"The Subtle Essence of Car Tax Reform: Reasons for Paying and Taxation Criteria"

To fulfill the obligation of 'taxation,' the government adheres to the 'principles of taxation.' Taxation can impose significant restrictions on citizens' property rights, which is why constraints are put in place. South Korea, guided by Articles 38 and 59 of its Constitution, follows the 'rule of law in taxation,' ensuring that taxation is imposed and collected based on clear legal grounds and at a fair level that does not violate equity.

 

Car taxes have undergone multiple reforms over the past few decades, yet a clear consensus on their purpose and taxation criteria remains elusive.

 

This principle is a common tenet in nations based on democracy and the rule of law. However, there can be discrepancies between the existence of such principles and the practical criteria for taxation. When taxation criteria lag behind the times, fail to align with income redistribution, or when the purpose of taxation is unclear, citizens start questioning the tax system. Particularly, when reform efforts focus on 'tax increases,' the concerns become even more significant.

 

Currently, discussions on the reform of car taxes are taking place on the 'Citizen's Proposal' website under the President's office. This discussion takes the form of public participation, making it an essential platform to gauge the government's policy direction. However, two critical issues seem to be overlooked in this debate. First, there is a high likelihood that the reform of car taxes could lead to 'increased' future tax burdens. This could result in higher vehicle prices, and there is also a possibility of an increase in car taxes for electric and hydrogen vehicles. Thus, the reform of car taxes might imply not just a tax reduction but, in reality, a 'tax increase.'

 

The second issue revolves around fundamental doubts regarding the purpose of levying car taxes. Up to now, the purpose of car taxes remains unclear. While it is legally specified as a means to secure local finances, this explanation fails to provide a clear understanding to taxpayers about why they are paying car taxes. Viewing car taxes as property taxes or luxury taxes may also raise concerns as it could eliminate the policy flexibility associated with taxes.

 

These issues add complexity and confusion to taxation criteria, escalating the burden and dissatisfaction among taxpayers. The government is currently discussing these problems, emphasizing that car tax reform is aimed at improving taxation fairness and not for the purpose of tax hikes. Ultimately, individuals in society must collectively determine the basis for paying taxes.

 

Car taxes have undergone multiple reforms over the past few decades, yet a clear consensus on their purpose and taxation criteria remains elusive. To establish a more transparent and equitable car tax system, communication and agreement between taxpayers and the government are crucial. A clear interpretation and definition of who pays car taxes and for what reasons must be established.