What is the current state of public finance in the EU countries? How did the various governments reacted to the crisis which developed in the second half of 2008? To what extent did it trigger a change in tax policy? IREF has asked scholars and experts from fifteen different EU countries to present and evaluate the 2008 tax policies of their respective countries.
European Comparisons
Introduction by Pierre Garello, Director of the Research Department of IREF
We already knew what the general situation and trends are in the EU. Namely, that the EU- 27 is still the region of the world with the highest fiscal burden, that situations differ greatly among EU member states (with new member countries having lower fiscal burden) and that some trends can be found in the evolution of the tax-mix with, for instance, a weak tendency to replace corporate income tax and labour tax with consumption tax. The reports presented here give life to those statistics. They reveal what were the priorities and constraints of the government in each country?
The UK post office Royal Mail is at least as fervent adept to strikes as the French Poste office. The Unions chose the open clash with the managers, rather than to follow the privatization plan. It is true that the privatization of Royal Mail would compromise a lot of the “traditions” in the company. For example, in the beginning of the decade 10 000 of the 170 000 employees were missing every working day, without any valuable reason. The cost of this absenteeism was 350 mln. of pounds per year.
Without any preliminary consultation with the Parliament, the French President Sarkozy announced a subsidy of 1.65 € billions for the agricultural sector. It is hard to imagine where Sarkozy will find this money, given the current economic context and the quasi bankruptcy of the French government. But it is more interesting to question the utility of this subsidy, which amounts for some 2 750 € per farmer.* It is a considerable amount for the state budget, but a highly insufficient one when it comes to the investment that each farmer can realize with it.
France’s Draft 2010 Finance Bill provides for the abolition of the Business Tax, which is perceived by local communities and currently accounts for 10% of their revenues. Called by François Mitterrand “the idiot tax”, the Business Tax is the main local tax, paid every year by nearly 2,9 mln of companies. It is based on the investment in equipment done by local firms (the basis of the tax is the rental value of a company’s tangible fixed assets) plus 1.5% tax on the value added for companies with a turnover exceeding 7.5 mln €.
The system of taxation of corporate profits, introduced in 2000 in Estonia, is unique. Under this system the reinvested profit is not taxed, only the distributed profit is taxed. Thus,…
Abstract: It has been observed that while the respective theoretical merits of fiscal centralisation and decentralisation are debatable, it is even more difficult to empirically assess the degree of centralisation…
Abstract: The idea to compare the fiscal decentralisation and trends in this respect in the European countries is a core for the IREF project. This means that the strict rules of measurement of this complex issue, as fiscal decentralisation is, should be applied to all fiscal systems. Therefore I will follow the description how to generate the index of fiscal decentralisation invented and provided by the prof. Garello and Price . Nevertheless I will also describe and analyze problems which I have met when adopted this scheme into the Polish fiscal system.
Abstract: The Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are similar in many respects, not least with regards to the basic administrative set-up: a non-federal task-related division between state, counties and municipalities. In all three countries, counties and municipalities raise a large share of their own revenue, which is then supplemented by government grants. In addition, central government redistributes large amounts of locally collected revenue between the municipalities and the counties respectively, severely hampering local budgetary autonomy.
Abstract: In this article, German federalism is analyzed through its implications for public spending and for public revenue. The structure of government spending and taxation has evolved in the direction of greater centralisation. This tendency reveals itself (1) in the constitutional changes with regard to taxation, (2) the major territorial reforms and (3) in the increased influence of the federal state on the public spending of inferior levels of government. The evening out between authorities is too egalitarian and the effects on economic development are nefarious.