供给侧结构性改革背景下的税收结构优化研究——基于实验宏观经济学方法
|
摘要
在我国当前的供给侧结构性改革背景下,提高直接税比重已成为调整现行税收结构的重要方向。据此,本文基于实验宏观经济学方法,以生命周期跨期选择模型为基本模型,在实验室条件下考察了不同税收结构对居民消费路径与福利水平的影响。实验结果发现,税收结构中的直接税比重与居民福利水平存在一种类似于倒U型的关系,即较低的直接税比重与较高的直接税比重都会损害居民的长期福利,而当直接税与间接税的比重相接近时,居民可获得较高福利水平,且这一实验结论未随被试者的学习效应而发生改变。其政策启示是,尽管我国当前的直接税比重与世界主要国家相比偏低,但在优化税收结构的过程中应把握好直接税比重的提升力度,确保直接税与间接税在整体上维持相对接近的比例范围,从而实现居民福利水平的稳定与提升。
Under the background of China's supply-side structural reform,increasing the proportion of direct tax has become an important policy to adjust the current tax structure.Based on the experimental macroeconomics method,this paper takes the intertemporal decision model as the experimental model and investigates the impact of different tax structures on residents' consumption path and welfare.The experimental results show that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the direct tax proportion and the welfare level of residents.That is,lower direct tax proportion and higher direct tax proportion will decrease residents' long-term welfare.However,when the proportion of direct tax and indirect tax is close to each other,residents can get a higher level of welfare,and this result does not change when subjects have a learning effect.The policy implication is that although the proportion of direct tax in China is relatively low compared with that of other major countries,we should improve the proportion of direct tax appropriately,ensuring that the proportion of direct tax and indirect tax is maintained relatively close to each other,so as to stabilize and improve the residents' welfare.
Under the background of China's supply-side structural reform,increasing the proportion of direct tax has become an important policy to adjust the current tax structure.Based on the experimental macroeconomics method,this paper takes the intertemporal decision model as the experimental model and investigates the impact of different tax structures on residents' consumption path and welfare.The experimental results show that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the direct tax proportion and the welfare level of residents.That is,lower direct tax proportion and higher direct tax proportion will decrease residents' long-term welfare.However,when the proportion of direct tax and indirect tax is close to each other,residents can get a higher level of welfare,and this result does not change when subjects have a learning effect.The policy implication is that although the proportion of direct tax in China is relatively low compared with that of other major countries,we should improve the proportion of direct tax appropriately,ensuring that the proportion of direct tax and indirect tax is maintained relatively close to each other,so as to stabilize and improve the residents' welfare.
引文
[1]储德银,闫伟.税收政策与居民消费需求--基于结构效应视角的新思考[J].经济理论与经济管理,2012(3):53-63.
[2]高培勇.本轮税制改革的主题[C].中国经济50人论坛长安讲坛,2016.
[3]郭靖,岳希明.税制结构的增长效应实证研究进展[J].经济学动态,2015(5):120-130.
[4]李升.中国税制结构优化研究[J].中央财经大学学报,2016(12):3-11.
[5]李颖.全口径计算下中国间接税规模特征、国际比较及对策[J].经济与管理研究,2016(7):112-120.
[6]刘华,陈力朋,徐建斌.税收凸显性对居民消费行为的影响--以个人所得税、消费税为例的经验分析[J].税务研究,2015(3):22-27.
[7]刘胜,冯海波.税制结构与消费外溢:跨国证据[J].中国工业经济,2016(6):22-38.
[8]王智烜,邓力平.税制结构优化与我国消费增长[J].税务研究,2015(9):3-8.
[9]Alm J.,EI-Ganainy A.Value-Added Taxation and Consumption[J].International Tax and Public Finance,2013,20(1):105-28.
[10]Ballinger T.P.,Palumbo M.G.,Wilcox N.T.Precautionary Saving and Social Learning across Generations:An Experiment[J].Economic Journal,2003,113(490):920-47.
[11]Blumkin T.,Ruffle B.J.,Ganun Y.Are Income and Consumption Taxes Ever Really Equivalent?Evidence from a Real-Effort Experiment with Real Goods[J].European Economic Review,2012,56(6):1200-19.
[12]Boeters S.,B?hringer C.,Büttner T.,Kraus M.Economic Effects of VAT Reforms in Germany[J].Applied Economics,2010,42(17):2165-82.
[13]Cagetti M.,Nardi M.D.Estate Taxation,Entrepreneurship,and Wealth[J].American Economic Review,2009,99(1):85-111.
[14]Carbone E.,Duffy J.Lifecycle Consumption Plans,Social Learning and External Habits:Experimental Evidence[J].Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,2014,106:413-27.
[15]Carbone E.,Hey J.D.The Effect of Unemployment on Consumption:An Experimental Analysis[J].Economic Journal,2004,114(497):660-83.
[16]Chetty R.,Looney A.,Kroft K.Salience and Taxation:Theory and Evidence[J].American Economic Review,2009,99(4):1145-77.
[17]Chua Z.,Camerer C.F.Experiments on Intertemporal Consumption with Habit Formation and Social Learning[EB/OL].http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20110204-095930523,2011.
[18]De Mooij R.A.,Ederveen S.Corporate Tax Elasticities:A Reader′s Guide to Empirical Findings[J].Oxford Review of Economic Policy,2008,24(4):680-97.
[19]Duffy J.Experimental Macroeconomics[G]//The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics,2nd ed.London:Palgrave Macmillan,2008.
[20]Duffy J.Macroeconomics:A Survey of Laboratory Research[G]//The Handbook of Experimental Economics,Volume 2.Princeton:Princeton University Press,2016.
[21]Duffy J.,Li Y.Lifecycle Consumption under Different Income Profiles:Evidence and Theory[EB/OL].https://www.socsci.uci.edu/~duffy/papers/lifecycle20180727.pdf,2018.
[22]Feltovich N.,Ejebu O.Z.Do Positional Goods Inhibit Saving?Evidence from a Life-Cycle Experiment[J].Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,2014,107:440-54.
[23]Fischbacher U.Z-Tree:Zurich Toolbox for Ready-Made Economic Experiments[J].Experimental Economics,2007,10(2):171-78.
[24]Friedman M.A Theory of the Consumption[M].Princeton:Princeton University Press,1957.
[25]Heer B.,Trede M.Efficiency and Distribution Effects of a Revenue-Neutral Income Tax Reform[J].Journal of Macroeconomics,2003,25(1):87-107.
[26]Hey J.D.,Dardanoni V.Optimal Consumption under Uncertainty:An Experimental Investigation.Economic Journal,1988,98(390):105-16.
[27]Kurokawa H.,Mori T.,Ohtake F.A Choice Experiment on Tax:Are Income and Consumption Taxes Equivalent[R].SSRN working paper,2016.
[28]Luhan W.J.,Roos M.W.M.,Scharler J.An Experiment on Consumption Responses to Future Prices and Interest Rates[G]//Experiments in Macroeconomics,2014:139-66.
[29]Meissner T.Intertemporal Consumption and Debt Aversion:An Experimental Study[R].SFB 649Discussion Papers,2013.
[30]Modigliani F.,Brumberg R.Utility Analysis and the Consumption Function:An Interpretation of Cross-Section Data[G]//Post-Keynesian Economics.Australia:Allen and Unwin,1955.
[31]Summers L.H.Capital Taxation and Accumulation in a Life-Cycle Growth Model[J].American Economic Review,1981,71(4):533-44.
[32]Thaler R.H.From Cashews to Nudges:The Evolution of Behavioral Economics[J].American Economic Review,2018,108(6):1265-87.
[33]Yamamori T.,Iwata K.,Ogawa A.Does Money Illusion Matter in Intertemporal Decision Making[J].Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,2018,145:465-73.
(1)还可参见郭靖和岳希明(2015)关于税制结构增长效应的实证研究综述。
(1)本文使用的这类效用函数形式,不仅常见于宏观经济学文献中的各类微观基础建模,同时也是当前涉及消费和储蓄的实验室研究中通常使用的效用函数形式(Ballinger,Palumbo和Wilcox,2003;Chua和Camerer,2011;Feltovich和Ejebu,2014;Yamamori、Iwata和Ogawa,2018)。
(1)之所以将总税收控制为300,是考虑到本文模型中的居民初始财产为1000,因此在实验中的宏观税负可表达为300/1000=30%,该值与国际货币基金组织(IMF)近年发布的我国宏观税负相接近(比如2015年为29.1%),因此具有一定的现实性。
(1)之所以允许被试者可制定完整的消费路径并作修改,其目的是为了降低被试者实施跨期任务的难度,因为如果只能逐期选择消费量且不能修改,那么前期的失误将无法得到纠正,这势必会影响被试者后续的规划优度。如果在这样简易的实验设置下仍观察到被试者显著偏离理论预测的最优选择,那么可以推断在现实中类似的最优跨期规划是更难以做到的。
(1)需指出的是,鉴于数据量的原因,我们并未针对每个实验局下的逐轮数据进行检验。
(1)有关第一个结论的解释还可从行为经济学的相关理论得到启发,即个体决策具有强烈的情境依赖性(Context Dependency),不同的情境会“激活”个体的某些认知模式,或是“干扰”、“框定”他们的某些认知进程,从而导致他们的决策会系统性地偏离理性均衡结果(Thaler,2018)。在本文实验中,不同的税收结构实际上为被试者构造了差异化的决策情境,从而使他们的决策行为受到了不同程度的“扭曲”,于是导致其决策结果与福利水平偏离了潜在的最优水平。
[2]高培勇.本轮税制改革的主题[C].中国经济50人论坛长安讲坛,2016.
[3]郭靖,岳希明.税制结构的增长效应实证研究进展[J].经济学动态,2015(5):120-130.
[4]李升.中国税制结构优化研究[J].中央财经大学学报,2016(12):3-11.
[5]李颖.全口径计算下中国间接税规模特征、国际比较及对策[J].经济与管理研究,2016(7):112-120.
[6]刘华,陈力朋,徐建斌.税收凸显性对居民消费行为的影响--以个人所得税、消费税为例的经验分析[J].税务研究,2015(3):22-27.
[7]刘胜,冯海波.税制结构与消费外溢:跨国证据[J].中国工业经济,2016(6):22-38.
[8]王智烜,邓力平.税制结构优化与我国消费增长[J].税务研究,2015(9):3-8.
[9]Alm J.,EI-Ganainy A.Value-Added Taxation and Consumption[J].International Tax and Public Finance,2013,20(1):105-28.
[10]Ballinger T.P.,Palumbo M.G.,Wilcox N.T.Precautionary Saving and Social Learning across Generations:An Experiment[J].Economic Journal,2003,113(490):920-47.
[11]Blumkin T.,Ruffle B.J.,Ganun Y.Are Income and Consumption Taxes Ever Really Equivalent?Evidence from a Real-Effort Experiment with Real Goods[J].European Economic Review,2012,56(6):1200-19.
[12]Boeters S.,B?hringer C.,Büttner T.,Kraus M.Economic Effects of VAT Reforms in Germany[J].Applied Economics,2010,42(17):2165-82.
[13]Cagetti M.,Nardi M.D.Estate Taxation,Entrepreneurship,and Wealth[J].American Economic Review,2009,99(1):85-111.
[14]Carbone E.,Duffy J.Lifecycle Consumption Plans,Social Learning and External Habits:Experimental Evidence[J].Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,2014,106:413-27.
[15]Carbone E.,Hey J.D.The Effect of Unemployment on Consumption:An Experimental Analysis[J].Economic Journal,2004,114(497):660-83.
[16]Chetty R.,Looney A.,Kroft K.Salience and Taxation:Theory and Evidence[J].American Economic Review,2009,99(4):1145-77.
[17]Chua Z.,Camerer C.F.Experiments on Intertemporal Consumption with Habit Formation and Social Learning[EB/OL].http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20110204-095930523,2011.
[18]De Mooij R.A.,Ederveen S.Corporate Tax Elasticities:A Reader′s Guide to Empirical Findings[J].Oxford Review of Economic Policy,2008,24(4):680-97.
[19]Duffy J.Experimental Macroeconomics[G]//The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics,2nd ed.London:Palgrave Macmillan,2008.
[20]Duffy J.Macroeconomics:A Survey of Laboratory Research[G]//The Handbook of Experimental Economics,Volume 2.Princeton:Princeton University Press,2016.
[21]Duffy J.,Li Y.Lifecycle Consumption under Different Income Profiles:Evidence and Theory[EB/OL].https://www.socsci.uci.edu/~duffy/papers/lifecycle20180727.pdf,2018.
[22]Feltovich N.,Ejebu O.Z.Do Positional Goods Inhibit Saving?Evidence from a Life-Cycle Experiment[J].Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,2014,107:440-54.
[23]Fischbacher U.Z-Tree:Zurich Toolbox for Ready-Made Economic Experiments[J].Experimental Economics,2007,10(2):171-78.
[24]Friedman M.A Theory of the Consumption[M].Princeton:Princeton University Press,1957.
[25]Heer B.,Trede M.Efficiency and Distribution Effects of a Revenue-Neutral Income Tax Reform[J].Journal of Macroeconomics,2003,25(1):87-107.
[26]Hey J.D.,Dardanoni V.Optimal Consumption under Uncertainty:An Experimental Investigation.Economic Journal,1988,98(390):105-16.
[27]Kurokawa H.,Mori T.,Ohtake F.A Choice Experiment on Tax:Are Income and Consumption Taxes Equivalent[R].SSRN working paper,2016.
[28]Luhan W.J.,Roos M.W.M.,Scharler J.An Experiment on Consumption Responses to Future Prices and Interest Rates[G]//Experiments in Macroeconomics,2014:139-66.
[29]Meissner T.Intertemporal Consumption and Debt Aversion:An Experimental Study[R].SFB 649Discussion Papers,2013.
[30]Modigliani F.,Brumberg R.Utility Analysis and the Consumption Function:An Interpretation of Cross-Section Data[G]//Post-Keynesian Economics.Australia:Allen and Unwin,1955.
[31]Summers L.H.Capital Taxation and Accumulation in a Life-Cycle Growth Model[J].American Economic Review,1981,71(4):533-44.
[32]Thaler R.H.From Cashews to Nudges:The Evolution of Behavioral Economics[J].American Economic Review,2018,108(6):1265-87.
[33]Yamamori T.,Iwata K.,Ogawa A.Does Money Illusion Matter in Intertemporal Decision Making[J].Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,2018,145:465-73.
(1)还可参见郭靖和岳希明(2015)关于税制结构增长效应的实证研究综述。
(1)本文使用的这类效用函数形式,不仅常见于宏观经济学文献中的各类微观基础建模,同时也是当前涉及消费和储蓄的实验室研究中通常使用的效用函数形式(Ballinger,Palumbo和Wilcox,2003;Chua和Camerer,2011;Feltovich和Ejebu,2014;Yamamori、Iwata和Ogawa,2018)。
(1)之所以将总税收控制为300,是考虑到本文模型中的居民初始财产为1000,因此在实验中的宏观税负可表达为300/1000=30%,该值与国际货币基金组织(IMF)近年发布的我国宏观税负相接近(比如2015年为29.1%),因此具有一定的现实性。
(1)之所以允许被试者可制定完整的消费路径并作修改,其目的是为了降低被试者实施跨期任务的难度,因为如果只能逐期选择消费量且不能修改,那么前期的失误将无法得到纠正,这势必会影响被试者后续的规划优度。如果在这样简易的实验设置下仍观察到被试者显著偏离理论预测的最优选择,那么可以推断在现实中类似的最优跨期规划是更难以做到的。
(1)需指出的是,鉴于数据量的原因,我们并未针对每个实验局下的逐轮数据进行检验。
(1)有关第一个结论的解释还可从行为经济学的相关理论得到启发,即个体决策具有强烈的情境依赖性(Context Dependency),不同的情境会“激活”个体的某些认知模式,或是“干扰”、“框定”他们的某些认知进程,从而导致他们的决策会系统性地偏离理性均衡结果(Thaler,2018)。在本文实验中,不同的税收结构实际上为被试者构造了差异化的决策情境,从而使他们的决策行为受到了不同程度的“扭曲”,于是导致其决策结果与福利水平偏离了潜在的最优水平。