稿本 / 論文(碩士)--香港中文大學硏究院歷史學部,1992. / 參考文獻: leaves i-xii / 潘來基. / Chapter 第一章 --- 緒論 --- p.1 / Chapter <一> --- 問題與答案 --- p.1 / Chapter (1) --- 地方主權及軍國主義 --- p.1 / Chapter (2) --- 現在主權 --- p.4 / Chapter (3) --- 現代國家建構中的國家與社會 --- p.9 / Chapter <二> --- 四川：一個區域研究的回顧 --- p.23 / Chapter <三> --- 架構及資料 --- p.33 / Chapter 第二章 --- 重慶地區的生態環境 --- p.43 / Chapter <一> --- 地理及資源 --- p.43 / Chapter <二> --- 人口及移民 --- p.47 / Chapter <三> --- 作物及耕種方式 --- p.56 / Chapter <四> --- 交通、貿易及核心區域的形成 --- p.57 / Chapter <五> --- 小結 --- p.63 / Chapter 第三章 --- 清代重慶地區的社會結構及政治經濟 --- p.65 / Chapter <一> --- 社會結構 --- p.66 / Chapter <二> --- 國家控制：田賦征收問題 --- p.76 / Chapter (1) --- 清初至盛世 --- p.79 / Chapter (2) --- 咸豐、同治前後 --- p.85 / Chapter (3) --- 晚清新政 --- p.90 / Chapter 第四章 --- 分裂與控制：1928─1935年的國家與仲慶地方社會 --- p.96 / Chapter <一> --- 民國初年四川省的軍閥割據 --- p.96 / Chapter <二> --- 防區體系下的國家與社會：重慶地區的征稅及管治(1928─1935) --- p.104 / Chapter (1) --- 防區制度的形成及演變 --- p.104 / Chapter (2) --- 國家對重慶地區的失控 --- p.108 / Chapter (3) --- 防區體系下重慶地區的征稅及管治 --- p.114 / Chapter <三> --- 小結：防區體系崩潰與中央政府對地方的重新控制 --- p.127 / Chapter 第五章 --- 國家對地方行政的重整：1935─1945年間重慶地區的縣政及稅務管理改革 --- p.131 / Chapter <一> --- 前言 --- p.131 / Chapter <二> --- 第一階段：1935─1937年間的縣政改革 --- p.134 / Chapter (1) --- 目的及內容 --- p.134 / Chapter (2) --- 改革的限制 --- p.150 / Chapter <三> --- 第二階段：「縣各級組織綱要」的推行及財政安排 --- p.157 / Chapter (1) --- 背景 --- p.157 / Chapter (2) --- 目的及內容 --- p.161 / Chapter <四> --- 第三階段：「田賦征實」政策及稅務行政安排 --- p.174 / Chapter (1) --- 實施原因 --- p.174 / Chapter a --- 財政收支的不平衡 --- p.175 / Chapter b --- 通貨膨脹 --- p.177 / Chapter c --- 糧價的上漲 --- p.179 / Chapter (2) --- 實施方法及成效 --- p.181 / Chapter <五> --- 地方稅務改革的檢討 --- p.192 / Chapter (1) --- 地方稅務行政機構 --- p.193 / Chapter (2) --- 稅務經費及賦額 --- p.200 / Chapter (3) --- 人事因素 --- p.214 / Chapter 第六章 --- 結論 --- p.226 / 註釋 --- p.241 / 附錄 --- p.306 / 徵引書目 --- p.<i>

Taxation equity may be classified into horizontal equity, where people who are in the same economic position should be taxed the same, and vertical equity, where those who differ economically should be treated differently. In the New Zealand income tax, the vertical equity norm has primarily been achieved by progressive tax rates, and by family-friendly adjustments. Given that the income tax intentionally discriminates between taxpayers on the basis of taxpayer-specific characteristics such as income level and domestic situation, the question arises as to how the New Zealand income tax in its successive manifestations has been justified as fair; that is, what vertical equity in the New Zealand income tax looked like and how it was justified. This thesis considers the practice of the New Zealand income tax since its introduction in 1891 until 1984. By illuminating an employee’s lived experience of the income tax, it illustrates what taxation fairness actually looked like in practice, and contrasts this with the rhetoric of those responsible for the tax. It concludes that the reality of external events, rather than the rhetoric of taxation fairness, appears to have been the main driver of taxation practice. By focusing attention on the experience of the taxpayer, rather than merely on aggregated taxation data, legislative provisions or political discussion, the thesis permits the political rhetoric or fairness to be assessed against the fiscal impact on personal taxpayers. The thesis commences by reviewing certain influences on New Zealand income tax thought: from religion, antiquity, and more particularly from certain key British philosophers. It finds that despite their importance, these do not provide a clear direction for taxation policy. The thesis then shifts from philosophical discussions of what constitutes a fair tax to look at what the income tax actually looked like in the case of a wage or salary earner. It adopts an inductive approach by calculating the effect of the income tax legislation on employees at three income levels and in three domestic situations. The resulting nine cases demonstrate how taxpayers were distinguished for the purposes of vertical equity. Returning to the sources, this thesis then reviews contemporary Parliamentary Debates and Reports for evidence of how Parliament justified the practice of vertical equity in the income tax. Despite frequent appeals to fairness or equity, no clear basis was found. Rather, significant changes to the income tax, and thus to the practice of vertical equity, largely reflected pragmatic responses to political or economic events. Yet once such crises had passed, the income tax, and vertical equity in that tax, did not revert to the pre-crisis shape, but rather conformed to a new paradigm.