1 / 77

Tax Incidence in Thailand

Jonathan Haughton Suffolk University, Boston Jonathan.haughton@suffolk.edu For the World Bank. May 11, 2011. Tax Incidence in Thailand. The Questions. Who bears the burden of taxes? Who benefits from government spending? What are the net effects?

duyen
Télécharger la présentation

Tax Incidence in Thailand

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Jonathan Haughton Suffolk University, Boston Jonathan.haughton@suffolk.edu For the World Bank. May 11, 2011 Tax Incidence in Thailand

  2. The Questions • Who bears the burden of taxes? • Who benefits from government spending? • What are the net effects? • Who would gain/lose under different possible tax reform packages, and by how much? JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  3. Example 1: Peru: Tax Revenue • Central government tax revenue • 11.6% of GDP in 2004 • Buoyant since 2002 • 71% of revenue from indirect tax • Vat: 19% rate; but yields just 4.9% of GDP • Income tax: 3.4% of GDP JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  4. Example 2: VietnamCentral Government Revenue

  5. Vietnam: Main taxes (% of GDP)

  6. Vietnam: Noteworthy trends • Revenue/GDP: 20% to 2000, now 25% • VAT: 7% of GDP (at 10% rate!) • Trade: from 4% to 2% of GDP, despite explosion of imports • All income tax: Peaked at 10% GDP in 2006, but dependent on SOE sector • NB: PIT raises 2% of revenue; surprisingly, not rising

  7. Thailand

  8. Measuring Incidence (1) • Step 1. Make assumptions about incidence • Statutory incidence ≠ Effective incidence • See Table JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  9. Incidence assumptions • VAT: on consumers • Excises: on consumers • PIT: on earners • Business profits: on earners • Other taxes: • Property transfer; local fees and contributions: on payers. • In this study, CIT, trade taxes, natural resource taxes, not included. Incidence covers half of revenue.

  10. Partial equilibrium incidence S(1+t) price supply Pd2 P1 Ps2 demand Q1 quantity Q2

  11. Elastic supply price What elasticity? S(1+t) Pd2 supply P1=Ps2 demand Q2 Q1 quantity

  12. JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  13. Measuring Incidence (2) • Step 2. Quantify the effects • Trace effect of a tax, spending change on every household in a survey • ENNIV 2000. 3,997 households, 19,957 people, LSMS template • NB. Assumes equal sharing within household JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  14. Measuring Incidence (3) • Operationalize the analysis • Excel spreadsheet • Stata dataset and programs. Change spreadsheet; it invokes Stata, returns the results. JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  15. Vietnam: Main data source: VHLSS-2006 • 9,189 households, including 4,298 from 2004 round. • Two visits per household; 93% of interviews in June, Sept or Oct. • Some explicit tax information (e.g. business taxes); otherwise has to be inferred (e.g. VAT, PIT).

  16. Thailand • Socio-economic survey, 2009 • 47-page data dictionary • 139,590 individuals • From 43,844 households • Aside: US 1% IRS file plus non-filers: c. 150,000 filers.

  17. Peru: Tax 1: VAT • 19% rate. Fairly stable since 1992. • Exports zero rated • Exemptions include clothing, rice, milk, fish, vegetables, ed. fees, home consumption, housing • In 2000: • 42% of central gov. tax revenue • Collected 7.3% of household expenditure. JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  18. Vietnam (like Peru): How robust are the survey results?

  19. Peru: VAT incidence JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  20. Peru: VAT incidence Regressivity probably overstated, if poor are more likely to buy in informal sector • By expenditure/cap: slightly regressive • By income/cap: highly regressive JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  21. Income or Expenditure incidence? • Income: • Easy to measure • Widely used in developed countries • Overstates regressivity: “lifetime income” • Expenditure • Less underreporting than income • Closer to “permanent income” • May understate regressivity JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  22. Peru: Tax 2: Excises • In 2000, summarized: • Alcohol, especially beer (t=27.8% of 84% of rec. prodr. price) • Soft drinks (t=17% ex factory) • Cigarettes (t=37.2%) • New vehicles (t=10%) • Motor fuel • Gasoline (S/.2.90 per gallon) • Diesel S/.2.29 per gallon) JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  23. JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  24. JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  25. Sin taxes Note under-reporting of expenditures JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  26. JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  27. Transport taxes Notes: Fuel numbers overstate progressivity, because of the “bus and truck problem” Vehicle numbers assume purchases in proportion to ownership, which is awkward Ideal is to run this through an input-output table JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  28. Thailand: Indirect taxes (1st pass)

  29. Thailand: Indirect, then 3 baht/l on petroleum products

  30. Peru: Tax 3: Personal Income JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  31. Peru: All taxes Progressive or not? JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  32. NB: Horizontal inequity JH: Tax & Expenditure Incidence in Peru

  33. Vietnam: tax by tax (1)

  34. Vietnam: tax by tax (2)

  35. Vietnam: tax by tax (3)

  36. Vietnam: tax by tax (4)

  37. Vietnam: Incidence: comments 1 • In Vietnam, incidence pattern by expenditure/cap decile similar to that by income/cap • Contrast with Peru • These taxes are progressive overall • Heavier, more progressive, than 1998 • VAT is generally progressive – mainly due to home production (1/3 at bottom, 1% at top); not the case in all countries • Excise taxes are progressive – also a bit surprising.

  38. Vietnam: Which tax is most progressive?

  39. Technical Issues • Regional effects • Personal Income Tax • Property Tax • Expenditure incidence • Marginal full incidence • Policy reforms

  40. Regional effects: Vietnam • Higher tax rates in south • Highest rate in South-Central Coast (sampling error?) • Urban/rural gap in burden is surprisingly small

  41. Vietnam: Tax policy 1: PIT

  42. Vietnam: Method 1: VHLSS-2006

  43. Vietnam: PIT: comments 1 • Method: strip out business income tax and PIT, and apply rules of new tax • Revenue: from VND127k to VND21k per person. • New tax highly progressive. • But: excludes foreigners; very small sample size for PIT and for large household enterprises.

  44. Vietnam: Method 1: High-income survey • Done by General Dept. of Taxation in 2005, using tax rolls • Survey, asking about income, spending • 15,500: 3,200 foreign, 7,200 PIT, 5,100 business income tax • 11,535 responses (74%); low in HCMC, among foreigners. Results re-weighted. • Anything equivalent in Thailand?

  45. Vietnam: Comparison, old vs. new PIT • Based on 2009 • NB. PIT very elastic • Total revenue: -5% • Foreigners: down by a quarter • Vietnamese: tax payments up • Reconcile with VHLSS data • High-income individuals would pay more • Not-so-high income individuals would pay less, and not be in the tax net as much • Difficult to merge the two; in progress. • Keep: taxes foreigners, adds equity. Enforcement could be better. Perhaps limit top rate to top CIT. Adjust brackets for inflation (as in US).

  46. Vietnam: Property tax? • VHLSS has limited data on property: • Residence; non-agric. real estate • Assume tax would not apply to agricultural property, or to movable property. • 1% of capital value; arbitrary

  47. Vietnam: Who would bear a property tax?

  48. Vietnam: Comments on property tax • Highly progressive • 1% is steep; 7.8% of expenditure, so politically infeasible at this level. • Cash flow concerns • Based on bubble prices? • Introduction of tax would reduce base • Excludes corporate ownership

  49. Vietnam: regional effects of property tax

More Related