身心障礙者免徵使用牌照稅之研究-無知之幕觀點

本研究旨在探討身心障礙者免徵使用牌照稅是否符合立法旨意、公平正義及其政策施行利弊得失，並根據研究結果提供政策上及實務上的參考建議。本研究採無知之幕觀點，藉由反思均衡思考方式，以非既得利益者為受訪對象，針對一般社會人士、社會福利工作人員及稅務承辦人員共9位，進行質性研究中的深度訪談。研究結果顯示，身心障礙免徵使用牌照稅政策，因制度設計自然將障礙中弱勢排除於制度之外，而富裕者所享有的褔利卻隨社經地位水漲船高，產生資源逆分配，違反公平正義之情事；另就財政而言，政府稅收減損，卻無助障礙中弱勢族群生活提昇，徒增人力資源投入，卻無助於稅收之把關，與立法意旨間產生實質落差，除造成稅基侵蝕外，並排擠整體社會資源。就此觀之，身心障礙者免徵使用牌照稅之施行，是否俱有存在價值，不免令人質疑。依據研究發現，本研究提出二方面建議，其一為政策與立法面：(1)對身心障礙者照顧「問題」，應回歸社會政策面；(2)取消全額免稅，全面改採部分負擔；(3)依障礙類別提供個別化的服務；(4)加強價值觀理念的宣導；(5)廢除稅式支出改成交通津貼。另一為實務面：(1)制定排富條款，並以貧窮線作為判斷準則；(2)ICF增加「復健所需輔具建議」評估項目，作為障礙類別限制依據；(3)無駕駛能力障礙者所有之免稅車輛，對外發生違規情事應由駕駛人負擔；(4)刪除駕照及戶籍之條件限制全面適用「每一身心障礙者以一輛為限」。

關鍵字

身心障礙者；使用牌照稅；公平正義；稅式支出；無知之幕

並列摘要

Abstract This research aims to probe whether vehicle license tax exempt policy for physically and mentally disabled citizens fulfill its legislative purpose and the principle of justice and analyze its advantages as well as disadvantages. Based on these analysis, this research provide suggestions toward policy-making and legal practice. Holding the perspective on the veil of ignorance and reflective equilibrium, this research interviewed non-vested interest subjects including general citizens, social workers and revenue officers. The result shows that vehicle license tax exempt policy for physically and mentally disabled citizens excludes vulnerable groups by the nature of its system design. On the other hand, it benefits the wealth reflecting their socioeconomic status. The policy generates deficit in resource distribution that is against the principal of justice. On the aspect of public finance, government lost tax income while living standard of vulnerable groups remains unassisted. Also, the cost of additional human resource does not strike a balance with reasonable amount of tax income. The practice of policy does not fulfill its legislative purpose and resource distribution. Therefore, this research query the value of the policy. The conclusion provide suggestions toward two aspect. On policy and legislation, first, services for the physically and mentally disabled citizens should return to social policy aspect. Second, exempt policy should be cancelled and replaced by co-payment policy. Third, providing individualized services based on the type of physically and mentally disability. Fourth, promoting system of value of public policy. Fifth, replacing tax expenditure by traffic subsidy. On legal practice aspect, first, legislating regulations which excluding the wealth from subsidy using standard base on poverty line. Second, adding “Assistive Device for Rehabilitation” in International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health, ICF. Third, actual driver should be responsible for traffic violation on vehicles owned by disabled citizens without driving ability. Last, removing constraint on license and household registration, adapting “one disabled citizen, one vehicle” regulation.