13_gabriela_dobrota

8/2/2019 13_GABRIELA_DOBROTA

1/10

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 1/2011

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 1/2011

157

PRESIUNEA FISCAL LA NIVELUL

STATELOR MEMBRE UE

Prof. univ. dr.DOBROT GABRIELAAsist. univ. drd.CHIRCULESCU MARIA

FELICIAUniversitatea Constantin Brncui Tg Jiu,

Facultatea de tiine Economice i Gestiunea

Afacerilor

Rezumat:

Gradul de dezvoltare al unei economii estedeterminat ntr-o proporie nsemnat de structurasistemului fiscal, de modul n care acesta i exercitfunciile i asigur colectarea resurselor necesarestatului. Un randament fiscal ridicat, pe fondulacceptabilitii prevederilor fiscale reprezint condiiiideale ale oricrui sistem fiscal. n acest context, esteevident faptul c majoritatea sistemelor fiscale ausuportat modificri importante, sub impactul aciuniiunui sistem complex de factori. Creterea nevoii deresurse la nivelul diferitelor state s-a reflectat nncercri de identificare a raportului ce permite attasigurarea fondurilor necesare ct i dezvoltareaeconomici social a acestora. Cuantificarea presiuniifiscale la nivelul state membre ale UE evideniaz o

palet larg de rate ale fiscalitii. n lucrare esterealizat a analiz comparativ a gradului de fiscalitaten statele membre ale UE.

Cuvinte cheie: presiune fiscal, impozite directe,

impozite indirecte

1. Limite ale presiunii fiscale ncadrul analizelor comparativeCe este presiunea fiscal? n literatura de

specialitate se ntlnesc numeroaseaccepiuni, majoritatea fundamentnd acestindicator ca raport ntre veniturile ncasatedin impozite i taxe (inclusiv contribuiisociale) ntr-o perioad de timp determinati

produsul intern brut realizat n aceeaiperioad. Evident, este vorba de presiuneafiscal la nivel naional, fiind posibil nsistabilirea acestuia la nivelul ageniloreconomici sau la nivelul indivizilor. Aparent,gradul de fiscalitate poate fi determinat cu

uurin i nu ar trebui s se nregistreze

THE FISCAL PRESSURE IN THE EU

MEMBER STATES

DOBROT GABRIELA Professor PhD.CHIRCULESCU MARIA FELICIA

Assistant PhD. candidateUniversity Constantin Brncui Trgu Jiu

Abstract:

The development of an economy is

determined in a significant proportion by the taxsystem structure, by how it exercises its functions andensures the collection of state resources. A high taxefficiency, due to the acceptability of tax provisionsare the ideal conditions of any tax system. In thiscontext, it is obvious that most tax systems haveundergone significant changes under the impact ofthe action of a complex system of factors. Increasedneed for resources in various countries was reflectedin attempts to identify the relationship that allows

both the securing of the necessary funds and theireconomic and social development. Thequantification of the fiscal pressure on the EU

member states show a wide range of tax rates. Thispaper makes a comparative analysis of the degree oftaxation in the EU member states.

Key words:fiscal pressure, direct taxes, indirecttaxes

1. Limits of fiscal pressure in thecomparative analysisWhat is the fiscal pressure? In thespecialized literature are found many

meanings, mostly basing this indicator as aratio between the revenue received fromtaxes and duties (including socialcontributions) in a period of time and grossdomestic product in the same period.Obviously, this is the national fiscal

pressure, it is possible, however, todetermine it at the level of companies orindividuals. Apparently, the level of taxationcan be easily determined and should not beimpediments in achieving comparative

8/2/2019 13_GABRIELA_DOBROTA

2/10

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 1/2011

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 1/2011

158

impedimente n realizarea unor analizecomparative la nivelul unor ri diferite. itotui, obinerea unor rezultate pertinente nueste un obiectiv realizabil dac nu se au n

vedere o serie de elemente, ntre care senscriu: nivelul de trai, structura prelevrilorobligatorii, sistemul de protecie social,

politica deficitului bugetar, stabilitateaveniturilor fiscale, structura demografic,elementele specifice fiecrei ri privindcomponena veniturilor fiscale precum inivelul la care se iau n considerare, structura

proprietii, nivelul democraiei, gradul depercepere a obligaiilor fiscale de ctrecontribuabili ca suporturi ale satisfacerii

nevoilor publice i nu ca poveri apstoare,gradul de colectare a veniturilor fiscale.

Nivelul presiunii fiscale este unelement important n determinareacomportamentului contribuabililor. Astfel,realizarea plii de bunvoie este posibil

pn la o anumit limit, peste aceastacontribuabilul ncercnd s eludeze o parte aveniturilor impozabile pentru a obine odiminuare a presiunii fiscale. n consecin,deciziile contribuabilului cu privire la

utilizarea venitului sunt influenate defluctuaiile presiunii fiscale. Creterea

presiunii fiscale descurajeaz economisirea iinvestiiile, deoarece impozitul pe venitlovete suma total economisit i venitulviitor rezultat din utilizarea economisirii. nacest context, pe fondul unei rate deimpozitare ridicat, contribuabilul poatedecide diminuarea nivelului efortului depusn favoarea unei perioade mai mari afectattimpului liber sau majorarea consumurilor ndetrimentul economiilor. De asemenea,opiunea pentru evaziunea fiscal pare s fieo rezolvare a problemelor generate de ofiscalitate excesiv pentru muli contribuabili(dei manifestarea evaziunii fiscale este orealitate la nivelul tuturor economiilor dintotdeauna, practica a evideniat faptul caceasta se manifest cu pregnan pe fondulunor rate de impozitare ridicate). Nu trebuieneglijat nici influena pe care o are

fiscalitatea asupra inflaiei. Astfel, o majorare

analysis of different countries.And yet, obtaining relevant results is

not an achievable goal if you do not takeinto account several elements, among which

are: the standard of living, the structure ofcompulsory levies, the system of socialprotection, the policy of budget deficit, taxrevenue stability, demographic structure,country-specific factors on the compositionof tax revenues and the level to be taken intoaccount, ownership structure, level ofdemocracy, the degree of collection of taxliabilities by taxpayers that meet the needsof the public and not as heavy burdens,thedegree of the collection of tax revenue.

The level of fiscal pressure is animportant element in determining the

behavior of taxpayers. Thus, it is possible toachieve voluntary payment to a certain limit,and going beyond that the taxpayer will betrying to circumvent a part of taxableincome to achieve a reduction in fiscal

pressure.Consequently, the decisions of the

taxpayers regarding his incomes are affectedby fluctuations in fiscal pressure. Increasing

the fiscal pressure discourages saving andinvestment because the income tax hits thetotal amount saved and the income provided

by future savings. In this context, due tohigh tax rates, taxpayers may decide toreduce the level of effort for a longer perioddeciding to devote more time to leisure orincreasing their consumption at the expenseof savings.

Also, the option of tax evasion

seems to be a solution to problems resultingfrom an excessive fiscal pressure for many

taxpayers (although tax evasion is a

manifestation of reality in all economies, the

practice has shown that it occurs more amid

high tax rates). Not be neglected is the

influence that taxation has on inflation.

Thus, a tax increase will be reflected

immediately through the sale prices of the

goods or services, which will generate

8/2/2019 13_GABRIELA_DOBROTA

3/10

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 1/2011

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 1/2011

159

a impozitelor va fi reflectat imediat prinintermediul preurilor de vnzare al bunurilorsau serviciilor, fapt ce va genera solicitri din

partea salariailor n sensul majorrii

salariilor. Legat de creterea preurilordatorit majorrii impozitelor este i un altaspect important, reprezentat de afectareagradului de competitivitate al unei economiin plan internaional.

2. Presiunea fiscal n statelemembre ale Uniunii Europene

Dac analizm presiunea fiscalexercitat de impozitele directe (tabelul nr. 1)observm c presiunea aferent acestora tinde

s fie mai ridicat n rile n careredistribuirea veniturilor constituie unobiectiv important al autoritilorguvernamentale, precum Danemarca, Suedia,Finlanda, Belgia sau Marea Britanie.Valoarea medie la nivelul ntregului grupUE27 a presiunii fiscale aferente impozitelordirecte oscileaz n perioada de analiz n

jurul valorii de 11,7%.Creteri semnificative ale presiunii

fiscale aferente impozielor directe s-au

nregistrat n perioada de analiz n riprecum Cipru (de la 8,8% n anul 1999 la11,2% n anul 2009), Malta (de la 8,3% nanul 1999 la 13,9% n anul 2009) i Slovenia(de la 6,9% n anul 1999 la 9,0% n anul2009). n cazul Maltei creterea se datoreazn principal impozitrii veniturilor societilorcomerciale, n cazul creia a fost lrgitconsiderabil baza de impozitare i a fostmbuntit eficiena colectrii. n Cipru,creterea se datoreaz impozitului aezatasupra veniturilor din capital ale societilorcomerciale i ale gospodriilor i creterilorspectaculoase nregistrate n sectorulimobiliari al construciilor n anul 2007. ncazul Letoniei, creterea presiunii fiscaleaferente impozitelor directe se datoreazimpozitului pe profit, care a adus ncasricrescnde, n ciuda faptului c nu au fostoperate modificri ale cotei de impozitare.

demands from employees in increasing the

wages. Connected to price increases, due to

higher taxes arises another important aspect,

represented by the affecting of the degree of

competitiveness in the international

economy.

2. The fiscal pressure in theMember States of the European Union

If we look at fiscal pressure exerted

by direct taxes (Table no. 1) we can see that

their corresponding pressure tends to be

higher in countries where income

redistribution is an important objective ofgovernment authorities, such as Denmark,

Sweden, Finland, Belgium and UK . The

average value of the group-wide EU27 of

the directfiscal pressure of taxes during the

analysis oscillates around 11.7%.

Significant increases in the fiscal

pressure related to direct taxes were

recorded during the analysis of countries

like Cyprus (from 8.8% in 1999 to 11.2% in2009), Malta (from 8.3% in 1999 to 13.9%

in 2009) and Slovenia (from 6.9% in 1999 to

9.0% in 2009).

In Malta the increase mainly due to

revenue taxes for company,for which the tax

base was significantly expanded and the tax

collection was efficiently improved. In

Cyprus, the increase is due to taxes on

income from the capital of companies andhouseholds and the spectacular increases

recorded in property and construction

sectors in 2007. In Latvia, the increased

fiscal pressure of direct taxes is due to

income taxes, that brought increased

revenue, despite the fact that there have been

no changes to the tax rate.

8/2/2019 13_GABRIELA_DOBROTA

4/10

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 1/2011

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 1/2011

160

Presiunea fiscal aferent impozitelor directen rile UE, n perioada 1995-2009 (%)

Surs: www.europa.eu.int, Statistica EurostatPrelucrri proprii pe daza datelor de pe Eurostat

Reduceri importante ale presiunii

fiscale aferente impozitelor directe s-aunregistrat n ri precum Slovacia (de la10,8% n anul 1995 la 6,0% n anul 2009),Suedia (de la 19,8% n anul 1995 la 17,0% nanul 2009), Polonia (de la 11,7% n anul 1995la 7,4% n anul 2009), Irlanda (de la 13,6% nanul 1995 la 10,3% n anul 2009) i nEstonia (de la 10,9% n anul 1995 la 7,6% nanul 2009). n Suedia, reducerea presiuniifiscale aferente impozitelor directe n

perioada supus analizei constituie o

consecin a ncetinirii ritmului de cretereeconomic. n Bulgaria, reducerea acestuiindicator se datoreaz unor importante msuride politic fiscal promovate de autoritileguvernamentale: reducerea cu dou treimi acotei de impozit pe profit n anul 2000,modificarea regimului fiscal al amortizriiactivelor imoblizate i o atenaure progresiv acotelor de impozit pe venit, pn laintroducerea impozitrii proporionale n anul2008. n Slovacia, reducerea se datoreaz

The fiscal pressure related to direct taxes

in EU countries during 1995-2009 (%)

Source: www.europa.eu.int, Eurostat statisticsOwn processing based on data from Eurostat

Significant reductions in fiscal

pressure related to direct taxes has beenrecorded in countries such as Slovakia (from10.8% in 1995 to 6.0% in 2009), Sweden(from 19.8% in 1995 to 17 0% in 2009),Poland (from 11.7% in 1995 to 7.4% in2009), Ireland (from 13.6% in 1995 to10.3% in 2009) and Estonia (from 10.9% in1995 to 7.6% in 2009). In Sweden, reducingthe fiscal pressure related to direct taxes inthe period under review is a result of

slowdown in economic growth. In Bulgaria,the reduction of this indicator is due toimportant fiscal policy measures pursued bythe government: the reduction by two thirdsthe rate of income tax in 2000, the changingin the tax regime for depreciation of fixedassets and the progressive alleviation ofincome tax rates until the introduction of

proportional taxation in 2008. In Slovakia,the reduction is due to the progressive

8/2/2019 13_GABRIELA_DOBROTA

5/10

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 1/2011

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 1/2011

161

deminurilor progresive ale cotelor deimpozitare utilizate n cazul impozitului pe

profit ncepnd cu anul 1999 i nlocuiriisistemului progresiv de impozitare a

veniturilor persoanelor fizice cu un sistem deimpozitare ce folosete o cot proporional.De asemenea, observm c valori

ridicate ale acestui indicator se nregistreazn cazul rilor mai dezvoltate, care au i unnivel mai ridicat al prousului intern brut pelocuitor valori mai reduse nregistrndu-se ncazul rilor mai puin dezvoltate (noile statemembre). De menionat este faptul c n anul2009 Romnia s-a numrat printre rile cucel mai redus nivel al acestui indicator n

cadrul grupului UE27.Dac avem n vedere media presiunii fiscaleaferente impozitelor directe pentru ntreaga

perioad de analiz pentru fiecare ar aeantionului n parte, putem grupa aceste rin patru categorii, conform figurii nr. 3.1.:

Figura nr. 1 Structura prelevrilor obligatorii nPIB la nivelul statelor membre ale Uniunii

Europene, n anul 2009

Evoluia valorilor minime, medii imaxime ale presiunii fiscale aferenteimpozitelor directe indic o distribuieinegal a rilor eantionului, valoareaminim oscilnd n intervalul 5%-8%, ceamedie situndu-se n intervalul 11%-13%, iar

cea maxim n intervalul 29%-31%.

decrease in tax rates of the income tax since1999 and replacing the progressive taxsystem aimed at individual income with asystem that uses a proportional share.

Also, there can be noted that highvalues of this indicator are registered for themore developed countries, which have ahigher level of GDP per resident, lowervalues being recorded for the leastdeveloped countries (new member states). Itis worth mentioning that in 2009 Romaniawas among the countries with the lowestlevel of this indicator in the EU27 group.

If we consider the average fiscalpressure related to direct taxes for the entiresample analysis for each country separately,we group these countries into fourcategories, as shown in Figure no. 3.1.:

Fig.3.1 The average level of fiscal pressure relatedto direct taxes in the EU27, during 1995-2010

The evolution of the minimum, average and

maximum direct fiscal pressure of taxes

indicates an uneven distribution of sample

countries, the minimum amount varying

between 5% -8%, the average hovering

between 11% -13% and the maximum range

29% -31%.

8/2/2019 13_GABRIELA_DOBROTA

6/10

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 1/2011

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 1/2011

162

n ceea ce privete evoluia presiuniifiscale aferente impozitelor indirecte pentrurile din grupul UE27 n perioada 1995-2010(tabelul nr. 2.) observm c rile care

compun eantionul nregistreaz valorii alepresiunii fiscale aferente impozitelor indirecten jurul valorii medii pentru UE27, carevariaz n intervalul 12%-13%. Reducerielocvente ale presiunii fiscale aferenteimpozitelor indirecte s-au nregistrat n

perioada de analiz n cazul Spaniei (de la10,% n anul 1995 la 8,7% n anul 2009),Irlandei (de la 14,5% n anul 1995 la 11,0%n anul 2009), Greciei (de la 12,8% n anul1995 la 11,1% n anul 2009), Spaniei (de la

10,7% n anul 1995 la 8,7% n anul 2009),Slovaciei (14,5% n anul 1995 la 10,3% nanul 2009) i Regatului Unit (de la 13,4% nanul 1995 la 11,6% n anul 2009). Creterisemnificative ale presiunii fiscale aferenteimpozitelor indirecte s-au nregistrat n

perioada de analiz n ri precum Estonia (dela 13,2% n anul 1995 la 15,0% n anul 2009),Cipru (de la 11,4% n anul 1995 la 15,0% nanul 2009), datorit majorrii substaniale aconsumului, i n Suedia (de la 15,9% n anul

1995 la 18,9% n anul 2009).Presiunea fiscal aferent impozitelor indirecte n

rile UE, n perioada 1995-2009 (%)Tab. nr. 2

Regarding the evolution of indirectfiscal pressure of taxes in the EU27 group ofcountries during 1995-2010 (Table no. 2.)there can be noted that countries that make

up the sample, recorded average amount ofindirect fiscal pressure of taxes for theEU27, which varies between 12% -13%.Striking reductions in indirect taxes relatedto fiscal pressure were recorded during theanalysis for Spain (from 10% in 1995 to8.7% in 2009), Ireland (from 14.5% in 1995to 11.0% in 2009), Greece (from 12.8% in1995 to 11.1% in 2009), Spain (from 10.7%in 1995 to 8.7% in 2009) , Slovakia (14.5%in 1995 to 10.3% in 2009) and the UK (from

13.4% in 1995 to 11.6% in 2009).Significant increases in indirect taxes relatedto fiscal pressures were recorded during theanalysis of countries such as Estonia (from13.2% in 1995 to 15.0% in 2009), Cyprus(from 11.4% in 1995 to 15.0% in 2009) dueto substantial increase in consumption, andin Sweden (from 15.9% in 1995 to 18.9% in2009).

The fiscal pressure related to indirect taxes in

EU countries during 1995-2009 (%)Tab. no. 2

8/2/2019 13_GABRIELA_DOBROTA

7/10

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 1/2011

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 1/2011

163

Conform datelor prezentate n tabelulnr. 2, n cazul presiunii fiscale aferenteimpozitelor indirecte, nu mai exist odiscrepan ntre rile dezvoltate i cele mai

puin dezvoltate. Astfel, se nregistreazvalori de peste 14% pentru acest indicatoratt pentru unele ri dezvoltate din cadrulgrupului, precum Danemarca, Suedia, Frana,ct i pentru unele ri n curs de dezvoltare,

precum Bulgaria, Slovenia sau Ungaria.Nivelurile cele mai reduse ale acestuiindicator (sub 12%) se nregistreaz, nspecial, n rile n curs de dezvoltare dincadrul grupului, precum Lituania, Slovacia,Cehia.

Repartizarea rilor ce formeazeantionul pe categorii n funcie de mrimeamedie a presiunii fiscale aferente impozitelorindirecte este redat n figura nr. 2.

Figura nr. 2. Nivelul mediu al presiunii fiscaleaferente impozitelor indirecte n UE27, n perioada

1995-2009

Dac avem n vedere valorile extremei valorile medii nregistrate n perioada deanaliz n cazul presiunii fiscale aferenteimpozitelor indirecte, remarcm faptul cacestea sunt mai puin dispersate dect ncazul presiunii fiscale aferente impozitelordirecte. Valoarea medie a indicatorului pentruntregul grup este una stabil, situndu-se nfiecare an al perioadei de analiz ntre 13,2%i 14,3%, ceea ce reflect n bun msureforturile fiecrui stat membru al UniuniiEuropene n direcia armonizrii legislaiei

According to data presented in thetable. 2, where the fiscal pressure is relatedto indirect taxes, there is a discrepancy

between the developed and less developed

countries. Thus, the values are above 14%for this indicator for both some of thedeveloped countries group, like Denmark,Sweden, France, and for some of the lessdeveloped countries such as Bulgaria,Slovenia and Hungary. Lowest levels of thisindicator (below 12%) are recorded,

particularly in developing countries withinthe group, such as Lithuania, Slovakia,Czech Republic.

The distribution of countries forming

the sample into categories depending on thesize of the average indirect fiscal pressure oftaxes is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. no. 2. The average fiscal pressure of indirecttaxes related EU27 during 1995-2009

If we consider the extreme values

and the medium values recorded during theanalysis of fiscal pressure of indirect taxes,there can be noted that they are lessdispersed than in fiscal pressure of directtaxes. The average value of the indicator forthe whole group is stable, standing in eachyear of the analysis between 13.2% and14.3%, largely reflecting the efforts of eachmember of the European Union toharmonize tax legislation on indirect taxes.

According to the no. 2 schedule and

8/2/2019 13_GABRIELA_DOBROTA

8/10

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 1/2011

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 1/2011

164

fiscale referitoare la impozitele indirecte.Conform graficului nr. 2 i datelor

prezentate n tabelul nr. 2, n anul 2009ponderile cele mai mari ale presiunii fiscale

aferente impozitelor indirecte au fostnregistrate n Danemarca (16,8%) Bulgaria(16,6%), Ungaria (16,3%), Suedia (18,9%),valorile cele mai reduse fiind nregistrate nri precum Cehia (11,4%), Irlanda (11,0%),Spania (8,7%), Letonia (10,6%), Lituania(11,3%) i Slovacia (10,3%).

Graficul nr. 2 Presiunea fiscal aferentimpozitelor indirecte n PIB, n statele membre ale

UE, n anul 2009 comparativ cu anul 2000

Din datele prezentate observm cpeste media comunitar nregistrat n anul2009 (13,2%) se situeaz un numr de 12 ri:Bulgaria (16,6%), Danemarca (16,8%),Estonia (15%), Frana (14,8%), Italia

(13,6%), Cipru (15%), Ungaria (16,3%),Malta (14,2%), Austria (14,6%), Slovenia(14,3%), Finlanda (13,4%) i Suedia (18,9%),iar sub aceast medie se situeaz 15 ri:Belgia (12,6%), Cehia (11,4%), Germania(12,6%), Irlanda (11,0%), Grecia (11,1%),Spania (8,7%), Lituania (11,3%), Luxemburg(11,9%), Letonia (10,6%), Olanda (11,9%),Polonia (12,8%), Portugalia (13,0%),Romnia (11,0%), Slovacia (10,3%) iRegatul Unit (11,6%).

data presented in the table. 2, in 2009 the

share of higher fiscal pressure of indirect

taxes have been recorded in Denmark

(16.8%), Bulgaria (16.6%), Hungary

(16.3%), Sweden (18.9%) lowest values

being registered in countries like the Czech

Republic (11.4%), Ireland (11.0%), Spain

(8.7%), Latvia (10.6%), Lithuania (11.3%)

and Slovakia (10.3%).

Chart 3.1. The fiscal pressure of indirect

taxes in the GDP in the EU member states, in2009 compared with 2000

From the data we see that over the EUaverage recorded in 2009 (13.2%) there area total of 12 countries: Bulgaria (16.6%),Denmark (16.8%), Estonia (15%), France (14.8%), Italy (13.6%), Cyprus (15%),

Hungary (16.3%), Malta (14.2%), Austria(14.6%), Slovenia(14.3%), Finland (13.4%)and Sweden (18.9%), and below thisaverage rank 15 countries: Belgium(12.6%), Czech (11.4%), Germany (12.6%)Ireland (11.0%), Greece (11.1%), Spain(8.7%), Lithuania (11.3%), Luxembourg(11.9%), Latvia (10.6%), Netherlands(11.9%), Poland (12.8%), Portugal (13.0%),Romania (11.0%), Slovakia (10.3%) and UK(11.6%).

8/2/2019 13_GABRIELA_DOBROTA

9/10

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 1/2011

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 1/2011

165

3. Concluziin urma analizei efectuate cu privire la

nivelul presiunii prelevrilor obligatorii nUE27 pe intervalul de timp 1995-2009 am

evideniat urmtoarele: nivelurile cele mai reduse ale acestui

indicator (sub 30%) se nregistreaz,n special, n rile n curs dedezvoltare din cadrul grupului,

precum Bulgaria, Lituania, Romnia; n intervalul 30%-35% al acestui

indicator fac parte: Estonia, Irlanda,Grecia, Spania, Cipru, Letonia, Malta,Polonia, Portugalia Slovacia;

un nivel al presiunii prelevrilorobligatorii cuprins ntre 35%-40% seregsete n urmtoarele state membreale UE27: Cehia, Italia, Luxemburg,Ungaria, Olanda, Slovenia, RegatulUnit;

n intervalul 40%-45% al presiuniiprelevrilor obligatorii sunt cuprinseun numr de 5 ri: Belgia, Germania,Frana, Austria, Finlanda;

Danemarca i Suedia sunt singurelestate membre ale UE27 care

nregistreaz un nivel mediu alpresiunii prelevrilor obligatorii peintervalul de timp cuprins ntre 1995i 2009 peste 45% (Danemarca49,0%, iar Suedia 49,5% ).Analiza efectuat pe elementele

structurale componente ale presiunii fiscaleglobale, pentru acelai eantion i aceeai

perioad de analiz a permis reliefareaurmtoarelor aspecte care caracterizeazsistemele fiscale europene:

presiunea fiscal aferentimpozitelor directe tinde s fie mai ridicat nrile n care redistribuirea veniturilorconstituie un obiectiv important alautoritilor guvernamentale;

valoarea medie a presiunii fiscaleaferente impozitelor directe oscileaz n

perioada de analiz n jurul valorii de 12%; valoarea medie a presiunii fiscale

aferente impozitelor indirecte nu mai exist o

discrepan ntre rile dezvoltate i cele mai

3. ConclusionsThe analysis performed on samples

required pressure level in the EU27 over theperiod 1995-2009 have shown the

following: the lowest levels of this indicator

(below 30%) are recorded,particularly in developing countrieswithin the group, such as Bulgaria,Lithuania, Romania;

within the range 30% -35% of thisindicator are: Estonia, Ireland,Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Latvia,Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia;

compulsory levies pressure levelbetween 35% -40% are found in thefollowing EU27 member states:Czech Republic, Italy, Luxembourg,Hungary, Netherlands, Slovenia,United Kingdom;

within the interval 40% -45% of thepressure of compulsory levies areincluded a number of five countries:Belgium, Germany, France, Austria,Finland;

Denmark and Sweden are the onlymember states of the EU27, whichrecorde an average pressure ofcompulsory levies on the interval oftime between 1995 and 2009 over45% (Denmark 49.0% and Sweden49.5%).

The analysis performed on the componentsof structural elements of the overall fiscal

pressure for the same sample and the sameperiod of analysis has allowed thehighlighting of the following issues thatcharacterize European tax systems:

the fiscal pressure of direct taxestends to be higher in countries where incomeredistribution is an important objective ofgovernment authorities;

the average fiscal pressure relatedto direct taxes during the analysis oscillatesaround 12%;

the average fiscal pressure ofindirect taxes is no longer represents a

discrepancy between developed and less

8/2/2019 13_GABRIELA_DOBROTA

10/10

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria Economie, Nr. 1/2011

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 1/2011

166

puin dezvoltate;valorile presiunilor aferente

contribuiilor sociale sunt relativ dispersate njurul mediei, care este destul de stabil,

situndu-se n fiecare an al perioadei deanaliz foarte aproape de nivelul de 12%;niveluri nalte ale presiunii aferente

contribuiilor sociale se nregistreaz n ri

dezvoltate, vechi state membre ale Uniunii

Europene.

4. Bibliografie1.Brezeanu P., Fiscalitate: Concepte,

teorii, politici i abordri practice, Editura

Wolters Kluwer, Bucureti, 20092. Dobrot, G., Chirculescu M.F.,Tax

policy

and economic development, IECS 2010,The Economic worlds destiny: crisis andglobalisation?, Sibiu, 2010;

3. Dobrot, G., Fiscalitatea direct nRomnia i UE, Analele UCB,Seria Economie, nr. 3/2010, pag.21-30;

4. Talpo Ioan, Enache Cosmin,Fiscalitate aplicat, EdituraOrizonturi Universitare, Timioara,2001

5. Tulai C., erbu Simona, Fiscalitatecomparat i armonizri fiscale, EdituraCasa Crii de tiin, Cluj Napoca, 2005

6. Vcrel I., Bistriceanu Gh. .a.,Finane Publice, Ediia a VI a, EdituraDidactici Pedagogic, Bucureti, 2008

7. ***www.europe.eu.int - legislaiacomunitar privind fiscalitatea

8. ***www.mfinane.ro9. ***www.taxeimpozite.ro10.***www.eurostat.com11.***www.insse.ro

developed; the values of social contributions

related to fiscal pressure are relativelydispersed around the average, which is quite

stable, hovering in each year of the analysisvery close to 12%;high levels of the pressure of

social related contributions are recorded indeveloped countries, old European Unionmember states.

4.References1. Brezeanu P., Taxation:

Concepts, theories, policies and practicalapproaches, Wolters Kluwer Publishing

House, Bucharest, 20092. Dobrot, G., Ungureanu D.,Chirculescu M.F.,Tax policy andeconomic development, IECS 2010, TheEconomic worlds destiny: crisis andglobalisation?, Sibiu, 2010;

3. Dobrot, G., Direct taxation inRomania and European Union, AnaleleUCB, Seria Economie, nr. 3/2010, pag.21-30;

4. Talpo Ioan, Enache Cosmin,Applied taxation, Horizons EducationalPublishing House, Timioara, 2001

5. Tulai C., erbu Simona,Comparative taxation and tax

harmonization, Paper Science PublishingHouse, Cluj Napoca, 2005

6. Vcrel I., BistriceanuGh. D.,and others Public Finance, Sixth Edition -Didactic and Pedagogic PublishingHouse, Bucharest, 2008

7. ***www.europe.eu.int -community law regarding taxation

8.***www.mfinane.ro9.***www.taxeimpozite.ro10. ***www.eurostat.com11. ***www.insse.ro