间接税亲贫性与代内归宿——穷人从减税中获益了吗?
|
摘要
税收工具作为财政扶贫机制中的重要一环,在推进精准扶贫、精准脱贫上发挥着重要作用。本文基于CFPS2012入户调查数据和中国2012年投入产出表,运用微观模拟方法测算出家庭的间接税负,在此基础上,借鉴衡量经济"涓滴效应"的亲贫增长指数,构建了识别和测度税制"亲贫性"的数量方法,评估间接税的减税政策能否自发惠及穷人,进一步测算家庭不同年龄层的间接税负代内归宿。结果显示:间接税整体上不具有"亲贫性",其中增值税的"亲富性"最强,减税能让穷人比富人获益更多;儿童、成人以及老人均是间接税的负税人,贫困家庭抚养小孩而承担的间接税负比重高于非贫困家庭,赡养老人而负担的间接税负比重低于非贫困家庭。据此本文认为,继续推动大规模的间接税减税政策、采取差别化的增值税和消费税减免策略、逐步形成以直接税为主的税制结构,是改变间接税"亲富性"和强化税收扶贫职能的有效措施。
Guided by the principles that "rich people help the poor"and "redistribution puts more emphasis on equity",China recently implemented a new concept of shared development based on changes to the fiscal distribution system. As an important part of the financial poverty relief mechanism,taxation policies have played an important role in promoting the targeted alleviation of poverty. In this paper,we examine the poverty reduction effects of cuts to indirect taxes under the unified framework of the targeted alleviation of financial poverty. Our analysis addresses the lack of research on tax poverty alleviation in the literature. By evaluating whether the tax reduction policies for indirect tax can provide immediate relief for the poor,we also provide theoretical support for the large-scale tax cut policies that China is currently implementing to help reduce poverty.We use CFPS2012 household survey data and the China input and output tables in 2012 to calculate the indirect tax burden of households using a micro-simulation method based on the premise of shifting forward.We use the pro-poor growth index provided in the literature as a reference. Inspired by the index,which measures the"trickle-down effect"of the economy,we also construct a quantitative method for identifying and measuring the pro-poor nature of the tax system. Specifically,we use three poverty lines,two equivalent size adjustment methods,and three ways of weighting the poor population to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the pro-poor characteristics of indirect taxes. Furthermore,we estimate the generational differences in the indirect tax burden among family members of different ages.We present a number of empirical findings. First,indirect tax is a form of "negative income"and the collection of indirect taxes increases the breadth,depth,and intensity of poverty. Second,our empirical analyses show that the pro-poor index of indirect tax is greater than 1 in both the urban and rural samples,which indicates that indirect taxes are not pro-poor. Thus,policies aimed at reducing indirect taxes can help the poor,although they provide more benefits to urban poor households than rural poor households. However,tax reduction policies provide little help for the severely poor who struggle to feed and clothe themselves. Third,value-added tax has a more obvious pro-rich effect than consumption tax and sales tax. Because consumption tax covers some luxury goods,it can play a"pro-poor"role in redistributing income. However,the pro-poor index of consumption tax is still greater than 1 most of the time,largely because rural low-income groups spend part of their income on items such as alcohol and tobacco,which are subject to consumption tax,and indirectly bear the consumption tax on fuel when they travel. Fourth,children,adults,and the elderly are all bearers of indirect taxes. Our empirical results show that poor families pay a higher proportion of indirect taxes for raising children. In contrast,they pay a smaller proportion of indirect taxes for supporting the old.Based on the empirical results of this paper,we propose the following policy suggestions. First,the government should continue to step up efforts to promote large-scale indirect tax reduction policies to support the targeted alleviation of poverty,and use differentiated value-added tax and consumption tax adjustment strategies to change the"pro-rich nature"of indirect tax. Second,the government should combine the indirect tax cuts with policies that give full play to the auxiliary role of direct tax in alleviating poverty,and gradually form a multi adjustment system in which different taxes are coordinated to alleviate and reduce poverty. Third,in the long run,China's tax system should be gradually transformed to the pattern that main proportion of revenue is derived tares from direct taxes rather than indirect taxes.Overall,the government can achieve fairer income distribution by reducing the proportion of indirect tax and increasing the progressive structure of the tax system. However,tax is not the only mechanism for alleviating financial poverty. The government should also ensure that the basic needs of the poor are met through public transfer payments and improve the social security system to resolve the pension problems faced by poor households.
Guided by the principles that "rich people help the poor"and "redistribution puts more emphasis on equity",China recently implemented a new concept of shared development based on changes to the fiscal distribution system. As an important part of the financial poverty relief mechanism,taxation policies have played an important role in promoting the targeted alleviation of poverty. In this paper,we examine the poverty reduction effects of cuts to indirect taxes under the unified framework of the targeted alleviation of financial poverty. Our analysis addresses the lack of research on tax poverty alleviation in the literature. By evaluating whether the tax reduction policies for indirect tax can provide immediate relief for the poor,we also provide theoretical support for the large-scale tax cut policies that China is currently implementing to help reduce poverty.We use CFPS2012 household survey data and the China input and output tables in 2012 to calculate the indirect tax burden of households using a micro-simulation method based on the premise of shifting forward.We use the pro-poor growth index provided in the literature as a reference. Inspired by the index,which measures the"trickle-down effect"of the economy,we also construct a quantitative method for identifying and measuring the pro-poor nature of the tax system. Specifically,we use three poverty lines,two equivalent size adjustment methods,and three ways of weighting the poor population to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the pro-poor characteristics of indirect taxes. Furthermore,we estimate the generational differences in the indirect tax burden among family members of different ages.We present a number of empirical findings. First,indirect tax is a form of "negative income"and the collection of indirect taxes increases the breadth,depth,and intensity of poverty. Second,our empirical analyses show that the pro-poor index of indirect tax is greater than 1 in both the urban and rural samples,which indicates that indirect taxes are not pro-poor. Thus,policies aimed at reducing indirect taxes can help the poor,although they provide more benefits to urban poor households than rural poor households. However,tax reduction policies provide little help for the severely poor who struggle to feed and clothe themselves. Third,value-added tax has a more obvious pro-rich effect than consumption tax and sales tax. Because consumption tax covers some luxury goods,it can play a"pro-poor"role in redistributing income. However,the pro-poor index of consumption tax is still greater than 1 most of the time,largely because rural low-income groups spend part of their income on items such as alcohol and tobacco,which are subject to consumption tax,and indirectly bear the consumption tax on fuel when they travel. Fourth,children,adults,and the elderly are all bearers of indirect taxes. Our empirical results show that poor families pay a higher proportion of indirect taxes for raising children. In contrast,they pay a smaller proportion of indirect taxes for supporting the old.Based on the empirical results of this paper,we propose the following policy suggestions. First,the government should continue to step up efforts to promote large-scale indirect tax reduction policies to support the targeted alleviation of poverty,and use differentiated value-added tax and consumption tax adjustment strategies to change the"pro-rich nature"of indirect tax. Second,the government should combine the indirect tax cuts with policies that give full play to the auxiliary role of direct tax in alleviating poverty,and gradually form a multi adjustment system in which different taxes are coordinated to alleviate and reduce poverty. Third,in the long run,China's tax system should be gradually transformed to the pattern that main proportion of revenue is derived tares from direct taxes rather than indirect taxes.Overall,the government can achieve fairer income distribution by reducing the proportion of indirect tax and increasing the progressive structure of the tax system. However,tax is not the only mechanism for alleviating financial poverty. The government should also ensure that the basic needs of the poor are met through public transfer payments and improve the social security system to resolve the pension problems faced by poor households.
引文
[1]李永友,2017,《公共卫生支出增长的收入再分配效应》,《中国社会科学》第5期,第63～82页。
[2]刘明慧和侯雅楠,2017,《财政精准减贫:内在逻辑与保障架构》,《财政研究》第7期,第9～22页。
[3]刘怡和聂海峰,2004,《间接税负担对收入分配的影响分析》,《经济研究》第5期,第22～30页。
[4]聂海峰和岳希明,2013,《间接税归宿对城乡居民收入分配影响研究》,《经济学(季刊)》第1期,第287～312页。
[5]齐良书和李子奈,2011,《与收入相关的健康和医疗服务利用流动性》,《经济研究》第9期,第83～95页。
[6]苏春红和解垩,2015,《财政流动、转移支付及其减贫效率---基于中国农村微观数据的分析》,《金融研究》第4期,第34～49页。
[7]汪昊和娄峰,2017,《中国间接税归宿:作用机制与税负测算》,《世界经济》第9期,第123～146页。
[8]王芳、陈硕和王瑾,2018,《农业税减免、农业发展与地方政府行为---县级证据》,《金融研究》第4期,第104～120页。
[9]解垩,2017,《公共转移支付对再分配及贫困的影响研究》,《经济研究》第9期,第103～116页。
[10]邢成举和李小云,2013,《精英俘获与财政扶贫项目目标偏离的研究》,《中国行政管理》第9期,第109～113页。
[11]赵子乐和黄少安,2013,《二元社会养老保障体系下的转移支付》,《金融研究》第2期,第33～45页。
[12]左常升,2016,《中国扶贫开发政策演变》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
[13]Aaberge,R.,Bhuller,M.,and Langrgen,A.,and et al.,2010,“The Distributional Impact of Public Services When Needs Differ”.Journal of Public Economics,94(9-10):549-562.
[14]Atkinson,A.B.,and Stiglitz,J.E.,1976,“The Design of Tax Structure:Direct Versus Indirect Taxation”.Journal of Public Economics,6(1-2):55～75.
[15]Besley,T.J.,and Rosen,H.S.,1999,“Sales Taxes and Prices:An Empirical Analysis”.National Tax Journal,52(2):157～178.
[16]Boadway,R.,and Song,Z.,2016,“Indirect Taxes for Redistribution:Should Necessity Goods Be Favored?”.Research in Economics,70(1):64～88.
[17]Casale,D.M.,2012,“Indirect Taxation and Gender Equity:Evidence from South Africa”.Feminist Economics,18(3):25～54.
[18]Foster,J.,Greer,J.,and Thorbecke,E.A.,1984,“A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures”.Econometrica,52(3):761～766.
[19]Heerink,N.,Kuiper,M.,and Shi,X.,2006,“China's New Rural Income Support Policy:Impacts on Grain Production and Rural Income Inequality”.China&World Economy,14(6):58～69.
[20]Higgins,S.,and Lustig,N.,2016,“Can a Poverty-reducing and Progressive Tax and Transfer System Hurt the Poor”.Journal of Development Economics,122:63～75.
[21]Higgins,S.,and Pereira,C.,2014,“The Effects of Brazil's Taxation and Social Spending on the Distribution of Household Income”.Public Finance Review,42(3):346～367.
[22]Kakwani,N.,1980,“On a Class of Poverty Measures”.Econometrica,48(2):437～446.
[23]Kakwani,N.,2000,“On Measuring Growth and Inequality Components of Poverty with Application to Thailand”.Journal of Quantitative Economics,16(1):67～80.
[24]Li,W.,Li,X.,and Wang W.,et al.,2010,“Fiscal Policy,Regional Disparity and Poverty in China:A General Equilibrium Approach”.PEP Working Paper No.2010～11.
[25]Pinto,F.P.L.,Pinto,M.C.L.,and Pinto,M.A.L.,2015,“Social Spending,Taxes and Income Redistribution in Ecuador”.Commitment to Equity Working Paper Series 53.
[26]Lustig,N.,Lopez-Calva,L.F.,and Ortiz-Juarez,E.,2013,“Declining Inequality in Latin America in the 2000s:The Cases of Argentina,Brazil,and Mexico”.World Development,44:129～141.
[27]Mahadevan,R.,Amir,H.,and Nugroho,A.,2017,“How Pro-Poor and Income Equitable Are Tourism Taxation Policies in a Developing Country?Evidence from a Computable General Equilibrium Model”.Journal of Travel Research,56(3):334～346.
[28]Narayana,M.R.,2014,“Impact of Population Ageing on Sustainability of India's Current Fiscal Policies:AGenerational Accounting Approach”.The Journal of the Economics of Ageing,3:71～83.
[29]Ramsey,F.P.,1927,“A Contribution to the Theory of Taxation”.The Economic Journal,37(145):47～61.
[30]Ramírez,J.M.,Díaz,Y.,and Bedoya,J.G.,2017,“Property Tax Revenues and Multidimensional Poverty Reduction in Colombia:A Spatial Approach”.World Development,94:406～421.
[31]Ravallion,M.,and Chen,S.,2003,“Measuring Pro-poor Growth”.Economics Letters,78(1):93～99.
[32]Newbery D.,and Stern N.,1987,“The Theory of Taxation for Developing Countries”.Economic Journal,98(393):60～91.
[33]Williamson,A.R.,Smith,M.T.,and Strambi-Kramer.M.,2009,“Housing Choice Vouchers,the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit,and the Federal Poverty Deconcentration Goal”.Urban Affairs Review,45(1):119～132.
[34]World Bank,2004,“World Development Report:Making Services Work for Poor People?”.Washington DC:World Bank Publication.
1国务院扶贫开发领导小组办公室相关文件。
2中华人民共和国审计署2018年第46号公告:145个贫困县扶贫审计结果。
1中国于2016年5月全面推开“营改增”试点,但在2012年仍存在营业税,因此文中计算了行业营业税税负。
2间接税中还包括资源税、关税和烟叶税,未考虑这三个税种的主要原因有两个:第一,增值税、消费税、营业税、城建税和教育费附加收入占到间接税收入的95%以上,这五个税种基本可以代表整个间接税;第二,如果要计算资源税、关税和烟叶税,资源税需要根据产品性质划分到采掘业的相关投入产出行业,关税需要区分家庭消费中的国外与国内商品,烟叶税需要家庭的烟类支出,这些数据在我们已有的资料中无法获得,用不完备的数据进行计算反而会造成结果偏误。
1为了节省篇幅,在文中没有将具体结果列出,有兴趣的读者可以向作者索取。
1为了节省篇幅,未将详细结果列出,有兴趣的读者可向作者索取。
[2]刘明慧和侯雅楠,2017,《财政精准减贫:内在逻辑与保障架构》,《财政研究》第7期,第9～22页。
[3]刘怡和聂海峰,2004,《间接税负担对收入分配的影响分析》,《经济研究》第5期,第22～30页。
[4]聂海峰和岳希明,2013,《间接税归宿对城乡居民收入分配影响研究》,《经济学(季刊)》第1期,第287～312页。
[5]齐良书和李子奈,2011,《与收入相关的健康和医疗服务利用流动性》,《经济研究》第9期,第83～95页。
[6]苏春红和解垩,2015,《财政流动、转移支付及其减贫效率---基于中国农村微观数据的分析》,《金融研究》第4期,第34～49页。
[7]汪昊和娄峰,2017,《中国间接税归宿:作用机制与税负测算》,《世界经济》第9期,第123～146页。
[8]王芳、陈硕和王瑾,2018,《农业税减免、农业发展与地方政府行为---县级证据》,《金融研究》第4期,第104～120页。
[9]解垩,2017,《公共转移支付对再分配及贫困的影响研究》,《经济研究》第9期,第103～116页。
[10]邢成举和李小云,2013,《精英俘获与财政扶贫项目目标偏离的研究》,《中国行政管理》第9期,第109～113页。
[11]赵子乐和黄少安,2013,《二元社会养老保障体系下的转移支付》,《金融研究》第2期,第33～45页。
[12]左常升,2016,《中国扶贫开发政策演变》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
[13]Aaberge,R.,Bhuller,M.,and Langrgen,A.,and et al.,2010,“The Distributional Impact of Public Services When Needs Differ”.Journal of Public Economics,94(9-10):549-562.
[14]Atkinson,A.B.,and Stiglitz,J.E.,1976,“The Design of Tax Structure:Direct Versus Indirect Taxation”.Journal of Public Economics,6(1-2):55～75.
[15]Besley,T.J.,and Rosen,H.S.,1999,“Sales Taxes and Prices:An Empirical Analysis”.National Tax Journal,52(2):157～178.
[16]Boadway,R.,and Song,Z.,2016,“Indirect Taxes for Redistribution:Should Necessity Goods Be Favored?”.Research in Economics,70(1):64～88.
[17]Casale,D.M.,2012,“Indirect Taxation and Gender Equity:Evidence from South Africa”.Feminist Economics,18(3):25～54.
[18]Foster,J.,Greer,J.,and Thorbecke,E.A.,1984,“A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures”.Econometrica,52(3):761～766.
[19]Heerink,N.,Kuiper,M.,and Shi,X.,2006,“China's New Rural Income Support Policy:Impacts on Grain Production and Rural Income Inequality”.China&World Economy,14(6):58～69.
[20]Higgins,S.,and Lustig,N.,2016,“Can a Poverty-reducing and Progressive Tax and Transfer System Hurt the Poor”.Journal of Development Economics,122:63～75.
[21]Higgins,S.,and Pereira,C.,2014,“The Effects of Brazil's Taxation and Social Spending on the Distribution of Household Income”.Public Finance Review,42(3):346～367.
[22]Kakwani,N.,1980,“On a Class of Poverty Measures”.Econometrica,48(2):437～446.
[23]Kakwani,N.,2000,“On Measuring Growth and Inequality Components of Poverty with Application to Thailand”.Journal of Quantitative Economics,16(1):67～80.
[24]Li,W.,Li,X.,and Wang W.,et al.,2010,“Fiscal Policy,Regional Disparity and Poverty in China:A General Equilibrium Approach”.PEP Working Paper No.2010～11.
[25]Pinto,F.P.L.,Pinto,M.C.L.,and Pinto,M.A.L.,2015,“Social Spending,Taxes and Income Redistribution in Ecuador”.Commitment to Equity Working Paper Series 53.
[26]Lustig,N.,Lopez-Calva,L.F.,and Ortiz-Juarez,E.,2013,“Declining Inequality in Latin America in the 2000s:The Cases of Argentina,Brazil,and Mexico”.World Development,44:129～141.
[27]Mahadevan,R.,Amir,H.,and Nugroho,A.,2017,“How Pro-Poor and Income Equitable Are Tourism Taxation Policies in a Developing Country?Evidence from a Computable General Equilibrium Model”.Journal of Travel Research,56(3):334～346.
[28]Narayana,M.R.,2014,“Impact of Population Ageing on Sustainability of India's Current Fiscal Policies:AGenerational Accounting Approach”.The Journal of the Economics of Ageing,3:71～83.
[29]Ramsey,F.P.,1927,“A Contribution to the Theory of Taxation”.The Economic Journal,37(145):47～61.
[30]Ramírez,J.M.,Díaz,Y.,and Bedoya,J.G.,2017,“Property Tax Revenues and Multidimensional Poverty Reduction in Colombia:A Spatial Approach”.World Development,94:406～421.
[31]Ravallion,M.,and Chen,S.,2003,“Measuring Pro-poor Growth”.Economics Letters,78(1):93～99.
[32]Newbery D.,and Stern N.,1987,“The Theory of Taxation for Developing Countries”.Economic Journal,98(393):60～91.
[33]Williamson,A.R.,Smith,M.T.,and Strambi-Kramer.M.,2009,“Housing Choice Vouchers,the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit,and the Federal Poverty Deconcentration Goal”.Urban Affairs Review,45(1):119～132.
[34]World Bank,2004,“World Development Report:Making Services Work for Poor People?”.Washington DC:World Bank Publication.
1国务院扶贫开发领导小组办公室相关文件。
2中华人民共和国审计署2018年第46号公告:145个贫困县扶贫审计结果。
1中国于2016年5月全面推开“营改增”试点,但在2012年仍存在营业税,因此文中计算了行业营业税税负。
2间接税中还包括资源税、关税和烟叶税,未考虑这三个税种的主要原因有两个:第一,增值税、消费税、营业税、城建税和教育费附加收入占到间接税收入的95%以上,这五个税种基本可以代表整个间接税;第二,如果要计算资源税、关税和烟叶税,资源税需要根据产品性质划分到采掘业的相关投入产出行业,关税需要区分家庭消费中的国外与国内商品,烟叶税需要家庭的烟类支出,这些数据在我们已有的资料中无法获得,用不完备的数据进行计算反而会造成结果偏误。
1为了节省篇幅,在文中没有将具体结果列出,有兴趣的读者可以向作者索取。
1为了节省篇幅,未将详细结果列出,有兴趣的读者可向作者索取。