SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Maliye Dergisi / 2021 / Sayı: 180

Social Parafiscal Income Elasticity: Comparison Between Turkey and OECD

Sosyal Parafiskal Gelir Esnekliği: Türkiye ve OECD Karşılaştırması

Filiz GİRAY
Özgür Mustafa ÖMÜR
Pages
61–75
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result of the analysis, a significant and positive relationship was determined between the change in gross domestic product (GDP) by year and the change in total social security contributions by year

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Social parafiscal income, which is the source of funding for social security services, is the type of income that has the largest share in public income after taxes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Social parafiscal revenues are the main source of funding for social security services, which make up a significant proportion of welfare spending.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the analysis, a significant and positive relationship was determined between the change in gross domestic product (GDP) by year and the change in total social security contributions by year
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2001-2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Social parafiscal income, which is the source of funding for social security services, is the type of income that has the largest share in public income after taxes. Social parafiscal revenues are the main source of funding for social security services, which make up a significant proportion of welfare spending. The aim of this study is to analyze social parafiscal income elasticity of Turkey and other OECD (Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation) member countries comparatively, using panel data method based on data for the period 2001-2019. As a result of the analysis, a significant and positive relationship was determined between the change in gross domestic product (GDP) by year and the change in total social security contributions by year

Özet

Sosyal güvenlik hizmetlerinin finansman kaynağı olan sosyal parafiskalgelirler vergilerden sonra kamu gelirleri içinde en fazla paya sahip olangelir türüdür. Sosyal parafiskal gelirler refah harcamalarının önemli birkısmını meydana getiren sosyal güvenlik hizmetlerinin temel finansmankaynağını oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı sosyal parafiskal geliresnekliğini, 2001-2019 dönemi verilerine dayalı olarak Türkiye ve diğerOECD (Ekonomik Kalkınma ve İşbirliği Teşkilatı) üyesi ülkelerlekarşılaştırmalı olarak panel veri yöntemi ile analiz etmektir. Analizsonucunda gayrisafi yurtiçi hasılada (GSYH) yıllara göre değişim ile toplamsosyal güvenlik primlerinin yıllara göre değişimi arasında anlamlı ve pozitifyönlü ilişki tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GİRAY, F., ÖMÜR, Ö. M. (2021). Social Parafiscal Income Elasticity: Comparison Between Turkey and OECD. Maliye Dergisi, Sayı: 180, 61–75. https://ajindex.com/articles/357372

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Adam, A. ve Kammas, P. (2007), “Tax Policies in a Globalized World: Is it Politics After All?”, Public Choice, 133(3/4), 321–341. Álvarez-Martínez, M.T. ve Polo, C. (2014), “Reduce Employers’ Social Securiy Contributions and Control Labor Fraud: Remedies for Spain’s Ailing Economy?”, Economic Systems Research, 26(2), 141–154.
  2. Bauer, T.K. ve Riphahn, R.T. (2002), “Employment Effects of Payroll Taxes-An Empirical Test for Germany”, Applied Economics, (34), 865-876.
  3. Belinga, V., Benedek, D., Mooij, R.A. ve Norregaard, J. (2014), “Tax Buoyancy in OECD Countries”, IMF Working Paper, 14/110. Bilquees, F. (2004), “Elasticity and Buoyancy of the Tax System in Pakistan”, The Pakistan Development Review, 43(1), 73–93.
  4. Boeri, T. ve Ours, J.V. (2013), The Economics of Imperfect Labor Markets, Second Edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  5. Boschia, M. ve d’Addonab, S. (2019), “The Stability of Tax Elasticities over the Business Ccycle in European Countries”, Fiscal Studies, 40(2), 113-127.
  6. Bulut, M. (2012), “Türkiye Verilerine Göre Özel Sektörde Bağımlı Çalışanlar Açısından Sosyal Parafiskal Gelir (Prim) Esnekliği ve Canlılığının Tahmin Edilmesi”, HAK-İŞ Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 1(2), 152-163.
  7. Caminada, K. ve Goudswaard, K. (1996), “Progression and Revenue Effects of Income Tax Reform”, International Tax and Public Finance, (3), 57–66.
  8. Cotton, J.J. (2012), “The Buoyancy and Elasticity of Non-Oil Tax Revenues in Trinidad and Tobago (1990-2009)”,
  9. Working Paper, WP06/2012, 1-32.
  10. Çalışkan, Z. (2009), “OECD Ülkelerinde Sağlık Harcamaları: Panel Veri Analizi”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, (34), 117-137.
  11. Egger, P. ve Radulescu, D.M. (2011), “Labor Taxation and Foreign Direct Investment”, Scandinavia Journal of Economics, 113(3), 603-636.
  12. European Commission (2020), Taxation Trends in the European Union, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Fonseca, F.J. ve Ventosa-Santaulària, D. (2011), “Revenue Elasticity of the Main Federal Taxes in Mexico”, Latin American Journal of Economics, 48(1), 89-111.
  13. Giray, F. (2020), Türkiye’de Paarfiskal Gelirler, Bursa: Dora Basım-Yayın Dağıtım ltd. Şti. Girouard, N. ve André, C. (2005), “Measuring Cyclicallyadjusted Budget Balances for OECD Countries”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 434. Goudswaard, K. ve Caminada, K. (2015), “Social Security Contributions: Economic and Public Finance Considerations”, International Social Security Review, 68(4), 25-45.
  14. Grand, J.L., Propper, C. ve Robinson,