1月2日🫗，意昂2院長張軍教授在Project Syndicate官網上發表文章：Are Chinese Enterprises Being Taxed to Death? 報業辛迪加（Project Syndicate）被稱為“世界上最具智慧的專欄”，作者來自全球頂級經濟學者、諾獎得主🔲、政界領袖，主題包括全球政治🪓♈️、經濟、科學與文化塑造者的觀點，為全球讀者提供來自全球最高端的原創文章👮🏿♂️💾、最具深度的評論，為解讀“變動中的世界”提供幫助🔦。
12月中🤠，一則關於中國企業“死亡稅率”的說法引發了廣泛熱議。其起因來自於一向低調的著名企業家和慈善家曹德旺先生面對媒體的一席話🗜。他擁有的福耀玻璃最近在美國投資6億美元開設了工廠（Fuyao Glass America）並準備把其投資逐步轉移海外𓀒。據說曹先生'出走'美國的原因是地價🧗🏻、能源、勞動力等實體經濟的成本差異，他對記者說'中國製造業的稅負比美國高35%'。曹先生的這個說法迅速被媒體傳播並引發對於中國稅負是否過高的又一次辯論-無疑這不是一個新的話題。
長期以來🙆🏻♀️，圍繞中國企業稅負的爭論一直不絕於耳。在中國做生意的稅負到底有多高？是否越來越高📞？此題因為過於復雜🏇🏿，不容易給出直截了當的答案🕺🏽。
籠統地講👨🏻🚀👳，如果以GDP中政府的財政收入占比來衡量總稅負👰🏽，中國的這個數字大約在30%。根據IMF製定的《政府財政統計手冊》，2015年中國的總稅負為29.1%，比世界平均水平低10個百分點🌟。這裏的政府財政收入不包括國有土地使用權出讓收入，但包括國有資本經營預算收入和社會保險基金的收入。如果包括政府的土地出讓收入🧑🏻🎄，但相應剔除補償性成本🅿️，也就是只考慮土地出讓的凈收入💇🏼♀️，總稅負也就增加大約1個百分點。
另外一種衡量總體稅負的方式是僅僅計算稅收收入和社會保障繳款之和占GDP的比重。以這個口徑計算，中國2012-2015年的平均稅負為23.4%，比OECD國家低大約12個百分點🦈。當然🧑🏽⚖️，如果僅看稅收收入占GDP的比重🌭，中國現在只有18%左右，而且過去這些年還逐年下降。相比之下，2013年發達國家的稅收收入約為GDP的26%，發展中國家約為20%。
不過，以上指標和國際對照未能阻止過去10年來中國的企業家和投資者總是對中國稅負太重的抱怨。事實上🤎，世界銀行最近發布的報告稱，中國企業的平均總稅率達到68%，位居世界第12位🈵，這似乎與企業和投資者的感受負擔較為吻合，曹先生說中國製造業的稅負水平比美國高35%，也許以此為依據👨👧👧。不太清楚世界銀行估計的這個平均總稅率到底包含了什麽以及是如何測算而得🍢。但即使撇開世界銀行的估計，依然很有必要簡單分析一下為什麽企業家感受到的稅負高於計算的總稅負水平呢🎧？
主要的原因來自兩個方面，第一個原因是📱，與大多數發達經濟體相比👩🏻🦳，中國的稅賦主要由生產者承擔，作為消費者的家庭承擔的比重出奇的小。另一個原因是，企業和投資者感受到的負擔其實還包括了納稅之外的負擔。這些非稅的負擔不僅是指為獲得資源、土地和融資而支付的實際價格🪿🧑🏿⚖️，也包括了政府向企業收取的名目繁多的附加費。
可能由於長期實行計劃經濟的原因，中國至今還是一個主要依靠對生產者征稅的國家🚣🏽。政府向企業征收的主要是所得稅和增值稅😅。雖然《中華人民共和國個人所得稅法》規定的企業所得稅的稅率為25%，但它同時也規定了滿足各項稅收優惠的條件。例如，對那些政府重點扶持的高新技術企業，所得稅率可以減至15%。而對那些符合條件的小型微利企業，通常是按20%的稅率征收所得稅的。所以，我估計企業所得稅率的中位數（median）大概為20%🛃🎉。
中國目前的生產者增值稅率一般為17%🛌，還有13%、11%和6%的低檔稅率，有些條件下最低也可以僅為3%。跟那些實行增值稅的國家比，中國的增值稅率與它們相差無幾😽。但與日本🦹🏽🏠、韓國🤘、新加坡等相比🙅🏻♀️，平均而言該稅率明顯高了些。而且因為增值稅對生產者在生產環節征收，無論盈利與否都要繳納，不僅使企業在生產環節增加了稅收，而且在經濟不景氣時感受到的稅負更大👨🏼🍳。這跟美國在最終銷售環節征收銷售稅就非常不同𓀙。根據中國國家稅務總局稅收科學研究所所長李萬甫的說法©️，中國企業事實上承擔了90%以上的各種稅費，個人承擔的各類稅費占比不足10%🛍。相比較而言🔮，西方國家個人所得稅和社會保險稅（費）占比較高🎃，企業直接負擔的稅費顯得並不高✵🖊。
除了繳納所得稅、增值稅之外😥，中國的不少企業至少還要繳納約13%的附加費，這包括7%的城市維護建設費🚜、5%的教育附加費和1%的防洪費。需要指出的是，對企業而言😅，向地方政府繳納的費是不能轉嫁到消費者頭上的，而且是從利潤中支付💆。根據TCL董事長李東生披露⛸，這幾年中國製造業的平均利潤率已經不足2%。城建🕰、教育附加費等製造業附加稅占銷售收入的比例接近0.5%🥹，約占到平均利潤的四分之一。這讓本來利潤較低的製造業企業壓力更大🙍🏼。而企業的流轉稅與費的區別就在於，生產環節的稅多數會被企業轉嫁到消費者頭上。這是中國製造的產品在海外比在中國大陸要便宜很多的部分原因。
到底中國企業的稅負有多重？除了福耀玻璃的曹德旺給出的數據之外🍤，我收集了中國著名的兩家企業-格力電器和康力電梯的有關數據，而這些數據是北京的一家報紙的記者整理出來的🦸🏼♂️👭🏻。
根據格力電器公布的2015年社會責任報告，2015年公司共繳納各種稅金148.16億元👩🏼🦲，當年的營收總額為1005.64億元，凈利潤為125.32億元🕉，稅金占到了格力營業收入的14.7%，相當於凈利潤的1.18倍。而康力電梯的年報披露，2015年公司上繳國家的各項稅費為3.36億元，這一數字相當於該公司當年營收總額32.7億元的10.27%，4.88億元凈利潤總額的68.8%。
以上案例顯示了過重的企業稅負👩👩👦👦。但不清楚的是🐡，它們是否具有廣泛的代表性。中國地方政府對所在地的企業常常還有稅收返還↗️、退稅、稅收的減免等優惠政策，這使得企業稅負在不同地區、不同行業和不同企業之間非常不同👋🏼🤶。所以，在企業層面上，不僅估計稅負是一件相當復雜的工作🧜🏼。而且估算平均稅負也意義不大💆🏿♀️。
但即使這樣，中國走向更加簡單👣、直接和透明的稅收製度還是很有必要👱🏽。這意味著中國需要把國家的總體稅負率與企業感受到的稅負調整到一致的方向💝。在經濟下行壓力依然增大的情況下，為了穩定經濟增長，中國考慮結構性地降稅和大幅度減少對企業的收費是對的⚾️，而且中國確有降稅減費的空間。但除此之外，更重要的是，正如福耀玻璃的曹德旺先生所抱怨的那些稅收以外的負擔過重那樣，很多中國的企業👨🏻🎤，特別是私人企業因為不公平的機會🌝💓，比國有企業支付了更高的代價去獲得土地和融資等，增加了企業的成本👩🏿🎨。而且因為在一些上遊基礎產業（如電力、通訊、能源）仍為國有企業所壟斷，其營運效率過低造成下遊競爭性製造業承擔著過高的成本。這正是福耀玻璃的曹德旺先生所抱怨的真正的成本負擔，而久而久之這些都則可能動搖中國製造業的相對優勢。
SHANGHAI – A couple of weeks ago, an interview with the Chinese auto-glass tycoon Cao Dewang sparked a heated discussion across China. Cao explained that his recent $600 million investment to establish a US manufacturing branch for his company, Fuyao Glass Industry Group, was driven largely by China’s high taxes, which Cao claims are 35% higher for manufacturers in China than in the US. Has the tax burden on Chinese enterprises really reached economically lethal levels?
Going strictly by the numbers, this does not seem to be the case. Measured as the ratio of the government’s fiscal revenue to GDP, China’s overall tax burden, according to the International Monetary Fund’s Government Finance Statistics Manual, is just over 29%. That is 10% less than the global average.
Another way to measure the overall tax burden is to calculate the ratio of tax revenue and social security contributions to GDP. By that measure, China’s average tax burden from 2012 to 2015 was 23.4%, or 12% lower than the OECD countries. As a percentage of GDP, China’s tax revenues amount to about 18% – compared to around 26% of GDP in developed countries and around 20% in developing countries (in 2013) – and continues to decline.
Yet not everyone agrees that China’s tax burden is relatively low, especially at the firm level. A recent World Bank report indicates that the total tax rate for Chinese enterprises averaged 68%, putting China 12th in the world. This may be where Cao got his 35% manufacturing-tax figure. It is not clear, however, how the World Bank calculated its rate.
What is clear is that Chinese entrepreneurs and investors – who have been complaining for years about the heavy tax burden in China – are far more inclined to agree with the World Bank than more favorable comparisons and indices. One reason for this perception may be that China collects more taxes from producers, and less from consumers, than most developed economies.
According to Li Wanfu, Director of the Tax Research Institute under China’s State Administration of Taxation, more than 90% of all taxes and fees are paid by Chinese enterprises, while less than 10% are paid by individuals. In Western countries, personal-income tax and social-insurance payroll taxes constitute a higher share of total tax revenues.
So what is the actual tax burden on Chinese enterprises? Officially, Chinese producers must pay an enterprise income tax of 25%. But many firms receive tax incentives. For example, high-tech enterprises supported by the government pay an income-tax rate of just 15%, while some small-scale enterprises pay 20%. I would therefore estimate that the median rate of corporate-income tax is around 20%.
Companies must also pay value-added tax of 17%, though there are options for preferential rates of 13%, 11%, 6%, and even 3%. That puts China more or less in the same range as other VAT countries. Nonetheless, China’s average tax rate is significantly higher than that of Japan, South Korea, and Singapore.
To find out how these rates translate in the real world, I collected data (compiled by a Beijing news reporter) from two well-known Chinese manufacturers, Gree Electric Appliances and Canny Elevator. According to Gree’s 2015 social responsibility report, the company paid about CN¥14.8 billion ($2.1 billion) in taxes in 2015. Its total revenue amounted to over CN¥100.5 billion, and its net profits equaled about CN¥12.5 billion. The total taxes paid accounted for 14.7% of the company’s total income, or 1.18 times its net profit.
As for Canny Elevator, its annual report showed that it paid ¥336 million in taxes and duties in 2015. That is about 10.27% of the company’s revenue for the year (which totaled ¥3.27 billion), and 68.8% of the year’s net profit (which stood at ¥488 million).
These might be taken as evidence of a heavy burden of tax and duties. But it remains unclear if these figures are in line with what most Chinese firms pay. After all, local governments often offer tax returns, refunds, and breaks, meaning that the tax burden varies greatly across enterprises, industries, and regions. And that does not even account for rampant tax evasion by small firms.
That said, the perceived “tax burden” in China also includes non-tax expenses, including a relatively high proportion of social insurance paid for workers, the actual cost of land, resources, and financing, as well as a variety of government surcharges. And, indeed, Cao cited China’s high land costs (as well as soaring labor costs) as additional factors driving his company’s partial move to the US.
Government surcharges alone amount to at least 13% of Chinese enterprises’ turnover taxes, with some 7% financing urban construction and maintenance, 5% going to education, and 1% earmarked for flood control. Such fees, paid to local governments, must come from profit, and cannot be passed on to consumers.
This has contributed to the erosion of Chinese firms’ profit margins, which, according to TCL Corp Chairman Li Dongsheng, have dropped to less than 2%, on average. Manufacturing surcharges therefore amount to nearly a quarter of profit, putting a further squeeze on low-profit manufacturers.
While it is impossible to estimate the precise size of Chinese firms’ tax burden, they feel under pressure. At a time of slowing economic growth, the last thing China needs is to drive more producers away. To prevent this, China needs to create a more straightforward and transparent tax system, with a transition to more explicit and direct taxation. Taxes, duties, and fees for businesses must be lowered, as should the share of social insurance paid by firms for their employees in China.
At the same time, China’s leaders must commit to curbing the soaring costs of land and financing, thereby paving the way for creating a more equal and competitive market for all firms. They should start by recognizing that as long as upstream infrastructure remains in the hands of often-inefficient state-owned enterprises, some downstream sectors will have to bear higher costs. Over time, such costs could damage the competitiveness of Chinese manufacturers – or drive them to friendlier markets.
文章來源：Project Syndicate
返回頂部
