Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158552
|
| Title: | 我國綜合所得稅列舉扣除之租稅誘因分析－以捐贈、保險費與購屋借款利息為例
Tax Incentives of Itemized Deductions under Taiwan’s Individual Income Tax: Evidence from Donations, Insurance Premiums, and Mortgage Interest |
| Authors: | 李妤晨
Lee, Yu-Chen |
| Contributors: | 吳文傑
連賢明
李妤晨
Lee, Yu-Chen |
| Keywords: | 綜合所得稅
列舉扣除額
租稅誘因
價格彈性
所得來源
Individual income tax
Itemized deductions
Tax incentives
Price elasticity
Income sources |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-08-04 14:22:01 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究以我國民國 111 年綜合所得稅申報及核定資料為基礎，探討納稅義務人對列舉扣除制度中捐贈、保險費與購屋借款利息三項項目之行為反應，並分析租稅誘因於個人列舉決策中所發揮之效果，為同時估計納稅義務人是否選擇列舉特定列舉扣除項目與其實際列舉金額之兩階段行為，本文採用 Heckman 選擇模型（Heckman selection model），以最大概似法（maximum likelihood estimation, MLE）進行聯合估計，並進一步納入不同所得來源、所得階層與個體特徵進行分析。
實證結果顯示，捐贈與保險費之租稅價格彈性皆為顯著負值，且絕對值皆大於 1，反映納稅義務人對此類支出具高度價格彈性，顯示其具明確租稅誘因效果，相較之下，購屋借款利息之租稅價格彈性雖亦為負，但絕對值小於 1，顯示其受長期與契約性質影響，對價格變動之行為反應較為有限。此外，所得來源對列舉支出金額之影響亦具差異，投資或資本性所得（如利息與租賃及權利金所得）對捐贈與購屋借款利息金額具正向效果，勞動性質所得（如薪資與退職所得）則有負向影響，而在保險費部分，穩定之薪資所得對其金額具顯著正向效果，投資與資本性所得之影響則相對較小。所得階層之分析結果亦指出，捐贈與保險費之價格彈性在低所得群體中較高，顯示其對租稅誘因變化更為敏感，至於購屋借款利息部分，則以中間所得群體對租稅價格變動之反應最為顯著。
This study investigates how individual taxpayers in Taiwan respond to itemized deductions for donations, insurance premiums, and mortgage interest, using income tax return data from 2022. To analyze the two-stage decision process—whether to itemize a specific deduction and how much to claim—this paper employs the Heckman selection model and estimates it using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). The analysis further incorporates differences in income sources, income brackets, and individual characteristics to explore behavioral heterogeneity.
The results show that the tax price elasticities of donations and insurance premiums are significantly negative and greater than one in absolute value, indicating high sensitivity to tax incentives for these deductions. In contrast, the elasticity of mortgage interest is also negative but less than one in magnitude, likely due to its long-term and contractual nature, which limits short-term adjustments. The effects of income sources also vary: capital income such as interest, rent, and royalties is positively associated with donation and mortgage interest deductions, while earned income like wages and pensions tends to reduce those deductions. However, for insurance premiums, wage income—being stable and predictable—has a strong positive effect, whereas capital income shows weaker influence. Additionally, income-group analysis reveals that low-income taxpayers are more responsive to tax incentives for donations and insurance premiums, whereas middle-income taxpayers are the most responsive when it comes to mortgage interest deductions. |
| Reference: | 一、國外文獻
Auten, G. E., Sieg, H., & Clotfelter, C. T. (2002). Charitable giving, income, and taxes: An analysis of panel data. American Economic Review, 92(1), 371–382.
Bakija, J., & Heim, B. T. (2011). How does charitable giving respond to incentives and income? New estimates from panel data. National Tax Journal, 64(2, Part 2), 615–650.
Barrett, K. S., McGuirk, A. M., & Steinberg, R. S. (1997). Further evidence on the dynamic impact of taxes on charitable giving. National Tax Journal, 50(2), 321–334.
Boskin, M. J., & Feldstein, M. (1977). Effects of the charitable deduction on contributions by low income and middle income households: Evidence from the National Survey of Philanthropy. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 59(3), 351–354.
Broman, A. (1989). Statutory tax rate reform and charitable contributions: Evidence from a recent period of reform. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 10(2), 7–20.
Carlsson, F., He, H., & Martinsson, P. (2013). Easy come, easy go: The role of windfall money in lab and field experiments. Experimental Economics, 16(2), 190–207.
Clotfelter, C. T. (1985). Federal tax policy and charitable giving. University of Chicago Press.
Courtemanche, C., & He, D. (2009). Tax incentives and the decision to purchase long-term care insurance. Journal of Public Economics, 93(1–2), 296–310.
Daneshvary, N., & Luksetich, W. A. (1997). Income sources and declared charitable tax deductions. Applied Economics Letters, 4(5), 271–274.
Feldstein, M., & Clotfelter, C. T. (1976). Tax incentives and charitable contributions in the United States: A microeconometric analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 5(1–2), 1–26.
Glaeser, E. L., & Shapiro, J. M. (2003). The benefits of the home mortgage interest deduction. In J. M. Poterba (Ed.), Tax policy and the economy (Vol. 17, pp. 37–82). MIT Press.
Grant, N. (2016). Correlated random effects quantile estimation of the tax-price elasticity of charitable donations. Economics Bulletin.
Gruber, J., & Poterba, J. (1994). Tax incentives and the decision to purchase health insurance: Evidence from the self-employed. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(3), 701–733.
Hanson, A. (2012). Size of home, homeownership, and the mortgage interest deduction. Journal of Housing Economics, 21(3), 195–210.
Hanson, A., & Martin, H. (2014). Housing market distortions and the mortgage interest deduction. Public Finance Review, 42, 582–607.
Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.
Heim, B. T., & Lurie, I. Z. (2009). Do increased premium subsidies affect how much health insurance is purchased? Evidence from the self-employed. Journal of Health Economics, 28(6), 1197–1210.
Jackson, K. (2022). Charitable giving with stochastic income. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 97, Article 101826.
Keightley, M. P. (2020). An economic analysis of the mortgage interest deduction (CRS Report No. R46429). Congressional Research Service.
Lomonosov, D. (2022, August). The impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on residential housing choices. Department of Economics, University of Notre Dame.
Randolph, W. C. (1995). Dynamic income, progressive taxes, and the timing of charitable contributions. Journal of Political Economy, 103(4), 709–738.
Reinstein, D., & Riener, G. (2012). Decomposing desert and tangibility effects in a charitable giving experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 229–240.
Ricketts, R. C., & Westfall, P. H. (1993). New evidence on the price elasticity of charitable contributions. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 15(2), 1.
Steinberg, R., Zhang, Y., Brown, E., & Rooney, P. (2010). Earned, owned, or transferred: Are donations sensitive to the composition of income and wealth? [MPRA Paper No. 30082]. University Library of Munich, Germany.
Tiehen, L. (2001). Tax policy and charitable contributions of money. National Tax Journal, 54(4), 707–723.
二、國內文獻
尹崇恩（2006）。我國個人捐贈影響因素之實證研究（碩士論文）。國立政治大學會計學系。
朱紀燕（2003）。台灣地區個人捐贈的所得稅誘因之實證分析（碩士論文）。國立政治大學財政學系。
吳文傑（2005）。台灣慈善捐贈的租稅誘因分析。經濟論文叢刊, 33(1)，97–111。
陳勇達（2004）。所得來源與個人捐贈行為之實證分析－以台灣地區為例（碩士論文）。國立臺北大學財政學系。
張文俊、陳勇達（2005）。所得來源與捐贈行為之關係－以台灣地區為例。財稅研究, 37(1)，111–131。
張隆宏（2003）。台灣個人捐贈行為及其所得稅誘因效果。財稅研究, 35(4)，108–120。
張嘉恩（2019）。外生財富衝擊對慈善捐贈行為之影響：來自機會中獎的證據（碩士論文）。國立政治大學財政學系。
劉庭瑄（2023）。台灣家庭不同來源所得對慈善捐款之影響（碩士論文）。國立臺北大學財政學系。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
財政學系
112255011 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112255011 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [財政學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 501101.pdf | | 3920Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
