IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipe/ipetds/1433.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

O Potencial Distributivo do Imposto de Rendapessoa Física (IRPF)

Author

Listed:
  • Sergei Soares
  • Fernando Gaiger Silveira
  • Claudio Hamilton dos Santos
  • Fábio Monteiro Vaz
  • André Luis Souza

Abstract

Este texto argumenta a favor de níveis mais elevados de Imposto de Renda-Pessoa Física (IRPF). Verificamos que, de todos os países para os quais existem informações, o Brasil é o que menos arrecada IRPF relativo à Carga Tributária Bruta (CTB). O IRPF é responsável por algo em torno de 6% da CTB, um pouco mais que 2% do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) e um pouco mais que 4% da renda das famílias, segundo a Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios (PNAD). Mostramos que isto se deve, pelo menos em parte, tanto a alíquotas de IRPF que isentam indivíduos abaixo do percentil 85 na distribuição dos rendimentos individuais, como também a uma alíquota marginal máxima (27,5%) baixa. Estimamos, usando a PNAD e a Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares (POF), o Coeficiente de Concentração do IRPF, que se situa entre 0,89 e 0,92, o que o torna altamente progressivo. Também estimamos que há em torno de 80% de evasão e/ou elisão entre famílias cujas rendas principais são oriundas do trabalho por conta própria ou da atividade empresarial; entre famílias cuja renda principal é o vínculo empregatício, estimamos a evasão e/ou elisão em aproximadamente 20%. Finalmente, analisamos o impacto de uma série de mudanças teóricas no IRPF e chegamos à conclusão de que teriam como resultado dobrar a arrecadação. Se esse aumento de arrecadação fosse compensado por uma redução em um tributo regressivo, como a Contribuição para o Financiamento da Seguridade Social (Cofins), para que não houvesse modificação da CTB, o resultado seria uma redução de 2,3 pontos percentuais do coeficiente de Gini. This text argues for higher Personal Income Tax levels. We show that, for all countries for which tax information is available, Brazil is the one in which Personal Income Tax collection as a percentage of the gross tax burden is the lowest. Personal Income Taxes account for about 6% of the Gross Tax Burden, slightly more than 2% of GDP, and slightly more than 4% of family income (according to the PNAD household survey). We show that this is due both to the fact that tax brackets are so high so as to exempt 85% of income earners from paying any income tax and the fact that our highest tax bracket is only 27.5%, which is lower than the maximum tax bracket of almost all countries for which tax information is available. Using Household and Expenditure Surveys, we estimate the Personal Income Tax Concentration Coefficients at between 89 and 92, which show a very progressive tax schedule. We also estimate that families who live on self employment and business income evade or avoid 80% of their personal income tax liabilities but that families who live off employment income evade or avoid only 20%. Finally, we analyze the impact of a series of theoretical changes in Personal Income Tax rules and conclude that they would approximately double Personal Income Tax collection. If the additional revenue were compensated by a reduction in a regressive tax, such as Contribuição para o Financiamento da Seguridade Social (Cofins), so as to hold the total Tax Burden constant, the result would be a 2,3 point fall in the Gini coefficient.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergei Soares & Fernando Gaiger Silveira & Claudio Hamilton dos Santos & Fábio Monteiro Vaz & André Luis Souza, 2009. "O Potencial Distributivo do Imposto de Rendapessoa Física (IRPF)," Discussion Papers 1433, Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada - IPEA.
  • Handle: RePEc:ipe:ipetds:1433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/TDs/td_1433.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ugo Colombino & Daniela del Boca, 1990. "The Effect of Taxes on Labor Supply in Italy," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(3), pages 390-414.
    2. Alan J. Auerbach, 2006. "Who Bears the Corporate Tax? A Review of What We Know," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 20, pages 1-40, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Goñi, Edwin & Humberto López, J. & Servén, Luis, 2011. "Fiscal Redistribution and Income Inequality in Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1558-1569, September.
    4. Daniel R. Feenberg & James M. Poterba, 1993. "Income Inequality and the Incomes of Very High-Income Taxpayers: Evidence from Tax Returns," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 7, pages 145-177, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Feldstein, Martin, 1995. "The Effect of Marginal Tax Rates on Taxable Income: A Panel Study of the 1986 Tax Reform Act," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(3), pages 551-572, June.
    6. François Bourguignon & Thierry Magnac, 1990. "Labor Supply and Taxation in France," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(3), pages 358-389.
    7. Bernheim, B. Douglas, 2002. "Taxation and saving," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 18, pages 1173-1249, Elsevier.
    8. Feldstein, Martin, 1995. "The Effect of Marginal Tax Rates on Taxable Income: A Panel Study of the 1986 Tax Reform Act," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(3), pages 551-572, June.
    9. Joel Slemrod, 1996. "High-Income Families and the Tax Changes of the 1980s: The Anatomy of Behavioral Response," NBER Chapters, in: Empirical Foundations of Household Taxation, pages 169-192, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. J. A. Mirrlees, 1971. "An Exploration in the Theory of Optimum Income Taxation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(2), pages 175-208.
    11. repec:hoo:wpaper:e-90-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Slemrod, Joel, 1990. "Optimal Taxation and Optimal Tax Systems," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 157-178, Winter.
    13. Robert K. Triest, 1990. "The Effect of Income Taxation on Labor Supply in the United States," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(3), pages 491-516.
    14. Thomas MaCurdy & David Green & Harry Paarsch, 1990. "Assessing Empirical Approaches for Analyzing Taxes and Labor Supply," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(3), pages 415-490.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Azevedo, Joao Pedro & David, Antonio C. & Bastos, Fabiano Rodrigues & Pineda, Emilio, 2014. "Fiscal adjustment and income inequality : sub-national evidence from Brazil," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6945, The World Bank.
    2. Eduardo P. S. Fiuza & Barbara Caballero, 2015. "Estimations od Generic Drug Entry in Brazil using count versus ordered models," Discussion Papers 0186, Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada - IPEA.
    3. Sean Higgins & Claudiney Pereira, 2013. "The effects of Brazil's high taxation and social spending on the distribution of household income," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 1307, Tulane University, Department of Economics, revised May 2013.
    4. Joaquim B de Souza Ferreira Filho & Carliton V dos Santos & Sandra M do Prado Lima, 2010. "Case Study: Tax reform, income distribution and poverty in Brazil: an applied general equilibrium analysis," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 3(1), pages 114-117.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saez, Emmanuel, 2003. "The effect of marginal tax rates on income: a panel study of 'bracket creep'," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(5-6), pages 1231-1258, May.
    2. Alan J. Auerbach & Joel Slemrod, 1997. "The Economic Effects of the Tax Reform Act of 1986," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(2), pages 589-632, June.
    3. Soren Blomquist & Anil Kumar & Che-Yuan Liang & Whitney K. Newey, 2022. "Nonlinear Budget Set Regressions for the Random Utility Model," Working Papers 2219, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    4. Engen, Eric M. & Skinner, Jonathan, 1996. "Taxation and Economic Growth," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 49(4), pages 617-642, December.
    5. Florian Scheuer & Iván Werning, 2017. "The Taxation of Superstars," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(1), pages 211-270.
    6. Emmanuel Saez, 2004. "Reported Incomes and Marginal Tax Rates, 1960–2000: Evidence and Policy Implications," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 18, pages 117-174, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Emmanuel Saez & Joel Slemrod & Seth H. Giertz, 2012. "The Elasticity of Taxable Income with Respect to Marginal Tax Rates: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(1), pages 3-50, March.
    8. Blundell, Richard & Macurdy, Thomas, 1999. "Labor supply: A review of alternative approaches," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 27, pages 1559-1695, Elsevier.
    9. Kumar, Anil, 2008. "Labor supply, deadweight loss and tax reform act of 1986: A nonparametric evaluation using panel data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 236-253, February.
    10. Benjamin Russo, 2009. "Innovation and the Long‐Run Elasticity of Total Taxable Income," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 798-828, January.
    11. Nada Eissa, 1996. "Tax Reforms and Labor Supply," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 10, pages 119-151, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. José Labeaga & Xisco Oliver & Amedeo Spadaro, 2008. "Discrete choice models of labour supply, behavioural microsimulation and the Spanish tax reforms," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 6(3), pages 247-273, September.
    13. Heim, Bradley T. & Meyer, Bruce D., 2004. "Work costs and nonconvex preferences in the estimation of labor supply models," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(11), pages 2323-2338, September.
    14. Hans G. Bloemen & Arie Kapteyn, 2008. "The estimation of utility-consistent labor supply models by means of simulated scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 395-422.
    15. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2014. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the United States: New Results," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(3), pages 723-838.
    16. François Bourguignon & Amedeo Spadaro, 2012. "Tax–benefit revealed social preferences," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 10(1), pages 75-108, March.
    17. Michiel Evers & Ruud A. De Mooij & Daniel J. Van Vuuren, 2005. "What Explains the Variation in Estimates of Labour Supply Elasticities?," CESifo Working Paper Series 1633, CESifo.
    18. Showalter, Mark H. & Thurston, Norman K., 1997. "Taxes and labor supply of high-income physicians," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 73-97, October.
    19. Olivier Bargain & Andreas Peichl, 2013. "Steady-State Labor Supply Elasticities: An International Comparison," AMSE Working Papers 1322, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    20. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2012. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the US: New Results," Working Papers halshs-00805736, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ipe:ipetds:1433. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Fabio Schiavinatto (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipeaabr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.