Kerschagl’s Abriss der Steuerlehre presents public finance as an economic science of the state, not as a technical appendix to tax law or budgetary practice. Its organizing claim is that taxation can be understood only where economy, law, coercion, and political purpose are read together. Finance science must remain economic, but its object is the state’s economic activity in historically specific institutional forms.
Bewußt ist, und dies sei nochmals betont, hierbei von dem einheitlichen Gesichtspunkt ausgegangen worden, die Finanzwissenschaft als einen Teil der wirtschaftlichen Lebensäußerungen des Staates zu betrachten.
English translation: Consciously — and this is again to be emphasized — the unified point of view has here been taken as the starting point, namely, to regard the science of public finance as a part of the economic manifestations of the state's life.
The opening movement from “Staat und Steuer” to fiscal sovereignty, federalism, budget, productivity, and social policy gives the book its conceptual frame. Kerschagl treats modern taxation as the product of older real, property, and consumption taxes, with income taxation arriving later and proving fragile under inflation, administrative weakness, and changing income structures. The interwar setting is decisive: direct taxes lose stability, turnover and consumption taxes expand, customs duties regain importance, and excessive burdens threaten the productive economy from which the state must draw revenue.
His sharpest critique is against exchange, insurance, benefit, and equivalence theories of taxation. These doctrines, in his view, assimilate taxes to private transactions and obscure sovereignty. The tax state neither sells public services nor receives voluntary payment for them; it compels contributions for public purposes and distributes burdens through legal authority.
Eine Steuerlehre, die nicht vom Staate ausgeht, ist Unsinn, unwirklich und unwahr.
English translation: A theory of taxation that does not proceed from the state is nonsense, unreal and untrue.
This premise shapes the general doctrine of taxation. Kerschagl examines justice, universality, proportionality, economy, definiteness, elasticity, and productivity not as settled principles but as contested categories. “Tax justice” may mean moral fairness, legal equality, psychological acceptability, or economic proportionality; none of these meanings can be simply identified with ability to pay. Formal equality may coexist with material privilege, administrative simplicity may worsen distributive opacity, and certainty may conflict with fiscal adaptability. His method is consistently to break apparently simple fiscal concepts into their legal, economic, political, and psychological components.
The same skepticism governs his treatment of incidence. Kerschagl rejects the inherited contrast between direct and indirect taxes as an adequate explanation of who ultimately bears a burden. Shifting depends on market structure, competition, monopoly power, cost conditions, substitution, expectations, bargaining strength, and the broader conjuncture. A tax’s legal payer is therefore only the starting point of analysis, not the answer.
Erstens: An sich ist jede Steuer überwälzbar; diese Anschauung, die schon Lorenz v. Stein hegte, ist grundsätzlich richtig, wenn er auch theoretische Erkenntnis und praktische Anwendbarkeit derselben nicht ausreichend schied.
English translation: First: in itself every tax is shiftable; this view, which Lorenz von Stein already held, is fundamentally correct, even though he did not sufficiently distinguish between its theoretical recognition and its practical applicability.
This does not mean that all taxes are shifted equally or predictably. Rather, Kerschagl connects tax incidence to price and cost theory while stressing the limits of exact prediction. Taxes move through a living economy: they may be passed on, absorbed, capitalized, avoided, or compensated by changes in prices, wages, effort, and investment. For that reason, fiscal science must avoid both legal formalism and mechanical economic deduction.
The survey of particular taxes applies this framework historically and institutionally. Income taxes require money incomes, declaration, administrative capacity, and tax morale; wealth taxes raise valuation and capital-preservation problems; inheritance and gift taxes join revenue policy to family property and social redistribution; real-estate and rent taxes depend on cadastral and legal forms; turnover taxes offer administrative power at the price of pervasive economic effects. Kerschagl does not propose a single ideal tax. A workable tax system must fit the structure of production, property, administration, and political authority.
The later chapters broaden taxation into customs, fees, monopolies, public enterprises, public credit, and fiscal federalism. His comparison of centralist and federal systems emphasizes divided tax sovereignty, duplicated burdens, and dangers to the unity of the economic area. The discussion of Austria’s 1934 financial constitution is therefore not merely descriptive: it demonstrates the book’s central thesis that fiscal technique is inseparable from constitutional order.
The conclusion appears most clearly in the discussion of tax productivity. Revenue yield alone does not make a tax productive; productivity depends on what the state does with the resources and how taxation affects the economy that sustains it.
Das Urteil über die Produktivität der Steuern ist in Wirklichkeit ein Urteil über die Produktivität des Staates.
English translation: The judgment on the productivity of taxes is in reality a judgment on the productivity of the state.
This work was divided into 37 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 37 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian