WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 2 | 3 || 5 | 6 |   ...   | 24 |

Sverdlovskoblast

48

21

33

Sample total

16

21

63

Calculations: thefirst stage

At the first stage of calculations concerningthe cross-regional sample of municipal entities, envisaging the analysis ofpossibilities to assign existing revenue sources to municipal entities to covertheir actual expenditures in fact doubles respective calculations concerninglarge cities. The only difference is that certain adjustments were made withregard to regions, where division of expenditures between the municipal andregional levels significantly deviated from the overall situation. Therespective regional expenditures were taken as the averages of the rest of thesample, what resulted in respective increase in municipal expenditures.However, the scope of adjustment was not very significant – in Leningrad oblast there wererecalculated expenditures for education and in Kabardian-Balkarian Republic– HUS expenditures. Nochanges were made as concerns the structure of revenue sources, although in tworegions (Krasnoyarsk krai and Leningrad oblast) it significantly differedbecause the sales tax was not imposed in the region and the share of localtaxes was rather high. In these calculations they account for financing of 10.9and 9.8 per cent of adapted expenditures respectively, while the average forother regions makes only 0.2 per cent. At the same time, the sales tax, asconcerns the sample, covers somewhat above 4 per cent of expenditures on theaverage.

The results obtained at the first stage ofcalculations in the framework of two best variants as based on the analysis ofthe sample of large cities are presented in Table7.6. in 11 out of 12 regions, the variant notincluding the profit tax produces quite satisfactory results: the overalldeficit is below 3 per cent, the number of cities with surplus makessignificant share only in 2 regions, on the whole slightly over 6 per cent ofmunicipal entities of the sample have surplus. Sverdlovsk oblast is anexception; the overall surplus there makes over 8 per cent (however, thecoefficient of variation is rather low and the need for financial aid issignificantly below actual requirements in 2001). The results of calculationsin accordance with the variant including the profit tax are even less favorableand present no interest for further analysis.

The results of the analysis of the impact ofdivision of the income tax in the guaranteed and equalizing parts on defrayalof municipal expenditures are of significant interest, see Table 7.7. Apparently, the trendsobserved in this case are opposite to those detected in the course of analysisof large cities. The variant where the income tax is fully redistributed at theregional level in proportion to the size of population appears to be mostpreferable for 11 regions out of 12 in all aspects: both the share ofexpenditures defrayed at its expense, and the coefficient of variation. Theonly exception is Leningrad oblast. If the assignment of the income tax makes100 per cent of the contingent, in the majority of cases it produces mostnegative results. The variant of division of the income tax in the guaranteedand equalizing parts in the 50 / 50 proportion for the majority of regions isworse than the 100 per cent redistribution, however, it is significantly betterthan the assignment of 100 per cent of the contingent. For a quarter ofanalyzed regions this variant accounts for the best coefficient ofvariation.

Table7.6.

Variants of financing of adapted expendituresof municipal entities at the expense
of assignedrevenue sources, 2001

Variant 1

Income tax - 50% - guaranteed, 50% -equalizing parts, taxes onaggregate income - 90%, property taxes - 100%, land tax and rental payments forland - 100%, sales tax - 100%, local taxes and charges - 100%

YevreyskayaAO

Komi-PermyakAO

Amuroblast

Kabardian-Balkarian Republic

Rostovoblast

Tveroblast

ChuvashRepublic

Novosibirskoblast

Saratovoblast

Krasnoyarskkrai

Leningradoblast

Sverdlovskoblast

Min. share ofexpenditures covered by assign revenues (%)

14,7

12,8

19,2

10,9

23,6

8

21,2

32,6

31

7,4

41

20

Max. share ofexpenditures covered by assign revenues (%)

48,1

39,4

88,4

47,9

124,7

159,9

74,8

117,3

86,2

92,9

125,4

124,2

Differencebetween the min. and max. shares of expenditures covered by assign revenues(%)

33,4

26,6

69,2

36,9

101,2

151,8

53,6

84,7

55,1

85,5

84,4

104,1

Average shareof expenditures covered by assign revenues (%)

33,4

21,3

39,8

24,4

58,3

52

37,5

50,5

47,3

44,2

77,4

68,4

Overall shareof expenditures covered by assign revenues (%)

38,8

23,3

47,7

29

65,7

55,5

55

64,6

62,7

54

77,7

91,7

Coefficientof variation (%)

37,3

43,7

48,1

49,9

41

73

33,1

33,2

28,1

43,4

27,4

32,7

Overallsurplus (%)

0

0

0

0

2,3

1,7

0

0,2

0

0

1,8

8,2

Overalldeficit (%)

61,2

76,7

52,3

71

36,7

46,2

45

35,6

37,3

46

24,1

16,5

Number of MEwith surplus (including over 10 %)

0(0)

0(0)

0(0)

0(0)

5(2)

7(4)

0(0)

1(1)

0(0)

0(0)

4(3)

8(4)

Number of MEwith financial aid exceeding 50 %

6

6

21

11

21

29

22

24

22

41

1

10

Variant 2

Income tax - 50% - guaranteed, 50% -equalizing parts, taxes onaggregate income - 90%, property taxes - 100%, land tax and rental payments forland - 100%, sales tax - 100%, profit tax - 5,7% (2% of profits), local taxesand charges - 100%

YevreyskayaAO

Komi-PermyakAO

Amuroblast

Kabardian-Balkarian Republic

Rostovoblast

Tveroblast

ChuvashRepublic

Novosibirskoblast

Saratovoblast

Krasnoyarskkrai

Leningradoblast

Sverdlovskoblast

Min. share ofexpenditures covered by assign revenues (%)

14,7

12,8

19,2

10,9

23,7

8,2

21,4

32,8

31,1

7,5

41,8

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 2 | 3 || 5 | 6 |   ...   | 24 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .