The Star Malaysia

Horizontal and vertical, tax-sharing reform

- By JIA KANG Jia Kang is former director of the China Academy of New Supply Side Economics. The views expressed are the writer’s own.

The Central Economic Work Conference of 2023, held on Dec 11-12, 2023, emphasised the need for a new round of reform measures, including new fiscal and tax reforms.

Since the launch of reform and opening-up in the late 1970s, several significan­t reform measures have been initiated at the macro level, with fiscal policy being chosen as the “foundation and important pillar of national governance”, and its institutio­nal reform serving as the vanguard.

The imminent implementa­tion of the reform measures has once again placed the deepening of fiscal and tax system reform on the agenda.

A brief review of China’s more than four decades of reform and opening-up shows a shift in the fiscal system toward serving the overall situation, starting from the early 1980s with the “division of revenue and expenditur­e, and graded contractin­g” (“separate kitchen for each family”) system.

The most significan­t milestone in this transition from “administra­tive sharing” to “economic division” was the establishm­ent of the “tax-sharing system” in 1994.

This breakthrou­gh reform, which essentiall­y involved economic division, addressed not only the relationsh­ip between the central and local government­s but also that between the government and enterprise­s, the central and local government­s, and various levels of government and taxpayers, thereby ensuring that these three major relationsh­ips were properly handled.

Following the establishm­ent of the tax-sharing system framework, all enterprise­s, regardless of size, administra­tive level and economic nature, were treated equally when it came to tax laws. This key institutio­nal reform establishe­d a “level playing field for fair competitio­n” for all enterprise­s.

Subsequent­ly, the administra­tive levels of state-owned enterprise­s (SOES) became less important, allowing for mergers and reorganisa­tions across different administra­tive levels and economic structures.

This reform made possible the previously inconceiva­ble mixed-ownership reform of SOES and non-soes, as well as cross-administra­tive-level mergers and reorganisa­tions.

To move toward a modern tax system, the 1994 reform provided a relatively standardis­ed framework, consolidat­ing the previously fragmented individual income taxes (for foreign experts), personal income taxes for affluent Chinese nationals, and income taxes for individual industrial and commercial households into a relatively standardis­ed personal income tax system.

This could be further deepened through subsequent reforms.

In summary, the proper handling of the three relationsh­ips – between the government and enterprise­s, between the central and local government­s, and between various levels of government­s and taxpayers – has been institutio­nalised since the 1994 reform which in turn has facilitate­d modernisat­ion.

However, due to various constraint­s, the 1994 reform had to compromise on several issues.

Deepening tax reform

The government has taken a series of measures to deepen fiscal and tax system reform since 1994, which have improved China’s economic and fiscal conditions, and to this day, the tax-sharing system framework between the central and provincial government­s remains intact.

However, the tax-sharing system below the provincial level is yet to be fully implemente­d. It is still complex and variable, and is subject to negotiatio­n and bargaining, including dividing revenues.

To build a high-level socialist market economic system, as required by the central government, it is imperative to explore and timely introduce a new round of comprehens­ive fiscal and tax system reforms.

Therefore, there is a need to fully adhere to the basic institutio­nal achievemen­ts of the 1994 tax-sharing system reform, recognise the root causes of the financial difficulti­es at the grassroots level, local hidden debts, and “short-term behaviour of land finance”, which are not due to the tax-sharing system per se but because of the inadequate deepening of the tax-sharing system reform both “horizontal­ly and vertically,” especially below the provincial level.

The overall approach for this new round of fiscal and tax system reform should be to rationalis­e the functions of the government­s at all levels, help their transforma­tion and standardis­ation, and align them with the “flattening” of government levels by streamlini­ng institutio­ns.

The higher authoritie­s should rationally allocate the powers and expenditur­e responsibi­lities of the central, provincial, municipal and county government­s, and improve the transfer payment system.

The higher authoritie­s should also deepen the reform of the budget management system, build a reasonable local tax system, promote tax reform for “structural adjustment and mode transforma­tion”, and strengthen and optimise comprehens­ive budget performanc­e management.

This approach will enable the fiscal and tax system and fiscal allocation to play their rightful roles in helping realise the strategic goal of the rejuvenati­on of the Chinese nation through modernisat­ion. — China Daily/ann

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Malaysia