Press: This paper only uses the most basic principles in Man Kun's Principles of Macroeconomics, Third Edition, N. Gregory Mankiw to analyze the impact of China's current tax (generalized tax) policy on ordinary consumers. It mainly analyzes the influence of social insurance, provident fund and commercial housing policies.

Elasticity: refers to the degree to which the supply or demand of a commodity responds according to the change of its decisive factor (the first variable factor). Its mathematical calculation formula is:

Elasticity coefficient = change percentage of commodity quantity/change percentage of decisive factor (first change factor)

Generally speaking, the quantity of commodities can be divided into the quantity of commodity supply and the quantity of commodity demand, and the decisive factor (the first variable factor) can be the price of commodities and other factors. As we all know, the supply and demand of commodities are related to commodity prices. As the price rises, the supply will become larger, because suppliers feel that there are more profits to earn, so they increase production, but the demand will become smaller, because demanders find it unbearable; When the price decreases, the supply will decrease relatively, because the supplier thinks the profit is relatively low and the production scale will decrease, but the demand will increase, because the demanders think it is cost-effective. Then supply and demand must take price as the core content, find a price balance point, make the supply and demand at this price point equal, make the social production of a particular commodity just equal to the social consumption, and achieve a balance between supply and demand. This is the function of the invisible hand put forward by Adam Smith in the most classic economic work "A Probe into the Nature and Causes of the State". Then according to the above formula, we derive two concepts:

1, elasticity coefficient of supply price = percentage change of commodity supply/percentage change of price.

2. Elasticity coefficient of demand price = percentage change of quantity of commodity demand/percentage change of price.

If the elasticity coefficient of supply price of a commodity is greater than 1, that is to say, the change percentage of supply is greater than the change percentage of price, then the supply of this commodity is very sensitive to price change, and a small change in price will lead to a big change in supply. In this case, we call this commodity elastic supply. If it is less than 1, that is to say, the change percentage of supply is less than the change percentage of price, then it means that the supply of this commodity is insensitive to price changes, and even a relatively large price change can only lead to a small change in quantity. In this case, we call this commodity inelastic supply.

Similarly, we can measure price sensitivity according to the demand of goods. If the elasticity coefficient of demand price is greater than 1, the change of demand quantity is sensitive to price change and is elastic demand. If it is less than 1, the quantity change of demand is insensitive to the price change, which is inelastic demand.

So, which goods are elastic and which are inelastic? Which goods are elastic demand or inelastic demand?

Generally speaking, the supply of luxury goods is inelastic and the demand is elastic. Because of the profits of luxury goods (such as $20,000 sky-high mobile phones, diamond rings, Rolls-Royce cars, etc.). ) are relatively high, and the suppliers of luxury goods are not easy to transform, and the supply of luxury goods is relatively insensitive to price changes. Large price changes can only cause small changes in supply, that is, the elasticity coefficient of supply price is less than 1. But luxury goods are not necessities of life, they are dispensable, and it is easy to find substitutes. For example, when the price of Rolls-Royce cars rises sharply, its consumers are likely to buy Mercedes-Benz or BMW instead of Rolls-Royce. With the price of diamond ring soaring, consumers may switch to red gem ring. Therefore, the demand quantity of luxury goods is very sensitive to price changes, and a small price change may cause a big change in the demand quantity, that is, the elasticity coefficient is greater than 1.

The necessities of life are contrary to luxury goods, with flexible supply and inelastic demand. Because of the necessities of life (rice, clothing, housing, etc. ) is what everyone needs (both the supplier and the demander need). If the price of daily necessities changes, the supply will change even more. For example, farmers are rice suppliers. If the price of rice falls, the farmer will think that it is not cost-effective to sell the rice he has worked so hard to grow, and rice is also his necessity, so he is likely to keep all the rice in his home for his own consumption, so the supply will be drastically reduced. If the price of rice rises and the farmer thinks he will earn more money, then he is likely to sell some of his own rations. In this way, the supply of daily necessities is relatively sensitive to price changes, and a small price change may cause a big change in the supply, that is, the elasticity coefficient of supply price is greater than 1. But the necessities of life are really inflexible, because everyone has to eat, dress and house. Without these people, they will starve to death, so the demand quantity of daily necessities is relatively insensitive to price changes, and large price changes can only cause small changes in demand quantity, that is, the elasticity coefficient of demand price is less than 1.

After defining the elasticity coefficient (supply price elasticity coefficient and demand price elasticity coefficient) and those commodities are elastic supply rather than elastic demand, and those commodities are inelastic supply and elastic demand, let's review the basic principle of tax destination.

Man Kun believes that one of the ten principles of economics is that government behavior can change market returns. Taxation is obviously a kind of government behavior. In this paper, I mean taxes in a broad sense (including social insurance premiums, commercial housing registration fees, transfer fees, loan interest, etc.). ). So who will bear the tax in the end?

Let's give an example of selling ice cream. Now suppose there is such a market environment, which consists of several ice cream suppliers and ice cream consumers. If the price of ice cream is1one in 0 yuan, then the supplier is willing to produce 1000 ice cream, and the demander is willing to buy 1000 ice cream, thus achieving a balance between supply and demand. But suddenly, the government issued a policy to levy a product tax of 1 yuan on each ice cream, which was paid by the supplier. Then, in order to keep the profit unchanged, the supplier has to increase the price of ice cream from the original 10 yuan to 1 1 yuan (where 1 yuan is taxed, the actual sales amount is still 10 yuan, which ensures the same profit as the original. In this way, under the same profit stimulus, the supplier is willing to produce 1000 ice cream without increasing or decreasing. However, the demanders pay more 1 yuan per serving of ice cream, so the demand will be reduced from the original 1 000 to 800. In this way, the supply and demand are unbalanced, and only 800 of the produced 1000 ice cream are sold, and the ice cream is left. Obviously, both the supply and demand sides have suffered. Suppliers suffer from product surplus, and demanders suffer from product price increase.

In order to avoid losses, both the supply and demand sides will find ways. Under the action of "invisible hand", supply and demand will reach a balance again. So the supplier reduced the price of ice cream from 1 1 yuan to 10.5 yuan (note, according to the government's tax law, 1 yuan is taxable, and the actual sales of the supplier is in 9.5 yuan, and the profit is lower than the original 10 yuan), so the supplier's production enthusiasm is reduced. For demanders, the price of 10.5 yuan is a little higher than the original 10 yuan (at this price, the demand is 1000), but it is a little less than 1 1 yuan (at this price, the demand is 800). In this way, supply equals demand, and ice cream reaches a balance between supply and demand.

An interesting thing happened: when supply and demand reached a balance again at the price point of 10.5 yuan, both sides suffered losses, but the losses were smaller than those at the price point of 1 1 yuan. At the price point of 10.5 yuan, the profit of the supplier is lower than the original by 0.5 yuan, while the burden of the buyer is higher by 0.5 yuan. Then the losses of both parties, namely 1 yuan, were collected by the government in the name of tax revenue. Therefore, we can see that although the government collects production tax for suppliers, after market regulation, the final tax ownership still falls on both suppliers and demanders.

What if the government collects consumption tax instead of product tax? Let's take another look:

In the same market environment, we can give another example. When the price of ice cream is 10 yuan, suppliers are willing to produce 1000 ice creams, and demanders are willing to buy 1000 ice creams, thus achieving a balance between supply and demand. At this time, the government made a policy to levy a consumption tax of 1 yuan on each ice cream, which was paid by the demanders. Then for the demanders, an ice cream 10 yuan will pay 1 yuan, which is equivalent to the actual price of ice cream rising to 1 1 yuan. At the price point of 1 1 yuan, the supply remains unchanged (because the price actually sold by the supplier is still 10 yuan, and the profit remains unchanged), but the demand is reduced to 800, and the supply and demand are unbalanced, resulting in losses for both parties. Suppliers suffer losses because of product surplus, and demanders suffer losses because of product "price increase" (in fact, it is the extra burden of consumption tax of 1 yuan).

So the supplier had to reduce the price from 10 yuan to 9.5 yuan. In the case of reduced profits, the supplier's enthusiasm for production was frustrated and he was only willing to produce 900 ice creams. While the demanders have to pay the consumption tax of 1 yuan for each ice cream except 9.5 yuan, so the actual consumption price is 10.5 yuan. Compared with the original price 10 yuan, the demander has to pay more 0.5 yuan, and the demand has changed from 1000 to 900. So supply and demand are balanced again.

Let's see: under the same market environment, the government levied a product tax of 1 yuan for the first time, which was borne by the supplier, and finally the supplier and the buyer paid the 0.5 yuan respectively. The second time, the government stopped collecting product tax and levied consumption tax 1 yuan, which was borne by the demanders. As a result, both the supplier and the demander have to bear the 0.5 yuan in the end. This is the real attribution of tax revenue, that is, no matter whether the government collects taxes from the supply side or the demand side, the final tax revenue is borne by both sides, and no one can please! By the way, the post "Who made the VAT" posted by someone at Tianya Economic Forum some time ago is incorrect. You can infer from the formula that the value-added tax is ultimately borne by consumers, but according to this post, it is actually borne by production, circulation and consumption, but the proportion is different. )

Then I spent so long to help you review the basic definitions and principles of elasticity coefficient and tax attribution. Now we can discuss specific issues.

First, about social insurance and housing accumulation fund (we regard these as taxes in a broad sense):

At present, national social insurance is compulsory, so as long as there is a labor relationship between workers and employers, they must apply for social insurance. Social insurance is divided into five types: endowment insurance, medical insurance (urban hukou only), industrial injury insurance, unemployment insurance (urban hukou only) and maternity insurance (both men and women pay). The proportion of payment varies across the country. Generally speaking, the individual contribution of workers is about 1 1% of wages, and the contribution of employers is about 30% of wages (there are regional differences). Ordinary people may think that the national policy is to protect the rights and interests of workers, because the unit payment is about three times that of individuals. Similarly, the housing provident fund is shared by workers and employers, but it is finally deposited in the employee's account. Therefore, some people think that housing provident fund is also a national policy to protect the rights and interests of employees, and individuals account for the unit cheaply. However, according to what we have demonstrated, both employers and workers will bear the tax in the end. In a free market, neither side can take advantage. And according to what I have discussed below, you will find that the problem will be more serious. Because in fact, the employer took advantage of it, and the workers didn't get any benefits.

There are two ways to analyze labor relations as a commodity market.

The first idea is that in this commodity market, workers are suppliers and employers are demanders, so it is obvious that goods are labor (that is, intellectual and physical labor provided by workers) and money is wages and benefits provided by units. Labor is not a necessity for employers, but a luxury. What are the attributes of luxury goods? Let's review that the transformation of luxury goods suppliers is not easy. In this case, the quality of labor provided by workers is not easy to change in a short time. For example, a law graduate may only provide legal services in a very short time. If you let him provide IT labor, he will undergo a long-term transformation (training or graduate school), while an ordinary worker can only provide hard work. If you make him a technical blue collar, he will also receive long-term training. Luxury goods also have the nature of dispensability for demanders and substitutes. Let's see if the labor force is dispensable for employers. If the cost of hiring workers (salary, insurance, provident fund, etc.). ) It's too high for the factory to hire workers at all. It can buy a fully automated production line and only invite a few high-tech managers. On the other hand, if the cost of hiring workers is lower than that of fully automated production lines, then the factory may implement a labor-intensive development path. This is the main reason why China has become the factory of the world.

Therefore, in this way of thinking, the goods in the commodity market-labor-are luxury goods, which conform to the nature of luxury goods we discussed, with inelastic supply and elastic demand. When the labor price (wages, insurance, provident fund, etc. ) changes to a certain extent, its supply changes little, but its demand changes greatly. Therefore, the national policy is to force employers to buy social insurance and pay housing provident fund for workers, which is equivalent to the state's forced increase in labor prices, so that the number of workers seeking jobs in the market will not change much, but the demand for labor by employers will be relatively greatly reduced. The supply of labor exceeds demand, so the labor price is reduced by a substantial reduction in the average social wage (wages are only a part of the labor price, because the labor price also includes taxes in a broad sense, that is, social insurance and provident fund. ). When the average social wage decreases, the labor price will also decrease accordingly, and the quantity of labor supply will not change greatly, but the demand of employers for study labor will increase greatly, thus forming a situation that "everyone has a mouth to eat, but the salary is not high". What's more, when wages are too low and labor demand is too high, there is a shortage of migrant workers.

Therefore, from the first point of view, taxes (social insurance and provident fund) in a broad sense are shared by workers and employers, and workers bear more shares! The laborer didn't take advantage of the employer at all, and the employer didn't pay more benefits than the salary for the laborer at all, but he got a good reputation!

We can also use the second way of thinking to analyze the labor market, and the conclusion is the same. It can also be considered that in this market, employers are suppliers, workers are demanders, commodities are wages and benefits, and money is labor. Obviously, from this perspective, commodities have become a necessity of life. The essence of necessities of life is what we are discussing, which is elastic supply and inelastic demand. It is also a generalized tax that workers bear more shares! I won't repeat the detailed analysis. The principle and method are the same as the first idea. )

So when it comes to social insurance and housing provident fund, we take the labor market as the analysis object. Through two different ways of thinking (in fact, we analyze the problem from two opposite directions), the conclusion is: no matter who is levied, workers and employers bear more social insurance and provident fund!

Second, commercial housing policy (commercial housing registration fee, transfer fees, loan interest, etc.). )

Similarly, in the commercial housing market, if commercial housing is regarded as a commodity and RMB is regarded as currency, then for the supply side (government, developers, real estate speculators) and the demand side (ordinary people), the house is a necessity, with great supply elasticity and inelastic demand. Then all the generalized housing taxes are mostly borne by the demanders (ordinary people). If we change our way of thinking and treat RMB as a commodity and house as money, then the people will become suppliers, and the government, developers and real estate speculators will become demanders. At this time, the commodity-RMB conforms to the characteristics of luxury goods, and the same conclusion can be drawn.

Therefore, the central bank raised mortgage interest twice, and local governments introduced policies to levy high transfer fees on real estate speculators. On the surface, it seems to limit housing prices. In fact, after our analysis, in the end, ordinary people bear the brunt!

Through the analysis of the above two markets (labor market and commercial housing market), we all come to a conclusion: ordinary people bear the bulk of tax revenue. This conclusion can lead to a general principle: both the supplier and the demander bear the government tax, but the inflexible party bears more! This is also easy to explain in principle, because inelastic party means that quantity is not sensitive to price changes, so it is in a weak position; The flexible side means that quantity is sensitive to price changes and is in a strong position. Therefore, it is not surprising that the weak who lack flexibility suffer!

So from these economic principles, we can see clearly that no matter how biased the national policy is towards the people on the surface, its essence is that the wool is on the sheep. More boldly, we can draw the conclusion that the taxes that enterprises should bear, such as enterprise income tax, have nothing to do with ordinary workers. They are originally the costs of enterprises, but in fact they are ultimately borne by enterprises and workers, and because of their inflexible characteristics, most of them fall on workers.

By the way, the value-added tax I mentioned in my article. According to our conclusion, value-added tax is ostensibly borne by consumers, but in fact it is borne by production, circulation and consumers. Taking the supply and demand of production houses and dealers as a market, and then taking the supply and demand of dealers and consumers as another market, we can analyze the conclusion that the three parties bear it. Therefore, we should not be so angry and think that the value-added tax is entirely borne by the people; But don't feel gratified, because for consumers with inelastic characteristics, they bear the bulk of value-added tax.

Replace the word "value-added tax" in my last paragraph with any kind of domestic tax, welfare, insurance, social public interest, etc. This sentence can be established, even if it has nothing to do with people on the surface.