Saturday, December 5, 2015

Georgian tax reform's lessons for Ukraine

Dimitri Gvindadze

What was it?
The number of taxes in Georgia – 21 in 2004 – was reduced to 6 by 2008. Taxation became flat. Value-added tax decreased from 20 percent in 2004 to 18 percent in 2006. Social tax (33 percent in 2004) was reduced to 20 percent in 2005 and then abolished by 2008. Personal income tax (12-20 percent in 2004) became a flat 20 percent from 2009. Corporate income tax was reduced from 20 percent in 2004 to 15 percent in 2008. Dividend and interest income tax was reduced from 10 percent in 2004 to 5 percent in 2009. Georgia emerged with no fiscally insignificant and “special” taxes, no payroll or social insurance tax, no capital gains tax, no wealth tax, no inheritance tax or stamp duty, no property transfer tax, and no tax on foreign-source income of individuals.
In 2011, parliament adopted the ‘Liberty Act’ which obliged the government to submit to a referendum any introduction of new national taxes (except excise) or any increase of the existing tax rates (except when a new tax replaces an existing national tax without increasing the tax burden). This meant that any permanent tax increase could materialize only in truly extraordinary circumstances.
Why did it succeed?

The tax policy liberalization – endorsed by the Ministry of Finance of Georgia as part of a broad political consensus – benefitted from the virtuous circle. As much as it helped to broaden the tax base and to increase revenues, the positive tax revenue response was, importantly, shaped by other indispensable factors and reforms which unfolded from the beginning of 2004, in the run-up to the mentioned tax policy liberalization measures:
1. Transformative and decisive leadership which manifested itself through zero tolerance of crime, corruption and embezzlement (replacing old staff, change in staff incentives etc.), front-loaded overhaul of the system of law enforcement and of administration of justice and the existence of a critical mass of people willing to go beyond a generalist reformist discourse by taking personal risks to get things done fast.
2. Comprehensive institutional transformation of the tax and customs administration which enabled, early on, to close loopholes and tax avoidance schemes, to cut middlemen and to change personnel; to progressively streamline business processes, consolidate databases, mainstream risk-based audits, enact e-solutions, enhance service orientation, customize outreach to businesses through provision of on-demand services, modernize infrastructure and eventually rebrand the Revenue Service to emphasize openness and accessibility.
3. Increase of Georgia’s potential growth rate through wide-ranging business climate improvement measures: liberalization of trade and transportation, deep deregulation and modernization of agencies delivering public services, simplification of the labor legislation, massive privatization of enterprises and of the state property together with corporatization of a small number of remaining state owned enterprises, pro-active engagement with international investors.
4. Macroeconomic stability: exchange rate stability in the context of unrestricted capital mobility, absence of balance of payments gaps, healthy banking sector, conservative fiscal planning (government’s recurrent revenues were constantly higher than current expenditures; recurrent spending, including government consumption and subsidies, was tightly controlled to prevent emergence of a “premature welfare state”), etc.
How did it succeed?
The ratio of total annual tax and customs revenues to gross domestic product increased from 14 percent in 2003 to close to 26 percent in 2007 and stabilized at the level of approximately 25 percent of GDP thereafter. General government expenditure as a percentage of GDP increased from approximately 16.5 percent in 2003 to close to 30 percent in 2007 and thereafter, with capital spending representing around one quarter of such expenditure. Average monthly salaries in the public sector increased from $50 in 2003 to $400 in 2012, and in the non-public sector from $80 in 2003 to $450 in 2012. Old age pensions increased from $6.50 in 2003 to $90 in 2013, which was slightly higher than the subsistence minimum for an average consumer.
The takeaway for Ukraine
Drastic tax rates cut alone – without both prior and concurrent law enforcement and structural reforms to close loopholes and tax avoidance schemes and to increase potential economic growth – represents significant leap into the unknown. It can undermine Ukraine’s fiscal stability and confidence.



No comments:

Post a Comment