presentations – jonathan shaw. © institute for fiscal studies incorporating implementation...
TRANSCRIPT
Presentations – Jonathan Shaw
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Incorporating implementation concerns into tax policymakingJonathan Shaw (IFS and TARC)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Coming up
• Background• How to incorporate implementation concerns into tax
policy evaluation• Empirical estimates and determinants of costs• Strategies for effective tax implementation• Conclusion
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Background
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
What does tax implementation include?
Anything related to how policy is going to work in practice• Enacting laws and creating institutions• Calculating how much taxpayers owe• Getting tax liability into government’s pocket
Tasks involved• Law-making• Record-keeping• Information gathering
• Decision-making• Calculation• Communication
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Importance of tax implementation
• What we care about is ‘social welfare’ not national income:– Distribution of income matters as well as its total level– Income isn’t the only thing that matters
• Implementation likely to be key for increasing output and welfare– Constrains what is feasible– Determines resources wasted on unproductive tax minimisation
activities– Affects success of reforms and need for remedial intervention
• But few robust causal estimates of importance of implementation
• Most would agree implementation needs to be integral to policymaking process
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
How to incorporate implementation concerns into tax policy evaluation
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Costs of taxation
Lost purchasing power The revenue collected by the tax authority
Distortion costs Costs that arise because taxes change relative prices and so distort decisions over e.g. how much to work and what to buy
Administrative costs Costs incurred by tax authority in running tax system
Compliance costs Costs incurred by taxpayers in complying with their tax obligations
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Raising revenue efficiently
• Tax authority has some flexibility over instruments used– Types of tax– Tax rates and thresholds– Enforcement regime
• Not all instruments impose the same costs• Objective: raise revenue fairly and at minimum cost• Optimal policy: equalise ‘marginal efficiency cost of
funds’ (MECF) of each tax instrument
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Implications of optimal policy
1. Evaluations of policy reforms need to include all costs of taxation
2. What matters for incremental policy changes are marginal costs not average costs
3. Administrative costs should receive a higher weight than compliance costs
4. Optimal setting of tax instruments are interdependent
5. Increasing enforcement until revenue equals marginal administrative cost is unlikely to be optimal
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Empirical estimates and determinants of costs
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Current state of play
• Governments recognise importance of some or most costs– Shadow price of public funds used to appraise spending
projects
• But necessary empirical estimates often lacking for setting individual tax policy parameters– Not calculated at all, or– Not calculated on appropriate basis for assessing reforms
Distortion costs: scale and determinants
UK Tax Marginal deadweight loss
Income tax (top 1%) >100%
Corporation tax
£10k threshold 40%
£300k threshold
9%
VAT -
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Notes: Estimates for UK taxesSources: Brewer et al (2010), HMRC (2012), Devereux et al (2012)
Key determinants• Elasticity of taxable
income• Marginal tax rate
• Level of income
Evasion: scale and determinants
UK Tax Non-compliance(% true liability)
Income tax, NICs and CGT
5.5%
Self assessment
18.1%
SMEs 1.0%
Corporation tax 8.8%
VAT 10.1%
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Notes: Average figures for UK taxes in 2010/11Source: HMRC (2012)
Key determinants• Probability of detection• Size of penalty
• Tax morale
Compliance costs: scaleCountry
Tax Compliance costs
(% revenue)
Administrative burdens
(% revenue)
UK PAYE/NICs 1.3% 0.4%
UK Corporation tax
2.2% 1.9%
UK VAT 3.7% 1.1%
Ireland PAYE/PRSI 4.6% 0.3%
Ireland Self employed - 7.4%
Ireland Corporation tax
- 1.0%
Ireland VAT - 2.5%
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Notes: Averages for various years. Administrative burdens are based on Standard Cost Model methodology, covering businesses and excluding costs such as tax planning, dealing with change and understanding which obligations are relevantSources for compliance costs: Sandford et al (1989), Inland Revenue (1998) and Leonard and O’Hagan (1985). author’s calculationsSources for administrative burdens: HMRC (2012), Revenue Commissioners (2012)
Administrative costs: scale
Country Tax Administrative costs(% revenue)
UK Income tax 0.97%
UK Corporation tax
0.76%
UK VAT 0.60%
Ireland All taxes 0.85%
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Notes: Average administrative costs as percentage of net revenue collectedSources: HMRC (2012), Revenue Commissioners
(2013)
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Administrative and compliance costs: determinants
• Complexity of tax– Number of rates, reliefs and boundaries
• Level of tax rates• Characteristics of tax base• Complexity of tax
– Size, mobility and registration
• Existence of optional schemes• Stability• Responsibility for assessment• Responsibility for remittance• Availability of help and guidance
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Strategies for effective tax implementation
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Implementation strategies
• Taxing market transactions– Tend to be better documented and involve arms-length
prices
• Information reporting– Requirement to tell tax authority about transactions
incurring tax– Often means coordination is required if evasion is not to be
detected
• Withholding– Tax liability remitted by someone other than the statutory
bearer– Safeguard against no tax being remitted
• Relying on firms– Takes advantage of existing systems and economies of
scale
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Implementation strategies (2)
• International cooperation– Information sharing– Coordination of tax regimes
• Exploiting IT– Cuts cost of processing– Reduces risk of errors– Helps expose non-compliance– May cut amount of information to collect
• Exploiting media channels– Advertising– Name and shame
© Institute for Fiscal Studies
Conclusions
• Effective implementation is crucial for a well-functioning tax system
• Implementation concerns can be incorporated into standard tax policy evaluation framework
• Empirical estimates of necessary parameters often lacking
• But available estimates suggests they are quantitatively important
• Wide range of strategies for effective implementation