Tax rate
The tax rate is a key figure
- which indicates the share of taxes and social security contributions in the economic output ( gross domestic product GDP) of a country in percent,
- which enables a comparison of the tax burden between countries,
- which gives an indication of the extent of government activity in an economy.
Calculation of the tax rate
The extent of the services provided by the state and the extent to which these services are financed through the collection of taxes and duties are decisive for the level of the tax rate. The calculation method also has a significant influence on the level of the key figure. The Federal Ministry of Finance and the Federal Statistical Office reported a rate of 40.8% in 2001, while the OECD calculated a rate of 36.8%, while the Deutsche Bundesbank came up with a rate of 42.3%.
Important differences arise from the allocation of child benefit , home ownership allowance and investment allowance , which the OECD netted with the tax liability for reasons of international comparability. On the other hand, the German government uses fictitious contributions to social security for civil servants in the national accounts , which increase the tax rate. The Bundesbank also adds income from state-owned companies and the Bundesbank profit.
The OECD gives the following values for the composition of the tax quota for 2005:
| Type of public intake | Germany | Austria | Switzerland | OECD funds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social security contributions | 13.9% | 14.5% | 7.0% | 9.1% |
| Payroll tax | - | 2.7% | - | - |
| Taxes on income, capital and profits | 9.8% | 11.9% | 13.0% | 12.8% |
| Taxes on wealth | 0.9% | 0.6% | 2.3% | 1.9% |
| Taxes on goods and services | 10.1% | 12.0% | 6.9% | 11.3% |
| Tax rate 2005 | 34.7% | 41.7% | 29.2% | 35.4% |
International comparison
The tax rate is better suited for international comparison of burdens than the tax rate , because some countries like Denmark provide more social benefits from tax revenue, while in other countries such benefits are primarily financed from social security. Another problem in international comparisons is that in countries such as the USA or Japan a significant part of social security is privately organized.
The OECD country comparison shows the following values in the time series:
| country | 1975 | 1985 | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mexico | - | 17.9 | 17.3 | 16.7 | 18.5 | 19.9 | 20.6 |
| Turkey | 11.9 | 11.5 | 14.9 | 16.8 | 24.2 | 24.3 | 24.5 |
| Japan | 20.9 | 27.4 | 29.1 | 26.8 | 27.0 | 27.4 | 27.9 |
| United States | 25.6 | 25.6 | 27.3 | 27.9 | 29.9 | 27.3 | 28.0 |
| South Korea | 15.1 | 16.4 | 18.9 | 19.4 | 23.6 | 25.5 | 26.8 |
| Switzerland | 23.9 | 25.5 | 25.8 | 27.7 | 30.0 | 29.2 | 29.6 |
| Slovak Republic | - | - | - | - | 33.8 | 31.8 | 29.8 |
| Australia | 25.8 | 28.3 | 28.5 | 28.8 | 31.1 | 30.8 | 30.6 |
| Greece | 19.4 | 25.5 | 26.2 | 28.9 | 34.1 | 31.3 | 31.3 |
| Ireland | 28.7 | 34.6 | 33.1 | 32.5 | 31.7 | 30.6 | 31.9 |
| Canada | 32.0 | 32.5 | 35.9 | 35.6 | 35.6 | 33.4 | 33.3 |
| Poland | - | - | - | 36.2 | 31.6 | 33.9 | 32.5 |
| New Zealand | 28.5 | 31.1 | 37.4 | 36.6 | 33.6 | 37.5 | 36.8 |
| Federal Republic of Germany | 34.3 | 36.1 | 34.8 | 37.2 | 37.2 | 34.8 | 35.6 |
| Czech Republic | - | - | - | 37.5 | 35.3 | 37.5 | 36.9 |
| Portugal | 19.7 | 25.2 | 27.7 | 31.7 | 34.1 | 34.7 | 35.7 |
| United Kingdom | 35.2 | 37.6 | 36.1 | 34.5 | 37.1 | 36.3 | 37.1 |
| Luxembourg | 32.8 | 39.5 | 35.7 | 37.1 | 39.1 | 37.8 | 35.9 |
| Spain | 18.4 | 27.6 | 32.5 | 32.1 | 34.2 | 35.8 | 36.6 |
| Netherlands | 40.7 | 42.4 | 42.9 | 41.5 | 39.7 | 38.8 | 39.3 |
| Hungary | - | - | - | 41.3 | 38.0 | 37.2 | 37.1 |
| Iceland | 30.0 | 28.2 | 30.9 | 31.2 | 37.2 | 40.7 | 41.5 |
| Austria | 36.7 | 40.9 | 39.6 | 41.2 | 42.6 | 42.1 | 41.7 |
| Finland | 36.5 | 39.7 | 43.5 | 45.7 | 47.2 | 43.9 | 43.5 |
| Italy | 25.4 | 33.6 | 37.8 | 40.1 | 42.3 | 40.9 | 42.1 |
| Norway | 39.2 | 42.6 | 41.0 | 40.9 | 42.6 | 43.5 | 43.6 |
| France | 35.4 | 42.8 | 42.0 | 42.9 | 44.4 | 43.9 | 44.2 |
| Belgium | 39.5 | 44.4 | 42.0 | 43.6 | 44.8 | 44.8 | 44.5 |
| Sweden | 41.3 | 47.2 | 52.2 | 47.5 | 51.8 | 49.5 | 49.1 |
| Denmark | 38.4 | 46.1 | 46.5 | 48.8 | 49.4 | 50.7 | 49.1 |
| OECD funds | 29.4 | 32.7 | 33.8 | 34.8 | 36.1 | 35.8 | 35.9 |
Economic policy evaluations
In neoclassical economic theory, a high tax rate is equated with extensive state redistribution , lower economic incentive effects and the low attractiveness of the production location due to high ancillary production costs. In fact, the majority of the economically most developed countries belong to countries with a comparatively high tax rate.
A high tax rate can e.g. B. Consequence of an atypical age structure (reverse age pyramid ) of a population. Every tax quota triggers (positive or negative) economic incentive effects on economic subjects who are able to make comparisons. Depending on the structure of the tax law , a high tax rate can trigger avoidance, pass-on and migration effects. If, for example, negative environmental emissions are recorded by high taxes and these lead to investments aimed at avoiding environmental emissions, they have positive incentive effects. To avoid a charge such as the truck toll , all available alternatives, such as transport by rail, ship, pipeline, etc. must be taken into account. If only individual alternatives are selectively charged with a levy, the levy says little about the tax quota.
If the production factor labor is burdened by a high tax rate, this has a negative incentive effect to avoid or migrate employment. Since a high tax rate can also be accompanied by a low tax rate, the tax rate alone says little about the relative burden on an economic entity.
See also
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ Manfred G. Schmidt, Reimut Zohlnhöfer: Governing in the Federal Republic of Germany: domestic and foreign policy since 1949. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden 2006, ISBN 3-531-14344-1 , 58 FN 2.
- ↑ a b OECD statistics , accessed on May 28, 2009.