Книги по разным темам
Pages: | 1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 24 | 18,4
-2,3
17,1
7,4
18,0
15,7
11,5
15,7
Table 7.10
Scenario based estimates of expenditures ofmunicipal entities across regions
Scenarios of expenditures of municipal entities | Deviation from the evolutionary scenario in shares of adaptedmunicipal expenditures in the region at large (%) | |||||||||||
YevreyskayaAO | Komi-PermyakAO | Amuroblast | Kabardian-Balkarian Republic | Rostovoblast | Tveroblast | ChuvashRepublic | Novosibirskoblast | Saratovoblast | Krasnoyarskkrai | Leningradoblast | Sverdlovskoblast | |
Radical | -30,2 | -40,1 | -28,3 | -55,1 | -58,6 | -33,2 | -48,3 | -43,1 | -41,3 | -33,5 | -22,7 | -35,0 |
Intermediateradical | -25,6 | -35,9 | -24,6 | -46,6 | -29,6 | -29,1 | -42,4 | -35,9 | -36,0 | -28,6 | -17,3 | -29,1 |
Intermediatemoderate | -9,3 | -11,2 | -10,4 | -16,4 | -10,8 | -7,3 | -24,1 | -13,3 | -17,3 | -10,8 | -5,1 | -8,8 |
Table 7.11
Comparison between additional expendituresand additional revenues of municipal entities across regions
а | Increase / decrease in shares of adapted municipal expenditures inthe region at large (%) | |||||||||||
YevreyskayaAO | Komi-PermyakAO | Amuroblast | Kabardian-Balkarian Republic | Rostovoblast | Tveroblast | ChuvashRepublic | Novosibirskoblast | Saratovoblast | Krasnoyarskkrai | Leningradoblast | Sverdlovskoblast | |
Additional expenditures | 12,5 | 21,4 | 15,2 | 7,4 | 18,4 | -2,3 | 17,1 | 7,4 | 18 | 15,7 | 11,5 | 15,7 |
Additional revenues (salestax is retained) | 4,7 | 5,9 | 13,2 | 11,6 | 19,8 | 15,7 | 15 | 21,1 | 20,9 | 11 | 18 | 25,1 |
Additional revenues (salestax is abolished) | 4 | 3,5 | 11,9 | 8,9 | 15 | 8,8 | 2,8 | 12,7 | 10,7 | 11 | 18 | 17,7 |
Table 7.12
Increase in revenues of local budgets at theexpense of assignment
of federal shares incertain revenue sources to municipal entities (in %)
Tax / non-taxrevenues | Increase in revenues of local budgets at the expense of federalshares | |
2001 | 2002 (10months.) | |
Single tax levied inrelation to the application of the simplified taxation system | 0,28 | 0,14 |
Single tax on imputedincome for certain types of activities | 1,21 | 0,74 |
Land tax | 0,69 | 0,41 |
Rental payments for land | 0,66 | 0,36 |
Total | 2,85 | 1,65 |
Memorandum: additional share of adapted municipal expendituresfinanced at the expense of these sources | 3,03 | 2,07 |
Table 7.13
Variants of assignment of revenue sources tolocal budgets selected for analysis
а | 1.1 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 4.2 |
Income tax | 25% -guaranteed, 50% - equalizing parts | 0% | 20% ofcontingent | 20% -guaranteed, 35% - equalizing parts |
Single tax on imputedincome | 90% | 90% | 90% | 90% |
Single tax levied inrelation to the application of the simplified taxation system | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% |
Personal asset tax(ref.) | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Tax onenterprises’ property(ref) | 100% | 50% | 50% | 50% |
Land tax and rentalpayments for land | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Local taxes andcharges | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Table 7.14
Results of the assignment of revenue sourcesto local budgets in the framework
of differentexpenditure scenarios across regions
1.1 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 4.2 | |||||
on average across 12regions | number of regions withthe best indicators | on average across 12regions | number of regions withthe best indicators | on average across 12regions | number of regions withthe best indicators | on average across 12regions | number of regions withthe best indicators | |
difference between the min. andmax. shares of expenditures covered by assigned revenues (%) | 63,5 | 1 | 62,8 | 7 | 64,7 | 0 | 57,0 | 4 |
Overall deficit (%) | 48,9 | 7 | 63,4 | 1 | 56,1 | 3 | 53,1 | 1 |
Coefficient of variation(%) | 38,0 | 7 Pages: | 1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 24 | Книги по разным темам
|