IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/ngooec/v65y2019i4p35-46n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Tax Burden CGE Analysis for Slovakia and Slovenia

Author

Listed:
  • Mitkova Veronika

    (Comenius University in Bratislava, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Slovakia)

  • Jánošová Miroslava

    (Comenius University in Bratislava, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Slovakia)

Abstract

In the paper, the static computable general equilibrium model for Slovakia and Slovenia is used for a tax burden analysis. There was considered simultaneous 1% increase in taxes on primary factors, on firms’ and government domestic and imported purchases, on import taxes, on output (or income) tax, on private domestic and imported consumption taxes and export subsidies. The direct tax burden as well as the allocative efficiency effects of a tax, the welfare effects and welfare decomposition of such change for both countries is analysed. The most sensitive sectors on tax rate changes is heavy manufacturing and processed food and the most distorting effect has the tax increase on private consumption tax. The government’s tax increase should generate return at least 105.75% of its costs in Slovakia and 101.92% in Slovenia, otherwise the welfare will decline.

Suggested Citation

  • Mitkova Veronika & Jánošová Miroslava, 2019. "The Tax Burden CGE Analysis for Slovakia and Slovenia," Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy, Sciendo, vol. 65(4), pages 35-46, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:ngooec:v:65:y:2019:i:4:p:35-46:n:4
    DOI: 10.2478/ngoe-2019-0018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/ngoe-2019-0018
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/ngoe-2019-0018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harvey Cutler & Martin Shields & Stephen Davies, 2018. "Can State Tax Policy Increase Economic Activity and Reduce Inequality?," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 142-164, March.
    2. Vásquez Cordano, Arturo L. & Balistreri, Edward J., 2010. "The marginal cost of public funds of mineral and energy taxes in Peru," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 257-264, December.
    3. Norbert Švarda & Matúš Senaj & Michal Horváth & Zuzana Siebertová, 2015. "The End of the Flat Tax Experiment in Slovakia," Discussion Papers 33, Central European Labour Studies Institute (CELSI).
    4. Tran, Chung & Wende, Sebastian, 2021. "On the marginal excess burden of taxation in an overlapping generations model," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Gregory D. Hanson & Diane R. Bertelsen, 1987. "Tax Reform Impacts on Agricultural Production and Investment Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 69(5), pages 1013-1020.
    6. Horváth, Michal & Senaj, Matúš & Siebertová, Zuzana & Švarda, Norbert & Valachyová, Jana, 2019. "The end of the flat tax experiment in Slovakia: An evaluation using behavioural microsimulation in a dynamic macroeconomic framework," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 171-184.
    7. Browning, Edgar K & Johnson, William R, 1984. "The Trade-Off between Equality and Efficiency," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(2), pages 175-203, April.
    8. Figari Francesco & Gandullia Luca & Lezzi Emanuela, 2018. "Marginal Cost of Public Funds: From the Theory to the Empirical Application for the Evaluation of the Efficiency of the Tax-Benefit Systems," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(4), pages 1-16, October.
    9. Boyd, Roy, 1988. "An economic model of direct and indirect effects of tax reform on agriculture," Technical Bulletins 312290, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Carbone, Jared C. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2008. "Evaluating policy interventions with general equilibrium externalities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1254-1274, June.
    11. Hansson, Ingemar & Stuart, Charles, 1983. "Taxation, Government Spending, and Labor Supply: A Diagrammatic Exposition," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 21(4), pages 584-587, October.
    12. David Altig, 2001. "Simulating Fundamental Tax Reform in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 574-595, June.
    13. Ozana Nadoveza Tomislav Sekur Marija Beg, 2016. "General Equilibrium Effects of Lower Labor Tax Burden in Croatia," Zagreb International Review of Economics and Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 19(SCI), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Ján Remeta & Sarah Perret & Martin Jareš & Bert Brys, 2015. "Moving Beyond the Flat Tax - Tax Policy Reform in the Slovak Republic," OECD Taxation Working Papers 22, OECD Publishing.
    15. Parry, Ian W H, 2003. "On the Costs of Excise Taxes and Income Taxes in the UK," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 10(3), pages 281-304, May.
    16. Ballard, Charles L & Shoven, John B & Whalley, John, 1985. "General Equilibrium Computations of the Marginal Welfare Costs of Taxes in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 128-138, March.
    17. Angel Aguiar & Maksym Chepeliev & Erwin L. Corong & Robert McDougall & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2019. "The GTAP Data Base: Version 10," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 4(1), pages 1-27, June.
    18. Stuart, Charles E, 1984. "Welfare Costs per Dollar of Additional Tax Revenue in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 352-362, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Thomas D. Birch, 1987. "Basic Needs: Paternalistic Government Welfare Policy with Distortionary Taxation," Public Finance Review, , vol. 15(3), pages 298-321, July.
    2. Liqun Liu, 2006. "Combining Distributional Weights and the Marginal Cost of Funds," Public Finance Review, , vol. 34(1), pages 60-79, January.
    3. Salvador Barrios & Viginta Ivaškaitė-Tamošiūnė & Anamaria Maftei & Edlira Narazani & Janos Varga, 2020. "Progressive Tax Reforms in Flat Tax Countries," Eastern European Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 83-107, March.
    4. Ana-Isabel Guerra & Laura Varela-Candamio & Jesús López-Rodríguez, 2022. "Tax reforms in Spain: efficiency levels and distributional patterns," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 41-68, January.
    5. Snow, Arthur & Warren, Ronald Jr., 1996. "The marginal welfare cost of public funds: Theory and estimates," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 289-305, August.
    6. Sam Allgood & Arthur Snow, 1998. "The Marginal Cost of Raising Tax Revenue and Redistributing Income," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(6), pages 1246-1273, December.
    7. Mickaël Beaud & Thierry Blayac & Patrice Bougette & Soufiane Khoudmi & Philippe Mahenc & Stéphane Mussard, 2013. "Estimation du coût d'opportunité des fonds publics pour l'économie française," Working Papers halshs-01077141, HAL.
    8. Robert Shelburne, 2006. "A Utilitarian Welfare Analysis of Trade Liberalization," ECE Discussion Papers Series 2006_4, UNECE.
    9. Tessa Conroy & Harvey Cutler & Stephan Weiler, 2016. "The State-Level Impacts of Enforcing Sales Taxes for E-retail Purchases," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 276-295, June.
    10. Parry, Ian W. H., 2002. "Funding transportation spending in metropolitan Washington, DC: the costs of alternative revenue sources," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 362-390, September.
    11. Ming Chung Chang & Shufen Wu, 2011. "Should Marginal Cost of Public Funds include the Revenue Effect?," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 147(I), pages 1-16, March.
    12. Hans Gersbach & Volker Hahn & Stephan Imhof, 2013. "Tax rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(1), pages 19-42, June.
    13. Kleven, Henrik Jacobsen & Kreiner, Claus Thustrup, 2006. "The marginal cost of public funds: Hours of work versus labor force participation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(10-11), pages 1955-1973, November.
    14. Parry, Ian, 2001. "How Should Metropolitan Washington, D.C., Finance Its Transportation Deficit?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-12, Resources for the Future.
    15. ERBIL Can, 2010. "Trade Taxes Are Better ?!? Short Answer: No," EcoMod2003 330700048, EcoMod.
    16. Hansson, Åsa, 2004. "Taxpayers Responsiveness to Tax Rate Changes and Implications for the Cost of Taxation," Working Papers 2004:5, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    17. Roy Boyd & Kerry Krutilla, 1992. "Controlling acid deposition: A general equilibrium assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(3), pages 307-322, May.
    18. Rouillon, Sébastien, 2010. "Optimal law enforcement with costly public funds," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 345-348, December.
    19. Chris Jones, 2005. "Why the Marginal Social Cost of Funds is not the Shadow Value of Government Revenue," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2005-449, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    20. Liqun Liu, 2004. "The Marginal Cost of Funds and the Shadow Prices of Public Sector Inputs and Outputs," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 11(1), pages 17-29, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    tax burden; welfare analysis; CGE model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models

    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:vrs:ngooec:v:65:y:2019:i:4:p:35-46:n:4. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.