Advanced

Individualistisk inkomstbeskattning och kollektivistisk rätt till bistånd - Om rättsområdenas utveckling av synsättet på individen

Krisciunaite, Laurita LU (2017) LAGF03 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Socialtjänstlagen (SoL) utgår från hushållsgemenskap vid prövning av rätten till bistånd. En individ blir beviljad bistånd om denne inte kan försörja sig själv på annat sätt. Ett sådant sätt är bland annat hjälp från anhöriga. Makar och sambor förväntas bidra till varandras försörjning. SoL behandlar ett hushåll som en ekonomisk enhet med gemensamma inkomster. Inkomstskattelagen (IL) utgår från ett individualistiskt synsätt där skatten beräknas separat för varje fysisk person. Denna uppsats ämnar undersöka vilka skäl lagstiftaren angett för att ha ett differentierat synsätt av individens ansvar för sin och familjens försörjning i dessa två lagar.

Uppsatsen har ett historiskt perspektiv då syftet är att undersöka skälen till dagens... (More)
Socialtjänstlagen (SoL) utgår från hushållsgemenskap vid prövning av rätten till bistånd. En individ blir beviljad bistånd om denne inte kan försörja sig själv på annat sätt. Ett sådant sätt är bland annat hjälp från anhöriga. Makar och sambor förväntas bidra till varandras försörjning. SoL behandlar ett hushåll som en ekonomisk enhet med gemensamma inkomster. Inkomstskattelagen (IL) utgår från ett individualistiskt synsätt där skatten beräknas separat för varje fysisk person. Denna uppsats ämnar undersöka vilka skäl lagstiftaren angett för att ha ett differentierat synsätt av individens ansvar för sin och familjens försörjning i dessa två lagar.

Uppsatsen har ett historiskt perspektiv då syftet är att undersöka skälen till dagens lagstiftning. Vårt tidigare skattesystem byggde på idén om att familjen var en ekonomisk enhet med en gemensam skatteförmåga. Gifta sambeskattades och fick betala mer skatt än ensamstående. Så småningom uppmärksammades en annan sorts familjekonstellation, ogifta som bodde tillsammans och hade gemensamma barn. De ogifta kunde på så sätt uppnå skattelättnader eftersom att de betraktades som ensamstående i skattelagstiftningen. Lagstiftaren valde att utvidga det äktenskapsrättsliga begreppet till att omfatta ogifta samboende, så kallade sambor. Sambor likställdes med makar och beskattades enligt samma regler. Lagstiftningen behandlade människor olika så länge som sambeskattningen bestod. När människor började kräva jämlikhet i lagstiftningen var lagstiftaren tvungen att lämna den kollektivistiska synen och införa särbeskattning.

Redan under medeltiden fick medborgare som var i nöd fattigvård av staten för att klara sin försörjning. Fattigvården gick från att vara en nådegåva till att bli en förebyggande socialhjälp. Lagstiftaren har dock alltid varit tydlig med att poängtera att biståndet var ett yttersta skyddsnät, i första hand skulle man söka andra bidrag och få hjälp av sina anhöriga. Den nya SoL är en ramlag vilket innebär att kommunerna fick större utrymme att bestämma över sin egen socialtjänst och lagstiftaren blev mindre benägen att uttrycka sig om förutsättningarna för biståndets lämnande. Under 1980-talet bestämdes genom praxis att sambor skulle bistå till varandras försörjning så som makar trots att de inte hade en lagstadgad försörjningsplikt. Detta framgår numera av Socialstyrelsens allmänna råd.

SoL och IL präglas av samhällsutvecklingen. Skatterätten har gått från ett hushållsperspektiv till ett individperspektiv. SoL har alltid beaktat hushållets gemensamma inkomster vid biståndsprövningen. Hushållsperspektivet är dock föråldrat i dagens samhälle. Den största orättvisan märks för sambor, de har ingen civilrättslig försörjningsplikt men förväntas försörja varandra enligt SoL. Sambor betalar skatt som enskilda individer och på detta sätt bygger de sitt sociala skyddsnät, men när de behöver ta del av skyddsnätet kan de få avslag om de är sambor med någon. Lagstiftaren har inte tagit ställning till att systemen har olika synsätt på individens ansvar för sin och hushållets försörjning. Historiskt sett skiljer sig inte dessa synsätt från varandra utan de har varit aktuella under olika tidsperioder. Problemet är att systemen har utvecklats parallellt utan samordning. (Less)
Abstract
When the right to financial aid is tried, The Social Services Act uses a household perspective. An individual is granted financial aid if he is unable to provide for himself in any other way. One possible way is, amongst others, by receiving help from relatives. Spouses and cohabiting unmarried couples are expected to contribute to each other’s living. The Social Services Act treats a household as one economic unit with a shared income. The Income Tax Act has an individualistic perspective in which the taxes are calculated separately for each person. This essay intends to examine the legislator’s reason for having different views on an individual’s responsibilities for his or her family’s living in these two laws.

Since the purpose of... (More)
When the right to financial aid is tried, The Social Services Act uses a household perspective. An individual is granted financial aid if he is unable to provide for himself in any other way. One possible way is, amongst others, by receiving help from relatives. Spouses and cohabiting unmarried couples are expected to contribute to each other’s living. The Social Services Act treats a household as one economic unit with a shared income. The Income Tax Act has an individualistic perspective in which the taxes are calculated separately for each person. This essay intends to examine the legislator’s reason for having different views on an individual’s responsibilities for his or her family’s living in these two laws.

Since the purpose of the essay is to study the reasons behind our current legislation, the essay has a historical perspective. Our current tax system was earlier based on the idea that a family was an economic entity with a shared tax ability. Spouses were jointly taxed, which meant that they had to pay more tax than individuals living alone. Eventually, another kind of family constellation – unmarried couples who lived and had children together – emerged. Unmarried couples could obtain tax cuts since they were regarded as sole taxpayers. Because of this the legislature chose to extend the concept of marriage to unmarried couples. Cohabiting partners were legally considered to be the same as spouses in these matters, and were taxed according to the same rules. As long as co-taxation existed, tax legislation treated people differently. When people began to demand a tax legislation which promoted equality, the legislator had to leave his collectivistic view and introduce individual taxation.

In the Middle Ages, citizens in need received help from the state in order to cope with their living. Poverty care went from being a mercy gift to becoming a preventative social aid. The legislator has made clear that social aid constitutes a final safety network and should be given as a last option. In the first place, the applicant should seek other means of aid, such as relatives. The new Social Services Act is a framework, in which the municipalities have more control over their social services. Because of this, less regulation was needed concerning the conditions for granting aid. During the 1980s, it was determined by custom that cohabitants should assist each other’s living as spouses, even though they did not have a statutory duty to support each other. This is now shown by the National Board of Health and Welfare’s general advice.

The Social Services and the Income Tax Acts are characterized by social development. Tax laws have gone from a household perspective to an individualistic perspective. The Social Services Act has always considered the household income when trying right to financial aid. However, today the household perspective is outdated. The greatest difference is experienced by cohabiting partners, which have no civil obligation to support each other but are expected to provide for each other under the Social Services Act. Cohabitants build their social safety network by paying taxes individually, but when they are in need of the safety network, they can be refused if they are cohabiting with someone. The legislature has not taken a stand regarding the fact that the systems have different views on the individual’s responsibility for his or her household’s living. Historically, these views do not differ from one another, they have only been relevant during different periods of time. The problem is that the systems have been developed in parallel without being coordinated. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Krisciunaite, Laurita LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Individualistic income taxation and collective right to social aid - About the development of the legal areas' perspective on the individual
course
LAGF03 20172
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
förvaltningsrätt, administrative law, rättshistoria, legal history, skatterätt, socialrätt, social and welfare law, tax law, sambo, makar, sambeskattning, särbeskattning
language
Swedish
id
8930053
date added to LUP
2018-02-06 11:58:18
date last changed
2018-02-06 11:58:18
@misc{8930053,
  abstract     = {When the right to financial aid is tried, The Social Services Act uses a household perspective. An individual is granted financial aid if he is unable to provide for himself in any other way. One possible way is, amongst others, by receiving help from relatives. Spouses and cohabiting unmarried couples are expected to contribute to each other’s living. The Social Services Act treats a household as one economic unit with a shared income. The Income Tax Act has an individualistic perspective in which the taxes are calculated separately for each person. This essay intends to examine the legislator’s reason for having different views on an individual’s responsibilities for his or her family’s living in these two laws.

Since the purpose of the essay is to study the reasons behind our current legislation, the essay has a historical perspective. Our current tax system was earlier based on the idea that a family was an economic entity with a shared tax ability. Spouses were jointly taxed, which meant that they had to pay more tax than individuals living alone. Eventually, another kind of family constellation – unmarried couples who lived and had children together – emerged. Unmarried couples could obtain tax cuts since they were regarded as sole taxpayers. Because of this the legislature chose to extend the concept of marriage to unmarried couples. Cohabiting partners were legally considered to be the same as spouses in these matters, and were taxed according to the same rules. As long as co-taxation existed, tax legislation treated people differently. When people began to demand a tax legislation which promoted equality, the legislator had to leave his collectivistic view and introduce individual taxation. 

In the Middle Ages, citizens in need received help from the state in order to cope with their living. Poverty care went from being a mercy gift to becoming a preventative social aid. The legislator has made clear that social aid constitutes a final safety network and should be given as a last option. In the first place, the applicant should seek other means of aid, such as relatives. The new Social Services Act is a framework, in which the municipalities have more control over their social services. Because of this, less regulation was needed concerning the conditions for granting aid. During the 1980s, it was determined by custom that cohabitants should assist each other’s living as spouses, even though they did not have a statutory duty to support each other. This is now shown by the National Board of Health and Welfare’s general advice. 

The Social Services and the Income Tax Acts are characterized by social development. Tax laws have gone from a household perspective to an individualistic perspective. The Social Services Act has always considered the household income when trying right to financial aid. However, today the household perspective is outdated. The greatest difference is experienced by cohabiting partners, which have no civil obligation to support each other but are expected to provide for each other under the Social Services Act. Cohabitants build their social safety network by paying taxes individually, but when they are in need of the safety network, they can be refused if they are cohabiting with someone. The legislature has not taken a stand regarding the fact that the systems have different views on the individual’s responsibility for his or her household’s living. Historically, these views do not differ from one another, they have only been relevant during different periods of time. The problem is that the systems have been developed in parallel without being coordinated.},
  author       = {Krisciunaite, Laurita},
  keyword      = {förvaltningsrätt,administrative law,rättshistoria,legal history,skatterätt,socialrätt,social and welfare law,tax law,sambo,makar,sambeskattning,särbeskattning},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Individualistisk inkomstbeskattning och kollektivistisk rätt till bistånd - Om rättsområdenas utveckling av synsättet på individen},
  year         = {2017},
}