2013年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Republic_of_Lithuania_Selected_Issues_18页_620kb

报告摘要

Summary of "Republic of Lithuania: Selected Issues"

Core Content

This document provides an analysis of Lithuania's fiscal consolidation efforts from 2009 to 2012, focusing on the composition of measures, their quality, and their impact on income redistribution. It also compares Lithuania's fiscal policies with those of other EU countries and regional peers, highlighting areas for improvement in order to achieve a more sustainable and inclusive fiscal adjustment.

Main Points

A. Introduction

Lithuania implemented significant fiscal adjustment measures, totaling about 17% of GDP, with most of the cuts frontloaded in 2009.
The fiscal deficit decreased from 9.4% of GDP in 2009 to an estimated 3% in 2012.
Public debt rose from 15.5% of GDP in 2008 to around 40% of GDP in 2012.
Further fiscal adjustment is necessary to rebuild fiscal buffers and manage future economic shocks.
Structural fiscal deficits and public debt need to be reduced due to long-term pressures from population aging.

B. Composition of Fiscal Consolidation (2009-12)

Expenditure measures accounted for around 70% of the total fiscal adjustment, while revenue measures contributed only 30%.
Expenditure cuts were broadly applied across spending categories, with capital spending supported by EU funds largely spared to maintain external grants.
Revenue measures focused on indirect taxes and one-off measures, with direct taxes (especially wealth taxes) largely untouched.
The personal income tax (PIT) was reduced, but this was partially offset by increased health insurance contributions.
Quality of measures deteriorated over time, with only about one third of measures being permanent and one fifth being deficit postponing.
Temporary measures were more common and less effective in terms of long-term fiscal sustainability.

C. Fiscal Experience in a Cross-Country Perspective

Lithuania's public sector is the smallest in the EU, with expenditure-to-GDP at 37% and revenue-to-GDP at 32% in 2011.
The overall tax burden in Lithuania is significantly lower than the EU average and regional peers, at 27.2% of GDP.
Taxes on capital and wealth are particularly low, with only 2.3% of GDP in capital taxes and 0.7% in wealth taxes.
Property taxes in Lithuania are below the EU average, at 0.37% of GDP in 2010, while most EU countries collect around 0.75%.
Taxes on labor are relatively flat, with PIT at 15% and social security contributions at a uniform rate.
Implicit tax rates are significantly lower than statutory tax rates, indicating tax compliance issues and loopholes.
Lithuania's tax structure is heavily concentrated on labor and consumption taxes, with limited taxation on capital and wealth.

D. Role of Taxes and Expenditures in Income Redistribution

Lithuania's tax system is relatively regressive, especially at the upper end of the income distribution, due to:
- A flat PIT with limited progressivity.
- Uniform social security contributions on wages.
- Consumption taxes that are less progressive as lower-income households spend a larger share of their income.
The social benefits system has effectively protected the most vulnerable from the crisis, keeping the at-risk-of-poverty rate after transfers similar to pre-crisis levels.
However, Lithuania's at-risk-of-poverty rate remains higher than most regional peers.
Taxes played a limited role in reducing income inequality, contributing only 8% to Gini coefficient reduction in 2010, compared to 50% from social benefits.
The redistributive effect of taxes has declined since 2006, possibly due to worsening tax compliance and growth of the informal economy.
Overall inequality in Lithuania was the highest in the EU in 2010, with the Gini coefficient remaining among the highest.

E. Directions for Sustainable and Inclusive Fiscal Consolidation

The paper recommends shifting the focus of fiscal consolidation from expenditure to revenue measures.
High-quality revenue measures can help reduce inequality, enhance progressivity, and provide a stable revenue source.
Potential revenue-raising options include:
- Expanding wealth taxes to increase progressivity and reduce inequality.
- Broadening property tax bases by lowering the tax-free threshold.
- Introducing annual motor vehicle taxes based on engine capacity or weight.
- Removing tax exemptions and closing loopholes to boost revenue without changing statutory rates.
These reforms should be supported by improvements in tax administration to ensure efficiency and compliance.

F. Conclusions

Lithuania's fiscal adjustment has relied heavily on expenditure cuts, which have deteriorated in quality over time.
The low revenue-to-GDP ratio and regressive tax structure suggest that revenue-based measures offer significant potential for sustainable and inclusive adjustment.
Broad-based, high-quality, and inclusive fiscal measures are essential for long-term stability and growth.
Tax reforms that improve progressivity and collection efficiency are necessary to address fiscal sustainability and income inequality.