Mnogi zadnjič niso bili srečni, ko sem pisal o tem (tukaj in tukaj), da znižanje najvišjih davčnih stopenj v ZDA ni imelo vpliva na gospodarsko rast pač pa je zgolj povečalo proračunske deficite). Verjamem, da se mnogim ne da brati in iskati resnice, ampak raje ostanejo pri svojih zakoreninjenih (ideoloških) prepričanjih. Za tiste, ki pa so bolj fleksibilni v glavi, pa je spodaj nekaj odstavkov iz zakladnice skupnega znanja – iz wikipedije.

Opozarjam, da je pri znižanju davkov ključno vsaj dvoje: (1) kontekst in timing oziroma za kakšno krizo gre in v kateri fazi cikla je gospodarstvo, in (2) za koga znižanje davkov velja. Spet boste presenečeni: znižanje dohodnine za tiste z najvišjimi dohodki nima učinka (na rast, varčevanje, investicije in zaposlenost), znižanje dohodnine za tiste v spodnji polovici pa povzroči povečanje potrošnje in povečanje zaposlenosti. Razlog je zelo preprost – bogati zaradi znižanja davkov ne bodo bistveno več trošili, saj že vse imajo, tisti z nižjimi dohodki pa bodo dodatni prihodek zaradi nižjega davka prelili v večje trošenje (rast BDP), hkrati pa bodo cenejši za delodajalce (v sistemu, kjer je pogajalska moč delavcev nižja).

Opozarjam, da ta razprava nima veliko zveze s Slovenijo, kjer je davčno breme na delo največje med OECD državami. Pri nas so stopnje dohodnine (na dohodke) primerljive z razvitimi državami, vendar so meje davčnih razredov postavljene zelo nizko, zaradi česar že tisti z malce nadpovprečno plačo zapadejo v najvišji dohodninski razred (država jih tretira kot “bogate”). Drug problem so zelo visoki prispevki za zdravstveno in pokojninsko zavarovanje, kjer imamo zelo visoko “enotno davčno stopnjo”, medtem ko imajo ostale razvite države degresivni sistem oziroma “socialno kapico” – absolutni znesek socialnih prispevkov ostane konstanten nad določeno višino plače običajno nad 2.5-kratnikom povprečne plače).

Pri nas je nujna davčna reforma, in sicer sprememba  dohodninskih razredov (dvig meja zgornjih dveh davčnih razredov) ter uvedba socialne kapice. Vendar mora biti sprememba uvedena tako, kot smo načrtovali pri uvedbi enotne davčne stopnje (leta 2005) – da se s spremembo obdavčitve neto plače ne spremenijo. To pomeni dva učinka. Prvič, ni neposrednega vpliva na povečanje neenakosti, razen tiste, ki sledi iz spremembe vloženega truda oziroma večjega zaposlovanja. In drugič, spremenijo se relativne plače oziroma razmerja med plačami, saj za delodajalce postanejo visoko izobraženi relativno cenejši, kar bi pomenilo večje spodbude delodajalcev k zaposlovanju visoko izobražene delovne sile. To bi bila podlaga za tehnološko prestrukturiranje našega gospodarstva.

Takšen je bil moj/naš načrt leta 2005. Kar se je zgodilo z Bajuk – Šircljevo davčno reformo leta 2006, pa ste lahko videli. Prišlo je do zmanjšanja števila dohodninskih razredov (na 3) in znižanja stopenj, vendar to ni imela vpliva na podjetja, saj so se z znižanjem stopenj samo povečale neto plače (bruto bruto pa je ostal enak). Kot sem komentiral sredi leta 2006: nekateri so dobili za kranjsko klobaso, drugi pa za avto. Podjetja in tehnološka struktura našega gospodarstva pa od tega nista imeli nič.

Zdaj pa poglejte učinke v ostalih državah.

O Lafferjevi krivulji in vplivu na proračun

Various efforts have been made to quantify the relationship between tax revenue and tax rates (for example, in the United States by the Congressional Budget Office).^[7] While the interaction between tax rates and tax revenue is generally accepted, the precise nature of this interaction is debated. In practice, the shape of a hypothetical Laffer curve for a given economy can only be estimated. The relationship between tax rate and tax revenue is likely to vary from one economy to another and depends on the elasticity of supply for labor and various other factors. Even in the same economy, the characteristics of the curve could vary over time. Complexities such as progressive taxation and possible differences in the incentive to work for different income groups complicate the task of estimation. The structure of the curve may also be changed by policy decisions. For example, if tax loopholes and off-shore tax shelters are made more readily available by legislation, the point at which revenue begins to decrease with increased taxation is likely to become lower.

Laffer presented the curve as a pedagogical device to show that, in some circumstances, a reduction in tax rates will actually increase government revenue and not need to be offset by decreased government spending or increased borrowing. For a reduction in tax rates to increase revenue, the current tax rate would need to be higher than the revenue maximizing rate. In 2007, Laffer said that the curve should not be the sole basis for raising or lowering taxes.^[8]

Laffer assumes that the government would collect no income tax at a 100% tax rate because there would be no incentive to earn income. Research has developed theoretical mathematical models in which a Laffer curve can slope continuously upwards all the way to 100%,^[9] though it is not clear whether or when the assumptions on which such mathematical models are based hold in real economies.

…

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%.^[2] Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%.^[12] A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing average federal tax rate between 32.67% and 35.21%.^[13] A 1981 paper published in the Journal of Political Economy presented a model integrating empirical data that indicated that the point of maximum tax revenue in Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.^[14] A paper by Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER from 2009 presented a model that predicted that the US and most European economies were on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue).^[11]

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a paper called “Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates”. This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal rate of federal income tax in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal federal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, that is, it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. In the paper’s most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lost revenue from the lower tax rate would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter. Through increased budget deficits, the tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy will be paid for — plus interest — by taxes borne relatively evenly by all taxpayers.^[15] The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by the paper’s analysis.^[7]

Vir: Wikipedia / Laffer Curve

Kaj pa vpliv na rast?

ZDA:

Supply-side economics proposes that tax decreases lead to economic growth. Historical data, however, shows no correlation between lower top marginal tax rates and GDP growth rate.^[19]

Vir: Wikipedia

Supply-side economics proposes that lower taxes lead to employment growth. Historical state data from the United States shows a heterogeneous result.

Vir: Wikipedia

Tax decreases on high income earners (top 10%) are not correlated with employment growth, however, tax decreases on lower income earners (bottom 90%) are correlated with employment growth.^[45]

Vir: Wikipedia

OECD:

Change in real GDP per capita annual growth rate from 1975-9 to 2004-8 against the change in top marginal tax rate for 18 OECD countries. The lack of significant correlation contradicts supply-side theories and suggests that cuts in top tax rates might not lead to higher economic growth.^[31]

Vir: Wikipedia

Supply side economics has been criticised for benefiting high income earners. Graph shows the change in top 1% income share against the change in top income tax rate from 1975–9 to 2004–8 for 18 OECD countries. The correlation between increasing income inequality and decreasing top tax rates is very strong.^[61]

Vir: Wikipedia

Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the liberal Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled “Economists’ statement opposing the Bush tax cuts“, which states that:

Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.^[46]

Vir: Wikipedia

Tja, zgodilo se je točno to. Ampak to je bil najbrž tudi osnovni namen tako Bushevih kot prej Reaganovih znižanj davkov za bogate.