Please wait a minute...
金融研究  2021, Vol. 488 Issue (2): 38-55    
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
减税降费的价格和福利效应——引入成本传导率的投入产出价格模型分析
倪红福, 闫冰倩
中国社会科学院经济研究所,北京 100836;
中国社会科学院财经战略研究院,北京 100006
The Price and Welfare Effects of Tax Cuts and Fee Reduction Policies: An Analysis Based on an Input-Output Model with a Cost Transmission Rate
NI Hongfu, YAN Bingqian
Institute of Economics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences;
National Academy of Economic Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
下载:  PDF (546KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 本文在增值税抵扣机制的投入产出价格模型中引入社保费和成本传导机制,并利用2017年中国投入产出表和税收数据模拟分析了不同成本传导率条件下,减税降费的价格效应和福利效应。研究表明:(1)减税降费使得各行业产品价格降低,对第三产业的价格影响最为明显。(2)成本传导率越高,则产品价格的下降幅度越大。当成本传导率分别为1/3、2/3和1时,各行业产品价格的平均下降幅度分别为0.32%、0.93%和2.66%。(3)较为合理的中国整体成本传导率约为1/3,减税降费是2019年中国PPI下降的主要因素之一。当成本传导率为1/3时,模拟计算的PPI下降幅度与国家统计局公布的2019年PPI的下降幅度(-0.3%)非常接近。(4)减税降费使消费者价格下降,居民福利得以改善,且城镇居民福利改善高于农村居民。随着价格传导率增大,城镇居民与农村居民的人均福利改善差距扩大。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
倪红福
闫冰倩
关键词:  减税降费  投入产出价格模型  非完全成本传导  生产者价格  福利效应    
Summary:  Tax reduction and fee reduction are key parts of fiscal policy that play important roles in stimulating economic vitality. The effect of tax reduction on firms' costs is closely related to the cost transmission rate. From the macro perspective, the producer price will drop if the cost of taxes and fees is partially transmitted. This will further reduce production cost and thus increase firns' profits. However, producer prices are also affected by many other factors, such as strong market demand. When demand is greater than supply, producer prices may rise. This leads to our research question: what is the price effect of the tax and fee reduction policy implemented in China (especially in 2019) and how does this policy influence consumers' welfare? This paper evaluates the effects by constructing an input-output price model with a cost transmission rate. Indirect taxes and fees such as VAT, social security fees, and other production taxes are embedded in the input-output model. The paper focuses on the price and welfare effects of tax and fee reduction. It analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of different tax and fee reduction policies by designing different structural tax reduction scenarios.
Our results show that tax cuts and fee reductions decrease product price and production cost in all industries. The price reduction in the service sector is the highest. The higher the cost transmission rate, the larger the price reduction. When the cost transmission rate is 1/3, the estimated degree of reduction of PPI is the closest to the actual PPI change. Regarding the welfare effect, tax cuts and fee reductions decrease the consumer price and thus improve household welfare. The welfare improvement of a urban household is greater than that of a rural household. The welfare improvement discrepancy between urban households and rural households increases with the increasing cost transmission rate.
This paper's main marginal contributions are as follows. First, by introducing the cost transmission mechanism, this paper constructs an input-output price model with incomplete cost transmission of taxes and fees—Value-added tax, social security fees, and other indirect taxes. The traditional input-output price model assumes that price is completely forward transitive. In fact, most cases are imperfect competition markets. Second, this paper analyzes the impact of China's actual tax and fee reduction policy on PPI and welfare under different cost transitive scenarios. Based on the actual tax reduction rate data of various industries obtained from the tax bureau, the paper estimates tax collection and management ability and then simulates and analyzes the price and welfare effects of the actual tax reduction. Third, this paper constructs three scenarios of structural tax and fee reduction and their impacts on price and welfare. It follows the principles of tax rate simplification and tax rate reform to promote the effective allocation of resources. The paper therefore provides a reference point for further promoting tax system reform and macro policy-making.
We obtain the following policy implications from our research conclusions. First, tax reduction can effectively reduce the producer price index, reduce the cost burden of enterprises, and improve consumer welfare. China still faces many risks and challenges in its post-pandemic economic development. It is crucial to implement a tax and fee reduction policy and reduce the burden on enterprises. The state must put into place preferential policies for preventing and controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, resuming work and production, stabilizing foreign trade, and expanding domestic demand. Second, the design of tax and fee reduction policies should take into account that the industry sector's partial cost transmission rate might weaken the effect of policy implementation. We should estimate the industry sector's cost transmission rate, design the range and size of tax and fee reduction, and truly reduce enterprises' burden. Third, structural tax and fee reduction policies are conducive to better policy effects. Finally, this paper contains some shortcomings which are worthy of further investigation. For instance, the paper gives the same value to the cost transmission rate for all industries, due to the limited availability of data. The cost transmission rate of course differs between industries, so we can further explore how to estimate different industries' cost transmission rates. This will improve our input-output price model with a cost transmission rate. This paper can also be extended to the general equilibrium model with an input-output structure.
Keywords:  Tax Cuts and Fee Reductions    Input-Output Price Model    Incomplete Price Transmission    Producer Price    Welfare Effect
JEL分类号:  E62  
基金资助: * 本文感谢国家自然科学基金面上项目“突发性公共卫生事件的全球价值链重构效应:基于生产网络结构一般均衡模型方法”(72073142)、国家自然科学基金面上项目“中国产业迈向价值链中高端:理论内涵、测度和路径分析”(71873142)、2017投入产出研究课题减税降费的效应分析和国家自然科学基金重点项目“全球价值链视角下的国内区域分工与市场一体化研究”(71733003)的资助。感谢匿名审稿人的宝贵意见,文责自负。
通讯作者:  闫冰倩,经济学博士,助理研究员,中国社会科学院财经战略研究院,E-mail:yanbingqian2018@126.com.   
作者简介:  倪红福,经济学博士,副研究员,中国社会科学院经济研究所,中国社会科学院大学经济学院,E-mail:nihongfu_justin@126.com.
引用本文:    
倪红福, 闫冰倩. 减税降费的价格和福利效应——引入成本传导率的投入产出价格模型分析[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 488(2): 38-55.
NI Hongfu, YAN Bingqian. The Price and Welfare Effects of Tax Cuts and Fee Reduction Policies: An Analysis Based on an Input-Output Model with a Cost Transmission Rate. Journal of Financial Research, 2021, 488(2): 38-55.
链接本文:  
http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/  或          http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/Y2021/V488/I2/38
[1] 陈晓光,2013,《增值税有效税率差异与效率损失》,《中国社会科学》第8期,第67~84页。
[2] 陈烨、张欣、寇恩惠和刘明,2010,《增值税转型对就业负面影响的CGE模型分析》,《经济研究》第9期,第29~42页。
[3] 冯彦杰和娄峰,2018,《中国增值税改革的宏观经济效应研究》,《宏观经济研究》第 4期,第30~39页。
[4] 寇恩惠和刘柏惠,2016,《增值税税率设计的国际借鉴与实现路径》,《税务研究》第11期,第23~28页。
[5] 梁季,2014,《我国增值税税率简并:与市场资源配置机制的对接、改革设想与路径分析》,《财政研究》第9期,第8~14页。
[6] 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。
[7] 倪红福和徐金海,2020,《推动产业参与全球价值链共建》,《社会科学报》,第1699期第1版。
[8] 倪红福、龚六堂和王茜萌,2016,《“营改增”的价格效应和收入分配效应》,《中国工业经济》第12期,第23~39页。
[9] 倪红福、龚六堂和陈湘杰,2018,《全球价值链中的关税成本效应分析——兼论中美贸易摩擦的价格效应和福利效应》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第8期,第74~90页。
[10] 倪红福、吴延兵和周倩玲,2020,《企业税负及其不平等》,《财贸经济》第10期,第1~16页。
[11] 平新乔、梁爽、郝朝艳、张海洋和毛亮,2009,《增值税与营业税的福利效应研究》第9期,第66~77页。
[12] 申广军、陈斌开和杨汝岱,2016,《减税能否提振中国经济? ———基于中国增值税改革的实证研究》,《经济研究》第11期,第70~82页。
[13] 张宝军,2012,《增值税行业税负研究——基于投入产出技术的理论模型构建与实证分析》,博士学位论文,中国人民大学。
[14] Philip Sauré, Levchenko A and Auer R. ,2017, “International Inflation Spillovers Through Input Linkages” , 2017 Meeting Papers. Society for Economic Dynamics, 2017.
[15] Chamley, C., 1986, “Optimal Taxation of Capital Income in General Equilibirum with Infinite Lives”, Econometrica, 54(3) ,607~622.
[16] Creedy and John, 1998, Measuring Welfare Changes and Tax Burdens.Edward Elgar, Publishing Limited.
[17] Judd, K., 1985, “Redistributive Taxation in a Simple Perfect Foresight Model”, Journal of Public Economics ,28(1) ,59~83.
[18] Hall, R. E., and D. W. Jorgenson, 1969, “Tax Policy and Investment Behavior”, American Economic Review, 57(3), 391~414.
[20] Ramsey, P. F., 1927, “A Contribution to the Theory of Taxation” , Economic Journal, 37:47~61.
[1] 梅冬州, 温兴春, 王思卿. 房价调控、地方政府债务与宏观经济波动[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 487(1): 31-50.
[2] 刘冲, 周峰, 刘莉亚, 温梦瑶, 庞元晨. 财政存款、银行竞争与僵尸企业形成[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 485(11): 113-132.
[3] 张莉, 魏鹤翀, 欧德赟. 以地融资、地方债务与杠杆——地方融资平台的土地抵押分析[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 465(3): 92-110.
[4] 林峰, 邓可斌. “双重赤字”联动的政府债务作用[J]. 金融研究, 2018, 456(6): 1-21.
[5] 陈登科, 陈诗一. 中国财政支出乘数研究——基于金融摩擦与“超低利率”的视角[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 450(12): 17-32.
[6] 步丹璐, 狄灵瑜. 治理环境、股权投资与政府补助[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 193-206.
[7] 严成樑. 延迟退休、财政支出结构调整与养老金替代率[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 447(9): 51-66.
[8] 严成樑, 徐翔. 生产性财政支出与结构转型[J]. 金融研究, 2016, 435(9): 99-114.
[9] 苟文均, 袁鹰, 漆鑫. 债务杠杆与系统性风险传染机制—基于CCA模型的分析[J]. 金融研究, 2016, 429(3): 74-91.
[10] 姜子叶, 胡育蓉. 财政分权、预算软约束与地方政府债务[J]. 金融研究, 2016, 428(2): 198-206.
[11] 邢曙光, 黄梅波. 最优区域间转移支付规则[J]. 金融研究, 2015, 425(11): 98-114.
[12] 祝继高, 岳衡, 饶品贵. 地方政府财政压力与银行信贷资源配置效率——基于我国城市商业银行的研究证据[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 475(1): 88-109.
[1] 王曦, 朱立挺, 王凯立. 我国货币政策是否关注资产价格?——基于马尔科夫区制转换BEKK多元GARCH模型[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 1 -17 .
[2] 刘勇政, 李岩. 中国的高速铁路建设与城市经济增长[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 18 -33 .
[3] 况伟大, 王琪琳. 房价波动、房贷规模与银行资本充足率[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 34 -48 .
[4] 祝树金, 赵玉龙. 资源错配与企业的出口行为——基于中国工业企业数据的经验研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 49 -64 .
[5] 陈德球, 陈运森, 董志勇. 政策不确定性、市场竞争与资本配置[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 65 -80 .
[6] 牟敦果, 王沛英. 中国能源价格内生性研究及货币政策选择分析[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 81 -95 .
[7] 高铭, 江嘉骏, 陈佳, 刘玉珍. 谁说女子不如儿郎?——P2P投资行为与过度自信[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 96 -111 .
[8] 吕若思, 刘青, 黄灿, 胡海燕, 卢进勇. 外资在华并购是否改善目标企业经营绩效?——基于企业层面的实证研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 112 -127 .
[9] 姜军, 申丹琳, 江轩宇, 伊志宏. 债权人保护与企业创新[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 128 -142 .
[10] 刘莎莎, 孔高文. 信息搜寻、个人投资者交易与股价联动异象——基于股票送转的研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 143 -157 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《金融研究》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn
京ICP备11029882号-1