Economic  & Social History Review

天  津  师  范  大  学
欧洲文明研究院
主办

本栏目汇集研究中心博士研究生、硕士研究生学位论文
博士学位论文

博士学位论文




关于网站
联系我们
网站推介
站内搜索
   
     





 

首页 博硕园地 博士学位论文
博硕园地
 

博士学位论文

 

顾銮斋

论文题目:中西中古税制比较

指导教师:侯建新 教授

答辩时间:2005年6月

论文摘要:

中文摘要
  
  本文研究中西中古税制中的一些基本问题,包括赋税基本理论、税权归属、赋税组织、赋税收支、赋税结构演变等。研究的重点主要在于从比较中寻求双方的差异。
  
  赋税基本理论是笔者在西方同行的启迪下提出的一个新的概念。这个概念是指经过累世传承而贯穿整个社会,并反映这个社会赋税制度基本特征和基本精神的那个最高层次的赋税理论。中国赋税基本理论即我们习见的“溥天之下,莫非王土,率土之滨,莫非王臣”的诗句。不过学术界从未有人将它看作一种赋税理论。西方中古赋税基本理论则包括三部分,即共同利益、共同需要和共同同意。乍看上去,两种理论间似乎缺乏比较的基点,因为一方强调对土地和人口的所有,一方强调表决的范围,风马牛不相及。但如果将前者推进一步,则必然引申出一种与西方赋税基本理论相对立的无视民意的个人的专断独行。这便使两种理论不仅有了比较的基点,而且有了很强的可比性。中国赋税理论具有两个显著特征,一是与政治理论同体或二位一体,而由于政治理论居于主导,赋税理论便处于依存状态,没有自己的独立性;一是与西方相比缺乏征税理由的论证和说明,因而具有不完全性特征。正是这两个特征使其显现出强烈的专横独断的精神。西方赋税基本理论则注重对纳税人意见的征求,强调国王与纳税人在赋税征纳中的一定平等,因而蕴含着一定的民主思想。

  税权是笔者在中西税制比较研究中概括出来的另一个新的概念。税权归属问题是在西欧中古社会提出来的,是关于制税、用税和审计等几方面权力归属的综合。中国中古社会不曾提出这一问题。在这里,税权由皇帝执掌,表现为官府组织制税、用税和审计诸活动。中国历史上不乏谴责官府重税、甚至因此“为民请命”的朝廷命官,而以武装斗争的形式抵制征税的农民起义更史不绝书,但是这些斗争的目的无不在于请求或强迫官府降低税额或免除一时一地的征收,而不是把它们看作一种权利作为一个问题提出来,并通过斗争夺取这种去权利,以从根本上解决问题。而这也就无异于表明,税权为统治者天然所有。于是中西中古社会产生了一种大相异趣的现象:在西方,纳税人、议会与国王争夺税权的斗争犹如一条显著的红线,贯穿整个中古社会;而在中国,抗税斗争此伏彼起,却始终没有人提出过这一问题。这样,作为税权演化的结果,在西方那些议会政治健康发展的国家,问题得到了理想的解决,即税权由议会执掌,有的国家甚至形成了“先补偿,后供给”的原则。在中国,明清两朝进行了以简化税则、强化防弊为主要内容的税制的细部加工和整体完善,终于使税权的集中和强固达到了登峰造极的地步。
  
  赋税组织包括制税与管理两部分。在中国,由于制税的随意性,似乎没有也不需要专门的制税组织,皇帝可以随时随地作出征税的决定。所以,通常意义上的赋税机构主要是征收和管理机构。但在西方,制税权一直由某一权力集体执掌,例如在英国,先后存在过贤人会议、贵族大会议、国会等组织。国王可以参加某一权力集体的制税,却不可独立行事,专横独断。在管理上,由于中国中古社会基本上采取帝室财政与国家财政分理的方式,所以一般有两套管理系统。而西方由于主要采取合理的方式,直至很晚才分割开来,所以主要是一套管理系统。
  
  赋税收支包括税物与税款的收入与支出两部分。由于中西中古社会的帝王、国家、政府三者之间的结合方式存在差异,双方的赋税收支表现了不同的特征。中国中古赋税收入主要是强权收入。西欧在中古社会前期主要是特权收入,后期主要是协议收入。与此相适应,中国赋税支出也主要是强权支出,而西欧则主要是协议支出。纵观中古社会,中国赋税收支的强权性质随着专制制度的强化而日趋加剧。西欧的赋税收支,则因强调法制原则,注重纳税人权利而具有相对鲜明的民主程序化特征,并由此形成了一道逐步合理化的发展路径,这与中国赋税收支方式的变化大致呈相反走向。
  
  赋税结构具有多侧面的特征,可从多方面认识。但本文仅由行业分工或部门分工的角度切入,将赋税划分为农业税和工商税两大部类,考察中西中古赋税结构的演变各以哪一部类居于主导。在中古社会的第一阶段,中西赋税都以农业税为主体。进入第二阶段,中国沿第一阶段的路径向前发展,赋税结构仍以农业税占据主导。西欧则背离了第一阶段的走向,转而以工商税作为政府财政的基础。进入第三阶段,中国赋税结构的演变再一次证明了农业税无可争议的地位,这一阶段发生的几次重大的赋税改革,如明一条鞭法、清摊丁入亩,无不证明政府一直将农业税置于赋税制度的中心。而每一次改革无一不是加强了农业税的地位,大大提高了农业税在财政收入中的比例。西欧如英国、西班牙仍以工商税居于主导是毫无疑义的。便是法国,炉灶税虽然在赋税诸项收入中一度位居第一,但认真剖析这些税项的来源,仍然清晰可见农业税居工商税之次。总之,中西中古社会赋税结构存在很大差异。

关键词:中古社会、赋税基本理论、税权、税制、赋税结构

Abstract
  This dissertation studies the some essential questions about the taxations of China and the Western Europe in the middle ancient times, including the basic theory of tax, the ownership of tax right, the tax organization, the levy and expenditure of tax, the evolution of the tax structures, etc. This study searches mainly for the differences from the comparisons of Chinese tax system with the West Europe.
  
  The basic theory of tax is a new concept raised by the author under the enlightening of the Western scholars. The basic theory of tax in China is the famous poem line--- "the earths under heaven all are the emperor's lands; the peoples of the whole world all are the emperor's subjects ". But in academic circles one has never regarded it as a kind of tax theory. The basic theory of tax in the Western Europe is consists of three parts, that are common benefits, common necessities, and common consents. There are two features in the basic theory of tax in China. The first that is the same body with the political theory has no it's own independence because the political theory plays the principal role in the body. The second is incomplete because it is lack of the demonstrations and explanations about the reasons of levying taxes. It is these two characters that make this theory show the spirit of autocracy. The basic theory of tax in the Western Europe emphasizes consultation with the taxpayer and some equality between the king and taxpayer. So it contains some ideas of democracy, freedom and equality.
  
  The tax right is another new concept raised by author in the comparative studies between Chinese tax system and the West European one. The question of ownership of tax right was raised in the middle ancient times of the West Europe, including the ownership of the right of setting tax, the right of tax usage, and the right of audit. This question didn't be put forward in middle ancient times in China. In history of China, the government officials who condemned the authority to collected heavy taxes and even pleaded on their behalf of the people were so many, and the peasant uprisings that resisted to the levy are such numerous, but the aims of this struggles all were to demand or force the authority to decrease the amounts of tax or release the taxes from different times and places, not to regard it as a kind of right and as a question to raised, and to seize the right by struggle so as to solve problem basically. This showed not differently that the tax right belonged naturally to the ruling class. Thus, a very interesting phenomenon come into being: in the West, the struggles between taxpayers, parliaments and kings for the tax right was just like a remarkable red line, running through the whole Medieval history; but in China, there were so many struggles for the fight of tax, but one had never raised this question. Thus, as the result of evolution of the tax right, in some Western countries in which the parliament politics were developed well, the question was solved ideally, that is, the tax right was under the parliament's control. In China, the Ming and Ching dynasties simplified the tax rules and intensified the prevention of frauds and harms, thereby, made finally the intensification and stability of tax right reached to its peak.
  
  The tax organization was composed of collection organization and management organization. In China, the special organization of setting tax seems not to be needed because of the randomness of setting tax. The emperor could make the decision of collecting tax at any times and any places. Therefore, the tax organization usually referred to the collection organization and management organization. But in the West, the right of setting tax had been held by a certain authoritative organization, for example, witenagemot, Curia Regis (great council) and parliament in England. The king could take part in setting tax of a certain authoritative group, but he could not do independently something and act arbitrarily in that.
  
  The levy and expenditure of tax were composed of two parts: the levy and expenditure of tax goods and tax money. Between China and the West, there were different characteristics because of differences in the way of the combination of the king, country and government. In China, the levy of tax was mainly a kind of forcible collection. But in the West, in the former period, it mainly depended on the privilege, and in the latter period, mainly the consultation. Correspondingly, the expenditure of tax was mainly a forcible one in China, and a consulting one in the West.
  
  Tax structure had a character of many sides, and can be recognized from many aspects. But this thesis divides only taxes into agriculture tax and industry - business tax at the angle of sector division, and check which tax was major tax in the process of evolution of tax structure. In the first stage of middle ancient times, agriculture tax was the major part both of in China and the West. In the second stage, China continued the line of the first stage, and the major part of tax also was the agriculture tax. But the Western Europe deviated from the direction of the first stage, and took the industry - business tax as the foundation of state revenue. In the third stage, the evolution of tax structure of China again proved the position of the agriculture tax beyond controversy. The several great reforms of tax in the Ming and Ching dynasty all proved that the governments had put the agriculture at center of the tax system. Every tax reform all strengthened the position of the agriculture tax, and enhanced the proportion of it in financial revenue. In the Western Europe, such as England, Spanish, there was no doubt that the industry - business tax still occupied the leading position. Even in France, fouage (hearth tax) once was at first place in all taxes, but if check carefully the sources of every tax, you can find clearly that the agriculture tax was inferior to the industry - business tax. In a word, there were great differences between the tax structures of China and the West.

Key words: Middle ancient times, Basic theory of tax, Tax right, Tax system, Tax structure

 

目录

中文提要
Abstract

第一章 中西中古税制研究述评
  一、关于中国中古税制的研究
  二、关于西欧中古税制的研究
  三、关于中西中古税制的比较研究

第二章 赋税基本理论
  一、问题的提出
  二、赋税基本理论
  三、理论渊源
  四、由所有权形态看赋税基本理论
  五、中国赋税基本理论,一种文化现象的内在逻辑

第三章 税权的归属
  一、税权归属问题
  二、税权归属的差异

第四章 税收组织
  一、制税机构
  二、管理机构

第五章 赋税收支
  一、帝王、国家、政府三者之间的关系
  二、赋税征收
  三、赋税支出

第六章 赋税结构的演变
  一、以农业税为主体的共同起点
  二、赋税结构演变的分途
  三、分途后的不同结构

结 语 中西中古税制比较研究中的“求同”、“求异”问题

参考文献

后记

 

 

 [经济-社会史评论网首发] 2005年8月1日

 
返回顶部   
 
首页 博硕园地 博士学位论文
   

天津师范大学欧洲文明研究院主办
copyright©经济-社会史评论网站
引用转载,注明出处;肆意盗用,即为侵权。
备案号/经营许可证号:津ICP备09008453号——8/津教备0381号

eshwebmaster@eyou.com