所得分配不均與租稅負擔之關係：跨國實證分析

The Relationship between Income Distribution Inequality and Tax Burden:Cross-Country Evidence

劉祐銓

所得分配 ； 租稅負擔 ； 分量迴歸 ； Income distribution ； Tax burden ； Quantile regression

臺中科技大學財政稅務系租稅管理與理財規劃碩士班學位論文

2016年

碩士

顏志達

繁體中文

本文以1995年至2012年共115個國家的非平衡追蹤資料進行實證分析，主要係探討所得分配不均與租稅負擔的關係。也參考以往文獻所提出有關影響所得分配不均的因素，因此我們得以從租稅負擔、經濟發展、開放程度、女性勞動參與率、失業率、人口密度、人口成長率、政府補貼及城市化程度的角度，切入探討它們各自對於所得分配不均度的影響。除了以普通最小平方法進行實證分析，並搭配分量迴歸法，以了解租稅負擔等因素在不同分量下對所得分配的影響。 本研究的普通最小平方法估計結果顯示:租稅負擔、開放程度、人口密度及政府補貼，對所得分配不均有顯著的負向影響。而經濟發展、女性勞動參與率、失業率、人口成長率及城市化程度，對所得分配不均有顯著的正向影響。相較於普通最小平方法的估計結果，分量迴歸的估計結果顯示:政府補貼不論在任何分量，對所得分配不均有顯著的負向影響；而失業率、人口成長率及城市化程度，不論在任何分量，對所得分配不均有顯著的正向影響；租稅負擔在較低分量（0.1至0.5分量）國家中有顯著負向的影響，對於較高分量（0.6至0.9分量）國家無解釋能力。換句話說，在所得分配不均度較低的國家中，提高該國居民的租稅負擔，會使得所得分配不均度降低；經濟發展及女性勞動參與率分別在較低分量（0.1至0.4分量）及中低分量（0.1至0.6分量）國家中有顯著正向的影響；相反的，人口密度在高分量（0.7至0.9分量）國家中有顯著負向的影響；開放程度除了在極端高分量（0.9 分量）的部分無解釋能力外，其餘分量皆呈現顯著負向的影響。

This research conducts an empirical analysis of unbalanced tracking data of 115 countries from 1995 to 2012, mainly aimed at exploring the relationship between inequality in income distribution and tax burden. It also refers to factors that cause inequality in income distribution mentioned in previous literature, so we can explore the effects of tax burden, economic development, the level of openness, female labor force participation rate, unemployment rate, population density, population growth rate, government subsidy and urbanization level on inequality in income distribution respectively. Besides using ordinary least squares, it also uses quantile regression to learn about the effects of tax burden and other factors on income distribution. The empirical results of the ordinary least squares show tax burden, the level of openness, population density and government subsidy have significant negative effects on inequality in income distribution, while economic development, female labor force participation rate, unemployment rate, population growth rate and urbanization level have significant positive effects on inequality in income distribution. The results of quantile regression show government subsidy has significant negative effects on inequality in income distribution no matter what its component is; unemployment rate, population growth rate and urbanization level have significant positive effects on inequality in income distribution no matter what their income distribution are; the tax burden has significant negative effects in countries where its income distribution is low (0.1~0.5) and doesn’t have explanatory power for countries where its income distribution is higher (0.6~0.9). In other words, improving the tax burden of residents in countries where the inequality in income distribution is low can reduce the inequality in income distribution; economic development and female labor force participation rate have significant positive effects in countries where their income distribution are lower (0.1~0.4) and medium-low (0.1~0.6) respectively; to the contrary, population density has significant negative effects in countries where its income distribution is high (0.7~0.9); the level of openness has significant negative effects except having no explanatory power for countries where its income distribution is extremely high (0.9).

1. 林金源與朱雲鵬，2003，〈移轉所得對台灣所得分配的影響〉，《人文及社會科
   連結：
2. 林維徵，2008，〈台灣家戶的所得分配：分量迴歸之擬真分析〉，國立暨南國際大學經濟學系研究所碩士論文。
   連結：
3. 俞哲民，2009，〈人口老化對於所得分配之影響―以臺灣二十三個縣市為例〉，國立政治大學財政研究所碩士論文。
   連結：
4. 徐美、莊奕琦與陳晏羚，2015，〈台灣家戶所得不均度來源分析初探〉，《社會科學論叢》，第9卷第1期：1-32。
   連結：
5. 莊希豐及陳亞為，2011，〈貿易開放與所得不均：以門檻迴歸法分析〉，《經濟研究》，第47卷第2期：185-224。
   連結：
6. 鄭保志與李宜，2010，〈台灣政府各項移轉收支的重分配效果比較：1976~2006之全面性與局部性分析〉，《經濟論文叢刊》，第38卷第2期：233~288。
   連結：
7. Baer, W. and A. F. Galvão Jr. (2008),“Tax burden, government expenditures and income distribution in Brazil.”The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance,48,345–358.
   連結：
8. Bahmani-Oskooee,M. and Gelan A. (2011),“Kuznets Inverted-U Hypothesis Revisited: A Time-Series Approach Using US Data.”Applied Economics Letters,15,677–681.
   連結：
9. Breau, S.(2015),“Rising inequality in Canada: A regional perspective.”Applied Geography,61,58-69.
   連結：
10. Chen, A. (2002),“Urbanization and disparities in China: challenges of growth and development.”China EconomicReview,13,407–411.
    連結：
11. Engel, E. M.R.A.,Galetovic, A. and Raddatz, C. E. (1999),“Taxes and income distribution in Chile: some unpleasant redistributive arithmetic.”Journal of Development Economics,59, 155–192.
    連結：
12. Fahad, I. and Rehmat, A. (2013),“Impact Of Macroeconomic Policies On Poverty Alleviation In Pakistan”Romanian Economic Business Review, 8(4),48-60.
    連結：
13. Gustafsson,B. and Johansson, M. (2003),“Steps toward equality: How and why income inequality in urban Sweden changed during the period 1925-1958.”European Review of Economic History, 7,191-211.
    連結：
14. Hoeller, P., Joumard, I. and Koske, I.(2014),“Reducing Income Inequality While Boosting Economic Growth: Can It Be Done? Evidence from OECD Countries.”The Singapore Economic Review, 59(1), 1450001-1-1450001-22.
    連結：
15. Huber, E. and Stephens, J. (2014),“Income Inequality and Redistribution in Post-industrial Democracies: Demographic, Economic and Political Determinants.”Socio-Economic Review,12, 245–267.
    連結：
16. Karunaratne, H. D. (2000),“Age as a Factor Determining Income Inequality in Sri Lanka”The Developing Economies,38 (2), 211-242.
    連結：
17. Kanseitkizi, K. A.,Viktorovna, K. T., Mintaevich, M. B. and Baigozhaevich, Z. E. (2012),“Income tax on individuals in the Republic of Kazakhstan:“Fairness and efficiency”compromise”African Journal of Business Management,6(27), 8178-8186.
    連結：
18. Nieswiadomy, M., Slottje, D. J. and Hayes, K. (1991),“The Impact of Unionization, Right-to-Work Laws, and Female Labor Force Participation on Earnings Inequality across States.”Journal of Labor Research, 12(2), 185-195.
    連結：
19. Odedokun,M.O. and Round, J. I. (2004),“Determinants of Income Inequality and Its Effects on Economic Growth: Evidence from African Countries.”African Development Review Volume,16(2),287-327.
    連結：
20. Rubin, A.and Segal, D. (2015),“The effects of economic growth on income inequality in the US.”Journal of Macroeconomics,45,258–273.
    連結：
21. 一、中文部分
22. 學集刊》，第15卷第3期：501-538。
23. 徐偉初，2011，〈臺灣租稅制度所得重分配效果之研究:2001-2011之個體模擬分析〉，《財稅研究》，第43卷第1期：1-66。
24. 葉金標，1995，〈租稅負擔與所得分配:轉嫁與歸宿之分析〉，國立中興大學財政學研究所碩士論文。
25. 張素梅，1983，〈家庭所得分配之決定因素－台灣地區總體時間數列資料分析〉，《經濟論文叢刊》，第11卷：109-132。
26. 劉鶯釧、張清溪，1987，〈妻子勞動報酬對家庭所得分配的影響—台灣個案研究〉，《經濟論文叢刊》，第25卷第2期：509-533。
27. 二、英文部分
28. Chakrabarti, A.(2000),“Does Trade Cause Inequality?”Journalof Economic Development, 25(2),1-21.
29. Kozuharov, S., Pektovski, V. and Ristovska, N. (2015),“The Impact Of Taxes Measured By Gini Index In Macedonia” UTMS Journal of Economics, 6 (1),41–52.