اثرات رفاهی تغییرات بودجه- خنثای ترکیب مالیاتی برای ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه اقتصاد، دانشگاه سمنان

چکیده

مالیات‌ها به عنوان یک ابزار سیاستی مؤثر برای دستیابی دولت‌ها به اهداف اقتصادی، اجتماعی و سیاسی مورد نظرشان می‌توانند از طریق اثرگذاری بر نحوه تولید و توزیع درآمد، سطح رفاه جامعه را تحت تأثیر قرار دهند. با این وجود، تأثیر انواع مختلف مالیات‌های مستقیم و غیر مستقیم الزاماً یکسان نیست و بنابراین انتخاب ساختار و ترکیب بهینه مالیاتی بر حسب اهداف مورد نظر از اهمیت بالایی برای سیاست‌گذاری مالیاتی برخوردار است. در این راستا، هدف اصلی پژوهش حاضر تجزیه و تحلیل پیامدهای رفاهی جایگزینی انواع مختلف مالیات‌ها با فرض ثابت ماندن بودجه دولت (یعنی تغییرات بودجه– خنثی در ترکیب مالیاتی) برای ایران است. برای این منظور، یک مدل تجربی چند-معادله‌ای تحت سناریوهای مختلف با استفاده از رویکرد خودرگرسیونی با وقفه توزیعی (ARDL) و داده‌های مربوط به دوره زمانی 1397-1361 برآورد شده است. نتایج به دست آمده نشان می‌دهد جایگزینی بودجه- خنثای مالیات‌ بر درآمد یا مالیات بر ثروت برای مالیات‌های غیر مستقیم منجر به افزایش رفاه اجتماعی در بلندمدت می‌شود. همچنین، جایگزینی بودجه- خنثای مالیات بر درآمد یا مالیات بر ثروت برای مالیات بر شرکت‌ها افزایش رفاه اجتماعی در بلندمدت را به دنبال دارد. این یافته‌ها حاوی دلالت‌های سیاستی مهمی در خصوص اصلاح ساختار مالیاتی کشور با هدف ارتقاء سطح رفاه جامعه هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Welfare effects of budget-neutral changes in tax mix for Iran

نویسنده [English]

  • Mahboobeh Farahati
Assistant Professor at Faculty of Economics, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Taxes, as an effective policy of governments to achieve their desired economic, social and political goals, can affect the welfare of the society by influencing the production and distribution of income. However, different types of taxes do not necessarily have the same effect on social welfare, as they may have different welfare effects in terms of sign and magnitude. Accordingly, the question arises as what effect the substitution of different tax items and, thus, the change in the tax mix will have on the level of welfare. In other words, how does an increase in the share of each tax in the total tax revenue and, conversely, a decrease in the share of each of the other taxes of the same magnitude affect social welfare? Generally, if two types of taxes reduce or increase the welfare of the society, substituting one that has a smaller or larger effect for the other can improve the welfare. On the other hand, if two types of taxes have opposite welfare effects, substituting one that increases welfare for the other will eventually improve the welfare. Therefore, the choice of an optimal tax mix is of great importance for tax policies. In this regard, the main purpose of this study is to analyze the welfare consequences of substituting different types of taxes (including indirect tax, income tax, wealth tax and corporate tax) with the assumption of a constant government budget (i.e., budget-neutral changes in the tax mix) for Iran.
Methodology: This study employs an empirical model consisting of four regression equations, in each of which social welfare, measured by the Gini social welfare function proposed by Sen (1974), is considered as the dependent variable. On the other hand, the percentage shares of the four main tax categories in the total tax revenue that add up to 100 percent and a number of other key factors that potentially affect social welfare (i.e., inflation rate, the ratio of government consumption expenditure to GDP, and the degree of trade openness) are used as explanatory variables. However, one of the tax shares is excluded from each equation. In other words, three of the four tax shares and a common set of other potential determinants of welfare are included on the right-hand side of each equation. Given that the sum of the four tax shares is always equal to 100% and that the specification of the non-tax variables is the same in all the equations, the coefficient of each of the three tax shares included in each equation represents the effect of a one-unit increase (decrease) in that tax share and, conversely, a one-unit decrease (increase) in the tax share excluded from the equation on social welfare. The reason is obvious. Generally, each coefficient in a regression model signifies the change in the mean of the dependent variable per unit increase in the associated explanatory variable when all the other explanatory variables are held constant. On the other hand, since the sum of the four tax shares is equal to 100%, a one-unit increase (decrease) in one of the three tax shares included in each regression equation and the other two tax shares held constant mean a one-unit decrease (increase) in the tax share excluded from the equation. Finally, the regression equations are estimated separately using the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach and the data for the period of 1982-2018.
Results and Discussion: In this study, firstly, social welfare is measured using the Gini social welfare function for the period of 1982-2018. The results show that the welfare of society has generally improved over the period of 1988-2011, but, since then, it has been accompanied by some fluctuations. In the next step, the Phillips-Perron test is applied to determine the order of integration of the variables under consideration. The results of this test reveal that the maximum order of variables integration in each of the four regression equations is 1, satisfying the necessary conditions to implement the bounds procedure based on the Wald or F-statistics in testing due to the existence of a long-run relationship among variables (i.e., co-integration testing). The results show that the null hypothesis of no co-integration is rejected for each of the models. Thus, the estimated ARDL model is used to solve the long-run relationship between the variables in each model. The analysis then proceeds based on such estimated long-run relationships (coefficients). The findings indicate that a) a one-unit increase in the percentage share of the income tax in the total tax revenue and, conversely, a decrease in the percentage share of the corporate tax of the same magnitude will improve social welfare, b) a one-unit increase in the percentage share of the income tax and, conversely, a decrease in the percentage share of the indirect tax of the same magnitude will improve social welfare, c) a one-unit increase in the percentage share of the wealth tax and, conversely, a decrease in the percentage share of the corporate tax of the same magnitude will improve social welfare, and d) a one-unit increase in the percentage share of the wealth tax and, conversely, a decrease in the percentage share of the indirect tax of the same magnitude will improve social welfare. In addition, substitutions (1) to (4) have the most to the least effect on welfare, respectively. Finally, other substitutions (i.e., substituting income tax and wealth tax with each other and substituting corporate tax and indirect tax with each other) do not have a significant impact on the welfare of the society.
Conclusion: This study examines the effects of substituting different tax items (i.e., budget-neutral changes in the tax mix) on social welfare in Iran using the corresponding data for the period of 1982-2018. The empirical results show that a budget-neutral substitution of income tax or wealth tax for indirect tax leads to an increase in social welfare in the long-run. In addition, the budget-neutral substitution of income tax or wealth tax for corporate tax can improve social welfare in the long-run. These findings have important implications for reforming the country’s tax structure in order to improve the welfare of the society.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Tax mix
  • Social welfare
  • ARDL approach
  • Iran

مراجع

Abdollah Milani, M. Parvin, S. & Seyedi, K. (2017). "Progressive Income Tax Structure and Its Effect on Income Inequality in Iranian Provinces". Economics Research 17(66): 1-22.
Abounoori, E. (1998). "The Effects of Macroeconomic Indicators on The Income Distribution in Iran". Journal of Economic Research 32(2): 1-31.
Akgun, O. Cournède, B. & Fournier, J. M. (2017). "The Effects of the Tax Mix on Inequality and Growth". OECD Economics Department Working Paper forthcoming.
Angelopoulos, K. Malley, J. & Philippopoulos, A. (2012). "Tax Structure, Growth, and Welfare in the UK". Oxford Economic Papers 64(2): 237-258.
Arabmazar, A. & Bajelan, A. A. (2008). "Estimation of Optimal Commodity Tax Rates in Iran". Economics Research 8(30): 41-19.
Arnold, J. M. (2008). "Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth?: Empirical Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries". Working Paper No. 643.
Arnold, J. M. Brys, B. Heady, C. Johansson, Å. Schwellnus, C. & Vartia, L. (2011). "Tax Policy for Economic Recovery and Growth". The Economic Journal 121(550): F59-F80.
Atkinson, A. B. & Stern, N. H. (1980). "On the Switch from Direct to Indirect Taxation". Journal of Public Economics 14(2): 195-224.
Atkinson, A. B. & Stiglitz, J. E. (1976). "The Design of Tax Structure: Direct Versus Indirect Taxation". Journal of Public Economics 6: 55-75.
Attinasi, M. G. Prammer, D. Stahler, N. Tasso, M. & Van Parys, S. (2016). "Budget-neutral Labour Tax Wedge Reductions: A Simulation-Based Analysis for Selected Euro Area Countries". Bundesbank Discussion Paper No. 26/2016.
Barro, R. (1990). "Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth". Journal of Political Economy 98(5, Part 2): S103–S125.
Bösenberg, S. Egger, P. & Zoller-Rydzek, B. (2014). "Capital Taxation, Investment, Growth, and Welfare". International Tax and Public Finance 25(2): 325-376.
Brown, R. L. Durbin, J. & Evans, J. M. (1975). "Techniques for Testing the Constancy of Regression Relationships Over Time". Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological) 37(2): 149-192.
Cashin, P. (1995). "Government Spending, Taxes, and Economic Growth". Staff Papers 42(2): 237-269.
Choi, Y. Hirata, H. & Kim, S. H. (2017). "Tax Reform in Japan: Is It Welfare-enhancing?". Japan and the World Economy 42: 12-22.
Coleman II, W. J. (2000). "Welfare and Optimum Dynamic Taxation of Consumption and Income". Journal of Public Economics 76(1): 1-39.
Cooley, T. F. & Hansen, G. D. (1992). "Tax Distortions in a Neoclassical Monetary Economy". Journal of Economic Theory 58(2): 290-316.
Dadgar. Y. (2011). Public Finance & the Economics of Government, 6th Edition, Noore Elm Publication, Tehran.
Emran, M. S. & Stiglitz, J. E. (2005). "On Selective Indirect Tax Reform in Developing Countries". Journal of Public Economics 89(4):599-623.
Engen, E. & Skinner, J. (1996). "Taxation and Economic Growth". National Tax Journal 49(4): 617-642.
Eugene, N. & Abigail, E. C. (2016). "Effect of Tax Policy on Economic Growth in Nigria (1994-2013)". International Journal of Business Administration 7(1): 50-58.
Farahnak, F. Maddah, M. & Shakeri, A. (2018). "Effects of Change in Effective Tax Rate on Public Budget, GNP and Welfare Using General Equilibrium Model". Quarterly Journal of Applied Theories of Economics 5(2): 81-102.
Gillman, M. (2021). "Income Tax Evasion: Tax Elasticity, Welfare, and Revenue". International Tax and Public Finance 28(3): 533-566.
Gómez, M. A. (2000). "Welfare-maximizing Tax Structure in a Model with Human Capital". Economics Letters 68(1): 95-99.
Gómez, M. A. (2003). "Effects of Flat-rate Taxes: to What Extent does the Leisure Specification Matter?". Review of Economic Dynamics 6(2): 404-430.
Jones, L. Manuelli, R. & Rossi, P. (1993). "Optimal Taxation in Models of Endogenous Growth". Journal of Political Economy 101(3): 485-517.
Kakwani, N. (1980). Income Inequality and Poverty: Methods of Estimation and Policy Applications, New York, Oxford University Press.
Kakwani, N. & Son, H. H. (2016). Social Welfare Functions and Development: Measurement and Policy Applications, UK, Palgrave Macmillan.
Kakwani, N. & Son, H. H. (2021). "Normative Measures of Tax Progressivity: An International Comparison". The Journal of Economic Inequality 19(1): 185-212.
King, R. & Rebelo, S. (1990). "Public Policy and Economic Growth: Developing Neoclassical Implications". Journal of Political Economy 98(5): S126–S150.
Lee, Y. & Gordon, R. H. (2005). "Tax Structure and Economic Growth". Journal of Public Economics 89(5-6): 1027-1043.
Lindert, P. H. (2004). Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth since the Eighteenth Century (Vol. 1), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mahinizadeh, M. Yavari, K. Jalaee, A. & Jafarzadeh, B. (2019). "The Effect of Structural Change On Economic Welfare in Iran (CGE Approach)". Journal of Financial Economics 13(48): 167-190.
Mañas-Anton, L. (1986). "Relationship between Income Tax Ratios and Growth Rates in Developing Countries: A Cross-country Analysis". IMF Working Paper No. 86/7.
Mares, I. (2003). The Politics of Social Risk: Business and Welfare State Development, Cambridge University Press.
Mares, I. (2010). Macroeconomic Outcomes, In F. G. Castles, S. Leibfried, J. Lewis, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State (pp. 539–551), Oxford University Press.
Mehrbani, V. & Nasiri Aghdam, A. (2013). "Optimal Effective Rate of Income Tax in Iran: An Application of Rawlsian Social Welfare". Social Welfare Quarterly 13(49): 213-242.
Mendoza, E. G. Milesi-Ferretti, G. M. & Asea, P. (1997). "On the Effectiveness of Tax Policy in Altering Long-run Growth: Harberger’s Superneutrality Conjecture". Journal of Public Economics 66(1): 99-126.
Mojtahed, A. (2007). "The Effect of Government Tax Income On Iran's Social Welfare". Economic Research Review 7(1): 45-71.
Mousavi Jahromi, Y. (2002). "The Marginal Cost of Social Welfare due to Indirect Taxes (Consumption Tax in Iran in 1373)". Iraninan Journal of Trade Studies (IJTS) 6(22): 187-209.
Muduli, D. K. & Manik, N. (2020). "Tax Structure and Economic Growth in General Category States in India: A Panel Auto Regressive Distributed Lag Approach". Theoretical and Applied Economics 27(2 (623), Summer): 225-240.
Muinelo‐Gallo, L. & Miranda Lescano, R. (2022). "Redistribution and Efficiency: An Empirical Analysis of the Relevant Trade‐offs of Welfare State Fiscal Policies". Review of Development Economics 26(1): 562-586.
Munir, K. and Sultan, M. (2018). "Are Some Taxes Better for Growth in Pakistan? A Time Series Analysis". International Journal of Social Economics 45(10): 1439-1452.
Musgrave, R. A. (1959). Theory of Public Finance, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
OECD (2008). Taxing Wages, 2006-2007.
Ouattara, B (2004). "The Impact of Project Aid and Programme Aid Inflows on Domestic Savings: A Case Study of Côte d’Ivoire". In Centre for the Study of African Economies Conference on Growth, Poverty Reduction and Human Development in Africa (pp. 21-22).
Papageorgiou, D. (2009). "Macroeconomic Implications of Alternative Tax Regimes: the Case of Greece". Working Papers 97, Bank of Greece.
Pesaran, M. H. & Shin, Y. (1998). "An Autoregressive Distributed-Lag Modelling Approach to Cointegration Analysis". Econometric Society Monographs 31: 371-413.
Pesaran, M. H. Shin, Y. & Smith R. J. (2001). "Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships". Journal of Applied Econometrics 16(3): 289-326.
Pesaran, M. H. Shin, Y. & Smith, R. J. (1996). "Testing for the Existence of a Long-run Relationship". Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 9622, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
Raghfar, H. Mousavi, M. Afruzkelardeh, A. & Fouladi, M. (2016). "A Study of Tax Policy Effects on Consumers’ Welfare through Overlapping Generation Model". Journal of Tax Research 24(31): 31-58.
Revesz, J. (2020). "A Model of the Optimal Tax Mix Including Capital Taxation". Atlantic Economic Journal 48(3): 387-402.
Runciman, W. (1966). Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality in Twentieth-Century England, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Sadeghi, S. K. Beheshti, M. B. Ranjpour, R. & Ebrahimi, S. (2018). "An Empirical Analysis of Effects of Direct Taxes on Income Distribution in Iran: A FAVAR Approach". Journal of Tax Research 26(37): 41-72.
Salem, A. & Nademi, Y. (2017). "Taxes and Distribution of Income in Iran: Approach to Threshold Regression". Journal of Tax Research 25(34): 15-30.
Sameti, M. Amiri, H. & Izadi, S. (2016). "The Effect of Optimal Rates of Indirect Tax on Social Welfare in Iran". The Economic Research 15(4): 51-74.
Saunders, P. (2010). "Inequality and Poverty". In F. G. Castles, S. Leibfried, J. Lewis, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the Welfare State (pp. 526–538), Oxford University Press.
Seelkopf, L. & Lierse, H. (2016). "Taxation and Inequality: how Tax Competition Has Changed the Redistributive Capacity of Nation-States in the OECD". In Welfare State Transformations and Inequality in OECD Countries (pp. 89-109), Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Sen, A. (1974). "Informational Bases of Alternative Welfare Approaches: Aggregation and Income Distribution". Journal of Public Economics 3(4): 387-403.
SotoodeNia, S. Ahmadi Shadmehri, M. T. Razmi, S. M. & FahimiFard, S. M. (2020). "Studying the Effect of Green Tax on Iran’s Energy Consumption and Social Welfare Using Recursive Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium (RDCGE) Model". Quarterly Journal of Economic Growth and Development Research 10(40): 34-15.
Statistical Center of Iran (2020). Income Distribution in Iran 1363-1398.
Stoilova, D. (2017). "Tax Structure and Economic Growth: Evidence from the European Union". Contaduría y Administración 62(3): 1041-1057.
Vafaei, E. Mohammadzadeh, P. Fallahi, F. & Asgharpour, H. (2017). "The Convergence of Social Welfare in the Iranian Provinces Using Spatial STAR Nonlinear Technique". Quarterly Journal of Applied Theories of Economics 4(2): 79-102.
William, K. (2018). The Effects of Tax Structure on Economic Growth and Income Inequality in Tanzania, Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Dodoma.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2020). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach (7nd ed.), Cengage Learning.
سیاست گذاری اقتصادی
دوره 14، شماره 27
شهریور 1401
صفحه 1-38

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار