论文部分内容阅读
本文作者认为，有些文章通过宏观税负的国际比较，认为我国政府干预经济的水平在降低。诚然，随着市场化进程的加快，政府干预经济的力度必然减弱，但以宏观税负来代表政府干预经济水平的方法是不科学的。政府干预经济既可以通过那些在预算内直接反映的活动，也可以通过一些预算外或准财政渠道（如提供贷款担保和其他或有负债、指令信贷等）来反映。尽管税收收入占GDP或GNP的比重是对税负水平进行国际比较的唯一实用方法，但由于多种原因，这一比重既不能对政府干预经济的水平、也不能对私营部门向公共部门的强制性转移水平提供明确的指导。特别是对于一些发展中国家来说，宏观税负增加，有时并不是政府干预经济水平的加强，因为在宏观税负增加的同时，一些隐性的收支政策随之取消，所以这一正一负的效应，到底哪个强，是无法分清的。
According to the author, some articles think that the level of government intervention in our economy is decreasing through the international comparison of macro tax burden. Admittedly, with the acceleration of the marketization process, the government’s intervention in the economy will inevitably weaken. However, it is not scientific to represent the government’s intervention in the economic level with macro tax burden. Government intervention in the economy can be reflected either directly through those activities that are reflected directly in the budget or through some extrabudgetary or quasi-financial channels (such as providing loan guarantees and other contingent liabilities, ordering credit, etc.). Although tax revenue as a share of GDP or GNP is the only practical way of international comparisons of tax levels, for many reasons this share does not interfere with the level of government intervention in the economy nor with the private sector’s coercion in the public sector Sexual transfer levels provide clear guidance. In particular, for some developing countries, the increase in macro tax burden is sometimes not an increase in the level of government intervention in the economy. As the macro tax burden increases, some hidden revenue and expenditure policies are subsequently canceled, so this positive one Negative effects, in the end which is strong, is indistinguishable.