How our government

 How much our government?
Zhiwu / text February 23, 2008, at 370 million disposable income of urban residents, 12.3 million farmers in net income. In other words, the government spent more money a year is equal to 370 million urban residents, 12.3 million farmers can spend the money a year. the Government should so many people to support, of course, very large. Here, we may take from several different angles to its Prosperous China, we might as well during the Kangxi and Qianlong as a reference. Qianlong mid-1766, tax revenue is 49.37 million court ounces of silver. In the 1760 years ago, the Dutch East India Company at that time in Beijing, Guangzhou, people's income and consumption conducted detailed investigations, according to its historical archives, when an ordinary worker's annual income of Beijing about 24 pieces of silver (about two per month 2). Thus, two silver equivalent of 49,370,000 ordinary Beijingers 2.05 million in revenue. as long as 205 million Beijingers enough income to support the Government Qianlong period of prosperity, of course, is small government! Perhaps, we may say that the income of other parts of China were lower than in Beijing, so the income of workers in Beijing as a standard, reducing the support Qianlong the required number of Government. But, when the national per capita income much lower than in Beijing Buyi Ding, for example, in 1950, the per capita income in Beijing is the national average, at most, middle, only to the 1950 nationalization of the system After the planned economy, the relative per capita income of Beijing began to soar, the rest of the country behind them. step back, even if the Qianlong period, Beijing national urban average income is only half, then the court is only 410 million years into the annual income with the need today 370 million urban residents, 12.3 million farmers of disposable income to support the Government's expenditure can not be compared. in the history of the Chinese government had not so much as it is today.
We may say that today any country the size of government can not make a direct comparison with the past, because the traditional agricultural economy with low dependence on the Government, and the complexity of modern economic transactions is particularly high, so the Government can not do without the safety and security of property rights and contract support. without government protection of property rights, contractual rights to maintain, difficult to have a modern economy. This of course makes sense. According to this idea pushed down, the United States should be a good frame of reference, because the U.S. financial securities, intellectual property markets, and most other modern industries developed, it is also the world's policeman, so it should not be less than the government responsibilities of any other country. in the social welfare support, the United States no less than Western Europe. Therefore, the size of the U.S. government should be able to judge the Chinese government too big frame of reference is too small.
2007, the U.S. federal government tax revenue of 2.4 trillion U.S. dollars, accounting for 18% of GDP, equivalent to 85 million a year the average American's disposable income. that is, to support U.S. government spending, 85 million Americans need to disposable income, of course, the Chinese government's expenditure needs than 370 million disposable income of urban residents with low!
540 million urban residents in China, 800 million farmers, together, Last year, people's disposable income and total net income of farmers was 10.7 trillion yuan. that is, 5.1 trillion yuan of fiscal revenue approximately equal to the private half of the total disposable income. In contrast, the U.S. private sector disposable income total of 8.4 trillion U.S. dollars, 2.4 trillion is equivalent to civil government fiscal revenue a quarter of total disposable income.
Thus, our government is relatively much larger than the U.S. government.
Government how to change the size
the past 30 years, the Chinese government has always been to such a large scale is not. If the direction. reform started in 1978, the state tax revenue equivalent to 3.3 billion disposable income of urban residents, 8.5 million farmers in net income. when the government is not small, which is why one of the reasons to reform the government, However, when the city government, after all, who is responsible for all aspects from cradle to grave living expenses, so the big government of course.
With the reforms, to 1985, tax revenue is equivalent to 270 million urban residents, 500 million net income of farmers (see Figure I and II). By 1995, tax revenue is equivalent to 146 million urban residents, 3.9 million farmers .1.46 billion in net income of the urban population's disposable income to support the Government's expenditure, the Government still Great, but that was nearly 30 years and local, to the county and township, each level requires only the next level up in each of the taxes to pay what percentage of the tax, leaving the rest of the authority to lower levels of government. On the surface, not by tax decentralization central power, is a good thing, more to the local economic development incentives. but, when the designer did not expect that kind of reform, or do not want to think, in the absence of substantive constraints of power system, especially in the new power does not increase taxes legislature but under the conditions of the executive branch, the tax amounts to decentralized levels of government arbitrarily increase taxes for the green light, there is no formal way to the national increase in the tax burden on free expression.
is often said that in other countries workable institutional arrangements, one to China on acclimatized. This is so, not Chinese not the same as with other countries, but the people in power under the restriction of the tax system by the democratic system, the move to China, of course, aliasing, as at all levels in China have no right to tax the fundamental constraint. Therefore, the dessert of the power source is that there are no constraints on democracy.
1995 tax years after the fiscal year increase. By 2004, fiscal revenue rather 2.8 billion in disposable income of urban residents, 900 million net income of farmers. the next three years is to accelerate tax, by 2007, the Government's fiscal revenue is equal to 370 million urban residents, 12.3 million farmers can spend a year money, far more than the beginning of reform and opening up in 1978, when the size of government, our government reached its the outcome of reform and opening up, which groups benefit most from it? from 1995 to 2007, 12 years, the Government average annual tax revenue growth of 16% (after removing inflation), the average annual disposable income of urban residents increased by 8% , the average annual net income of farmers increased by 6.2%. During this period, GDP average annual growth rate of 10.2%. Figure III shows the cumulative income of the three groups of growth.
Therefore, only much higher than the GDP of government revenue the rate of growth, income growth rate of urban residents, followed by the slowest income growth of farmers, the speed much lower than the GDP growth rate. From 1995 to 2007, the inflation component removed, the government revenue increased 5.7 times, cities and towns per capita disposable income increased 1.6 times per capita net income of farmers by 1.2 times only! the results of reform and opening-up enjoyed by the government, followed by urban residents and farmers to share at least.
government as the largest owners of assets and land
However, the above calculation only reflects part of total government revenue, In addition, extra-budgetary revenue, asset value and asset income not one of them. In other words, tax revenue but the government See, faster.
to 2006, the total value of state-owned land about 50 trillion yuan. According to the SASAC Director Li Rongrong in August 2007, state-owned enterprises, the average assets of 240 million yuan each, the combined value of all state-owned assets of 29 trillion yuan. In other words, the end of 2006, state-owned land plus the total value of state-owned enterprises was 79 billion yuan. Last year, China's GDP 11.4%, assuming that land and state-owned assets to GDP at the same rate appreciation (asset appreciation rate is generally higher than GDP), which means that 9 trillion value of state assets last year than the tax revenue of more than 5.1 trillion 80%!
2007 years, the total profits of state-owned enterprises was 1.6 trillion yuan. Therefore, the last state as disposable income and financial revenue of the combined 5.1 trillion last year, the government can dominate the total income of 15.7 trillion yuan, which amounts to 1.14 billion in disposable income of urban residents, 37.9 million farmers in net income. This is indeed the size of government Qianlong government, far less than today's comparable to the U.S. government.
the structure of wealth in China and the U.S. compared
of course there are Chinese families, wealth, including real estate, business equity, financial, securities, bank deposits, etc., but the main these urban residents, farmers without land, without much savings, their wealth is low. According to NDRC estimates, the end of 2005, the total asset value of urban residents was 20.6 trillion. If the past two years, according to slightly higher than the rate of value added in 2005, which added 15% per annum, then the end of last year, the country's inhabitants assets of 27.6 trillion yuan, less than 88 trillion worth of state assets and one-third of state-owned land .
private assets of Chinese state-owned assets plus a total of 115.6 trillion yuan, equivalent to 4.7 times GDP.
contrast, the U.S. government basically no productive assets, and only a small amount of land. to the end of 2007, the United States total value of the assets of private households is 73 trillion, equivalent to 5.4 times the GDP compared with total assets of China's GDP ratio was slightly higher. The reason is that the degree of U.S. financial assets, highest in the world, the greater the liquidity, the the higher the capital value. However, the two countries the ratio of total assets and GDP, roughly the same.
However, in both countries, wealth sharing between the Government and civil society structures different. In China, more than 76% assets owned by the Government, civil society less than a quarter of assets. In the U.S., basically all of its assets in the hands of private individuals and families. these two different holding structure will bring the wealth of what is the difference then?
The difference is manifested in many ways, including the mode of economic growth, industrial structure, the rule of law and development, and so on. here, let us focus look, this structure in the state and civil society have any effect on the race of wealth, who Win Big Head?
assets of 73 trillion U.S. dollars U.S. households, nearly 35 trillion from the value of assets over the past decade, while the disposable income from labor and other accumulated savings of only 1.5 trillion. Therefore, the Americans basically rely on the wealth of growth in capital appreciation, and income from labor and other assets of the non-disposable income (last year was 8.4 trillion) were almost all spent, which is why the U.S. savings rate is now -1%, but also why the United States So strong domestic demand. Fortunately, the basic assets of the United States are privately owned, the Government will not compete with the people, so that Americans can rely on capital appreciation to make up their level of wealth.
115.6 trillion yuan in China asset wealth, only 27.6 trillion is the non-governmental and private, the rest of the country is 88 trillion. If China's GDP in 2008 and asset values ​​are increased by 10%, then the people get from the assets of 2.76 trillion yuan appreciation, while Government 8.8 trillion yuan. the government from economic growth brought about by the appreciation of assets to get the share of wealth is three times the people!
This is why the appreciation of assets in China is difficult to bring the wealth effect of consumption, asset revaluation not too much domestic demand led growth. cut off from state-owned assets to domestic demand, the appreciation of the transmission chain. This is why countries in private ownership, economic growth has brought to the civil society, the family wealth, while in countries where state ownership, economic growth The appreciation of principal by the National Wealth exclusive, to Minjian families only high point of labor income, there is not much wealth. So, today in China, the largest gap between rich and poor is between state and society, rather than between the majority of the people.
countries where the money?
accordance with the above mentioned, last year the government 5.1 trillion tax revenue, state-owned assets and the appreciation of land at least 9 trillion, the total profits of state-owned enterprises 1.6 billion. the Government has to spend 15.7 trillion of revenue, the money in the wrong? If the Government is to spend money on people's livelihood, it is not a considerable extent from the people instead of flowers? in effect, by the people themselves take and by the government instead of the money people spend, the two arrangements will be a big difference? by many advocates of government tax revenue to launch a variety of names of people say, through taxation and state-owned assets, the Government can achieve distribution billion, representing 15% of the total financial expenditure, 2.4% of GDP for the whole year, 1.3 billion people assigned to him, 461 yuan per capita (equivalent disposable income of urban residents and 3%). but in the absence of state-owned economy the United States last year, three on the same expenditure of about 1.5 trillion U.S. dollars, equivalent to the federal government 61% of total expenditure, 11.5% of GDP for the United States, assigned to the 300 million Americans who, per capita $ 5,000 (the equivalent of Americans can disposable income, 18%).
regardless of absolute numbers, or by the relative level, the U.S. government back to people's health and social security are much higher than China, although the U.S. is full of the private economy. in accordance with the nationalization of the mind the state-owned should have brought more social welfare, we should see the exact opposite of the situation.
many people say that China is still in early stages of development, so I can not with the United States and other countries than the market economy. mm This argument is untenable. the United States last year's tax revenue accounts for only 18% of GDP, while China accounted for 5.1 trillion yuan GDP, financial revenue 20%. So, if not state-owned enterprises and state capital gains income, tax revenue alone, the Chinese government relative incomes higher than the U.S., there is no reason to lower the proportion of expenditure on livelihood of the people the United States. The Chinese government is not without money, but not the substance of the budget oversight process that the government is more inclined to image more money Hou projects, government office buildings to waste, in the high resource consumption, high pollution and create jobs not to invest in industrial projects, of course, provides a breeding ground for corruption.
because of too much income and assets in China lies in the national wealth hands, rather than more income, more assets from the private to the consumer, to invest, so that the services sector with the livelihood of the people close to the development is difficult. the people to enjoy the wealth share of the income and assets of low circumstances, the development of tertiary industry investment and consumer demand need to come from?
Since the U.S. government to stimulate the economy from the subprime mortgage crisis to come out and give each a direct tax rebate checks sent people to their own money back to taxpayers to spend, then the Chinese government to control society so much revenue, so many of the Wealth of the case, why not put some taxes, state-owned enterprise profits, asset value returned to the Chinese state-owned home?, for example, also send them the bill? nationals were also the direct share dividend that state-owned enterprises. Of course, it is best to privatization of many state-owned enterprise assets and give the land back to farmers, because they have been our own people.