional community. Criticisms\
  \ have focused on the complexity of the personal income tax regime, the administrative\
  \ complexity of the tax collection procedures and the relatively high progressivity\
  \ of the personal income tax, especially as regards the taxation of passive income.\
  \ The introduction of a proportional tax rate for interest, dividends and capital\
  \ gains is intended to speed up the functioning of the capital markets, simplify\
  \ the system of taxation of these sources of income tax and reduce the tax burden\
  \ on taxpayers in the highest tax brackets on income from interest, dividends and\
  \ capital gains. In view of the above, we do not consider it appropriate to support\
  \ the proposal as it relates to possible changes in the compulsory health insurance\
  \ system. Moreover, it interferes with the basic concepts of the current income\
  \ tax system, which requires a comprehensive reform of the system and a significant\
  \ departure from the objectives of public financial consolidation, provided that\
  \ no negative impact on the capital market is caused.\n "
response date: 2017-03-20
response due date: null
sent date: 2017-01-20
title: Taking into account the general allowance and special allowances on all income
upvotes: 14
url: https://predlagam.vladi.si/predlog/8082
