Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eyd/eyjrnl/v23y2012i1p221-268.html
Beyannameye Tâbi Mükelleflerin Gerçekleştirdiği Gelir Vergisi Kaçakçılığı: Boyutlarının Tahmini; İktisadi Sonuçları ve Bir Reform Önerisi
Author
Abstract
2001’den bu yana iç-borç servisi ve faiz ödemelerinin GSYH oranı gibi bazı değişkenlerde önemli iyileşmeler sağlanmış olmasına rağmen 2011 bütçe ve kamu açığının, sırasıyla, %2.0 ve %6 olarak gerçekleşeceğine ve bu açıkları kapatmak için AB-15 ve OECD ortalamalarının sadece yarısı kadar olan kamu gelirlerinin arttırılması gerektiğine işaret ederek başlayan çalışma, gelir vergisinin GSYH’a oranının (%4.7) anormal düşük olduğunu; bu 4.7’nin %91.7’sinin ücretli ve maaşlı gelirlerinden (%4.31) müteşekkil olduğunu; oysa Milli Gelirin en az %26’sını kazanan Beyannameye Tâbi Gelir Vergisi Mükelleflerinin (BTGVM’nin) ödediği verginin GSYH’a oranının sadece %0.35 olduğunu vurgular. Bu verilerden yola çıkarak GSYH’nin yaklaşık %2’sini elde ettiğini beyan eden BTGVM’nin gerçek matrahının aslında GSYH’nin %26-%30’u arasında olduğu tahmin edilir. Müteakip iki bölümde, önce ham GİB verilerini kullanılarak mikro, sonra da Milli Gelir İstatistiklerine dayanan makro bazlı analizler yapılarak benzer bir sonuca ulaşılır ve bu sonuçtan yola çıkarak önce BTGVM’nin gerçekleştirdiği gelir-vergisi kaçağının boyutu belirlenir. Ardından da, kaçakları engelleyen bir sistem kurulup uygulanabilse, elde edilecek ekstra fonlarla ne gibi iktisadî amaçlara ulaşılabileceği üzerinde durulur ve bu amaçlar şöyle özetlenir: (i) Yürürlükteki çizelgenin de-jure cinsten belirlediği ama de-facto olarak uygulan(a)mayan ortalama vergi oranlarına (ovo) kıyasla 124,000 TL brütün altındaki gelirlere; gelir ne denli bu rakamın altındaysa o denli düşük, ne denli üstündeyse o denli yüksek bir ovo vâzederek hem düşük gelir düzeyindekileri hem de orta sınıfı kollayan müterakkiyet derecesi yüksek bir çizelge uygulamak ve böylece vergi-sonrası gelir dağılımında ve sosyal adalet boyutunda çok önemli düzelmeler sağlamak; buna rağmen GSYH’nin %10- %12’sini bulan ek gelir vergisi toplayarak, (ii) bunun bir kısmıyla kamu açıklarını 3 puan kadar azaltmak (iii) geri kalan 0.07-0.09 GSMH tutarındaki fonla da kamunun alt-yapı ve beşeri sermaye yatırımlarını çok önemli oranda arttırarak sürdürülebilir uzun-vadeli büyüme oranını 2-3 puan yükseltmek. Sonuç bölümünde, kaçaklar etkin olarak engellendiği takdirde bu üç amacın üçünü birden doyuracak mikyasta ek-bütçe geliri elde edilebileceğini öne süren yazarlar, bu takdirde oluşacak iktisadî sonuçlar ve faydalar üzerinde dururlar; bunun olabilirliğinin rakamsal tevsiki için vergi-öncesi-gelir dağılımını %1’lik dilimler cinsinden veren istatistiklerin gerekli olduğuna işaret ederler ve sonuç bölümünü, bu makaleyi takiben bu bağlamda yapılabilecek bir çalışmanın ana hatlarını betimleyerek bitirirler.
Suggested Citation
DOI: 10.5455/ey.20013
Note: [English Title] Income Tax Fraud: Estimations of Its Dimensions; Its Economic Consequences and a Tax Reform Proposal [English Abstract] Despite considerable improvements in public finance since 2001, the GDP ratio of the budget and public deficits are expected, respectively, to be around 2% and 6% in 2011. Apparently there is no room left for further reductions in any of the main items of public expenditures. So, to further reduce the public deficit, Turkey must increase its public revenues the GDP ratio of which is less than half of that of the EU and the OECD average. The problem lies in the dearth of direct tax revenues and of personal income tax receipts which nowadays stand at 0.047GDP of which 91.7% is paid by wage and salary recipients. All the rest of the recipients of taxable personal income (BTGVM) declare their before tax income is 2% of the GDP and end up paying the ludicrous sum of 0.035% of the GDP in personal income taxes. This implies that these persons actually earn, not 2% but 26%-30% of the GDP. Using detailed statistics released by the Finance Ministry, tabulating the average earnings reported and the income taxes paid by 46 groups of tax-payers categorized by “field of activity” and the average income tax-rate incurred by each category, the authors first make micro based analyses and then approach the same issue using National Income accounts. In both cases they reach similar results: that this class of citizens are fraudulently reporting only 1/13th to 1/15th of their before tax income and that the earned but unreported income in Turkey is no less than 0.3GDP when unreported corporate profits are also included. These estimations by the authors are confirmed by the fact that, the National Income Accounts was recently “corrected” officially, by the creation a new GDP series that added 30%-33% to the old series. There is another sour-spot in the tax system: The de-jure personal income tax schedule direly need an overhaul because it starts by taxing the minimum wage income and less at a whopping 15% and it swiftly shoots up to the marginal rate of 35% at a very low level of pre-tax income of only 28,000 USD per year which happens to be the maximum marginal rate applied to even multi-millionaires. The authors suggest that, if a much more progressive de-jure income tax schedule which starts with 0 or 1% rate for incomes below the minimum wage (5,000 USD), which reaches the present maximum of 35% marginal rate at about 70,000 USD (instead of the present 28,000) and which rises to about 60% for the highest income-levels and if simultaneously the necessary judicial and institutional measures were taken to effectively minimize the colossal size of “earned but unreported and hence untaxed incomes”, then Turkey would be able to increase its direct-income tax revenues (cet.par.) by no less than 10%-12% of GDP. The authors then argue that if both were accomplished, not only the public deficits would be cet.par., minimized, reducing inflation and interest rates as well as the domestic savings gap (thus enhancing economic stability) but also Turkey would increase her public investments in social-overhead and human-capital investments by about 0.05GDP (which would stimulate private investment too, through the multiplier/accelerator mechanisms) thus making it possible to attain a sustainable long-term growth rate of 6%-7% instead of the past 2 decades’ average of 4%. Such a comprehensive reform of the tax system and its effective implementation would also very significantly decrease the Gini coefficient of the after tax income distribution and hence not only contribute to social stability by bettering the relative position of the lower and middle-income groups but also create increases in effective demand for consumer consumer-goods and thus enhance economic growth & stability. [English Keywords] Dimensions of tax-evasion in Turkey, earned but unreported incomes, de-jure and de-facto tax rates, degree of progressiveness of the income-tax schedule, tax reform, Gini coefficients of pretax and after tax incomes, a suggested comprehensive tax-reform
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
More about this item
Keywords
Türkiye’de vergi kaçağının boyutları; kayıt dışı ekonomi; dejure ve de-facto ortalama vergi oranları; vergi reformu; müterakkîlik derecesi farklı gelir vergisi çizelgeleri; bu çizelgelerin vergi öncesi ve sonrası gelir dağılımının gini katsayıları; bir vergi reformu önerisi;All these keywords.
JEL classification:
- H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
- H62 - Public Economics - - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt - - - Deficit; Surplus
- H68 - Public Economics - - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt - - - Forecasts of Budgets, Deficits, and Debt
- Z18 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Public Policy
Statistics
Access and download statisticsCorrections
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:eyd:eyjrnl:v:23:y:2012:i:1:p:221-268. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Ozan Eruygur (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ekonomikyaklasim.org .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.