Zwei Jahre im Krisenmodus — die kommunalen Finanzen bleiben trotzdem stabil

ZusammenfassungDie kommunalen Finanzen stehen seit Beginn der Coronakrise unter besonderer Beobachtung. Die deutsche Politik hat zurecht erkannt, dass bei der Bekämpfung der Krise eine handlungsfähige Kommunalpolitik zwingend notwendig ist. Tatsächlich haben die kommunalen Haushalte sowohl 2020 als auch 2021 mit Überschüssen abgeschlossen. Wie dieser Beitrag zeigt, sind die Gründe dafür sehr unterschiedlich. Die auskömmliche Finanzierung der Kommunen ist Garant für die effiziente Bewältigung der Krise vor Ort und die Rekordzahlen bei den kommunalen Investitionen sind der richtige Impuls in der Wirtschaftskrise.Alternate :Federal and state policies have massively supported the German municipalities during the coronavirus crisis. As a result, municipal budgets in Germany have had a small surplus in 2020 and in 2021. The precise reasons for these surpluses are quite different in both years. In 2020, the additional expenditure as well as the enormous decrease in municipal tax revenue could only be overcome by large spending policies at federal and state level. In 2021, in contrast, the municipalities were back to collecting significant taxes themselves and were mostly self-sustaining. Still, municipal finances in 2021 profited from permanent policy changes regarding the trade tax levy (Gewerbesteuerumlage) and the federal government’s increased co-funding of accommodation costs.

Direct Digital Services Taxes in Africa and the Canons of Taxation

The unprecedented expansion of the digital economy has increased the intricacy of mobilising tax revenues from both domestic and international transactions. Tax evasion and avoidance are perpetuated by the invisible nature of digital transactions. To minimise the untapped revenues, countries all over the world are mapping policy strategies on how to collect revenue from this sector. African countries are not an exception. They have constructed digital tax policies to levy both direct and indirect taxes on digital transactions. This paper focuses on direct digital service taxes (DSTs). Direct digital service taxes have been an issue of debate among governments, policy makers, academics, tax bodies, and development organisations. Disagreements coalesce around their structure, their adherence to the canons of taxation, opportunities, and challenges as well as consequences of implementing them. Through a literature review, this paper assesses the legislative structure and administration of digital service taxes in relation to the canons of taxation. The findings of the review were conflicting. While certain aspects, motives, and possible outcomes of the taxes upheld the principles of taxation, some of these were conflicting with the principles. This could possibly be linked to variations in the economic, political, and social contexts in African countries and between developed and developing countries. The study recommends that while digital service taxes are an irrefutable necessity to tap tax revenues from the digital economy, African countries should ensure that equity, neutrality, economy, and efficiency among other principles are considered and balanced with the fundamental roles of tax policy.

Taxes on wealth: time for another look?

Around the world, proposals for new taxes on the stock of wealth (a ‘wealth tax’) were gaining traction even before the fiscal tumult that has followed the COVID-19 pandemic. Piketty's ‘utopian ideal’ of a global wealth tax is perhaps the most prominent example.1 In the US, a new wealth tax proposed by Saez and Zucman (2019) was taken up by prominent candidates for the 2019 Democratic primaries. The OECD recently conducted a wide-ranging review of the wealth taxes already in operation within its member countries,2 and new empirical research has also examined the impacts of existing wealth taxes in a developing country context. The COVID-19 crisis has accelerated this interest in wealth taxes. First off the mark was Argentina, which in December 2020 passed a new one-off levy on its wealthiest citizens (with assets over $2.5 million) to pay for medical supplies and relief measures.4 In April 2021, in response to concerns about a $5 trillion surge in the wealth of the world's richest individuals during the pandemic, the UN Secretary-General urged governments to consider introducing a new ‘solidarity or wealth tax’.5 The International Monetary Fund has also recommended that countries consider taxes on high wealth, emphasising the ‘symbolic impact of this type of contribution’ in the context of recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.