Why is the full-caliber fiscal revenue less than the local disposable income?

In recent days, I happened to find that no matter on that website, such as Donghu, Hanwang, Xinhua, Renmin, Sina, Sohu and many other website forums, I saw a group of posts about the general budget revenue of a certain place and Wuhan. I didn't think so at first, but the more I watched it, the more incredible it became. I'm sure that the posts that keep posting these data are some people who look poor in a certain place, always trying to compare the relevant data of Wuhan, just to show that Wuhan can't do it, and now it's their turn to get ahead. That's all! Although I can't see all the website information, I can still imagine that this set of data should exist in almost all the websites they can log in to (including their own websites, of course). Because 1000000 people are almost everywhere in China, there will be traces of their wanderings where there are people, and they will keep YY as a rare "good news". Originally, I was not interested in talking about anything with such a place. I just saw a place that was so funny that I was pulling Wuhan all day, deceiving many people who didn't know it, which was very harmful. If I don't stand up and say a few words about the relevant facts I know, it will seem a bit inappropriate. Just to correct some biased views, as far as I know, I will briefly talk about the topic of local general budget revenue.

A set of data published by various websites is as follows (local general budget revenue and year-on-year growth from June 5 to May 2007):

X state: 8.97 billion yuan, an increase of 33.3%;

Wuhan: 8.803 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 17.7%.

Just for the gap of 65438+67 million yuan, many people are crazy, emotional and insomnia. Let the whole world know that a certain provincial capital city will surpass Wuhan. Others said that they finally saw the hope of surpassing Wuhan. Of course, there are more fantastic words that cannot be expressed one by one. Their excitement and excitement are beyond words, very funny, very funny! In fact, such a set of data, if you want to express it completely, should be like this:

Full-caliber finance/local finance/general budget revenue

X state: no full-caliber finance; 1 1 billion yuan, an increase of 43.0%; 8.97 billion yuan, an increase of 33.3%;

Wuhan: 2626 1 100 million yuan, an increase of 24.7%; 116.06 million yuan, an increase of 23.1%; 8.803 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 17.7%.

Of course, they are not interested in the previous data, and they are not willing to figure out what those data mean.

Fiscal revenue is the non-repayable funds obtained by the state (or region) in accordance with laws and regulations to realize its functions, and it is the source of financial funds at all levels of the state (or local); Fiscal revenue includes general budget revenue, fund budget revenue, special fund revenue, fund allocation revenue and financial working capital revenue. It can be seen that local general budget revenue is an integral part of local fiscal revenue, but it is only a part of it. These concepts are briefly described as follows:

1. General budget revenue: refers to the funds controlled by the state or local government in a planned and organized way through certain forms and procedures and incorporated into the government budget management. The specific division and content of budget revenue items shall be handled in accordance with the national budget revenue subjects. In other words, this is the daily budget revenue of various government departments, the recurrent budget revenue that may occur every day, and the relatively fixed revenue of the government.

2. Fund budget income: government funds with specific purposes, etc. , according to the provisions of the collection, transfer or through the financial arrangements of the year, by the financial management. Such as social endowment insurance fund, unemployment insurance fund, basic medical insurance fund, minimum living security fund, social welfare lottery fund, etc. , through a specific budget arrangement, distribution, transfer, sharing, proportional matching transfer and profit sharing, all belong to local income and are used for specific local directions.

3. Income from special funds: refers to all kinds of special funds used for general budget accounting management, such as grain risk fund, national development zone special construction fund, national industrial base support fund, national ecological zone construction fund, education support and key university education (construction) fund, transportation construction fund and hydropower industry construction fund. , all belong to this category. The income of special-purpose funds is based on the actual amount received by the general budget accounting. Most of these funds are used for national strategic projects or projects encouraged by the state.

4. Income from fund transfer: refers to the income generated by the transfer of funds between different levels of finance and the adjustment of various funds at the same level in accordance with the provisions of the financial system, including subsidy income, the above income and transfer payment funds. This income varies greatly in many places. For example, to solve this problem, many enterprises pay in advance in proportion, and then return it step by step after the budget or final accounts are reviewed the next year, or calculate the allocation step by step the next year. Where there are many central enterprises, it is obviously affected. The most obvious thing is that export tax rebates are often implemented after one year, and the tax rebate income belongs to local fiscal revenue rather than general budget revenue. Because this kind of income is mostly one-off or multiple times, it belongs to targeted special allocation income, not daily, budgetary and recurring income. Similarly, like Tibet, this income should be dozens of times or even higher than the general budget income. It can be seen that the economic structure, industrial structure and development status of different places are very different, and the differences will be very large, so it is impossible to generalize.

5. Financial working capital income: refers to the capital occupation fee income and interest income collected by the financial department in the process of issuing or lending financial working capital. In a place where the absolute amount of funds is large, good at financial management and strict management, the income of this piece is amazing.

In a word, the local fiscal revenue of a region is the revenue that accounts for the total fiscal budget of the region. Local general budget revenue refers to the daily income of accounting of various administrative institutions in the region, and the main difference lies in its different accounting scope. Obviously, the former is the basic standard to measure the total disposable income of a region.

Some people think that Wuhan is much bigger than a certain place, and the general budget revenue should be much more than them, which is normal. As we all know, when the financial burden population is roughly the same, the daily income gap in the budget is not big, which is also the basic reason why the indicators of the two places are not much different. In fact, the total population of the two places is very limited except for incomparable factors, which will be mentioned later. Among them, there are structural differences in economy and differences in economic nature that need to be distinguished. For example, in Wuhan's general budget revenue, tax revenue accounted for 8 1.54% of the general budget revenue, which was 4.23 percentage points higher than the same period last year. This ratio is good all over the country. This shows that at least part of Wuhan's basic income depends on taxes, not the temporary concept of "fees" or a lot of "unwarranted" income that local governments often engage in. In other words, besides the dominant income of basic tax, there is no exorbitant tax. And this is exactly what local governments should pursue. Under normal circumstances, every local government should pursue the clarity of local basic daily income and a high proportion of tax revenue, not the other way around. But this is not the case in some places, and the proportion of "extra-tax fees" is higher. In fact, it is also very simple for local governments to forcibly increase general budget revenue. It can be achieved by selling more land, selling land at high prices, charging more fees, imposing more fines, increasing local income items and collecting corresponding funds at high standards. The difficulty is that the proportion of basic tax revenue in local general budget revenue is higher than others. For example, the newly disclosed 20% increase in house prices in a certain place will soon rank first in the country, which will bring about a high growth in local general budget revenue. However, such growth seems to be possible or even better without it.

What needs to be further explained is that the more complex the economic structure, the deeper and higher the degree of industrialization, the more circulation links, and the proportion of value-added tax completed by local governments in unit output value (GDP) or total sales revenue is relatively small. For example, in the automobile industry, more than 2,000 parts suppliers across the country (even around the world) need to work together, and the total value-added income needs to be shared equally across the country, accounting for a relatively small share in unit GDP. In the coal industry, only a few slave-like black migrant workers dig coal, and almost all the "added value of resources" can be realized locally. In fact, resources rather than labor or technology and management are increasing in value, and such value-added tax accounts for a much larger proportion of unit GDP than the automobile industry. It is precisely because of the unreasonable design of the country's tax structure that such a thing happened, so now many people of insight all over the country are calling for a resource tax as soon as possible, which is why. National resources should not be abused by some specific places with resources, and it also creates a joke that it is better to dig coal than to build a car! Resource income should belong to the country and the whole people, and should not belong to any region.

In addition, this small indicator describes the situation in 20071-May, which is only a forecast, far from the final accurate result. From this point of view, it is obvious that people in some places are a little too early for YY. In 2004, the mayor of a certain place once took the lead in YY, and finally had to keep his mouth shut, which was a bit big. I don't know why he has a short memory. Of course, despite the above reasons, Wuhan's index is a bit low in any aspect, which is exactly what the Wuhan municipal government needs to take seriously. It's really unreasonable to be under a certain place, and it's also embarrassing.

In fact, objectively speaking, the economic structure and nature of a certain place and Wuhan are very different, so it is of little practical significance to compare such a specific index out of context. This can only show that people in a certain place are generally impetuous, superficial and ignorant, or simply a manifestation of low-level boredom, incompetence and cowardice. Wuhan, it is absolutely impossible to compare any region with such a single indicator, even though many single indicators are even higher than many first-line regions such as Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen and Guangzhou, which is undoubtedly too ignorant and stupid. Even if a single index is higher than the above places, Wuhan still lags far behind these places as a whole. This is an objective fact, as everyone in Wuhan knows, and everyone has the minimum self-knowledge. However, there is no such self-knowledge somewhere, which is also China's sorrow. First of all, as mentioned above, the general budget revenue is only the revenue under the current account, excluding the return, share and directional transfer payment turned over to the central government. The revenue divided by local finance is also concentrated in local fiscal revenue rather than general fiscal budget revenue. This is a matter of common sense. This piece, Wuhan is billions higher than X state every year, why not mention it? Secondly, from the perspective of fiscal expenditure, there are at least one million people in Wuhan who do not need the local government to use the income from the general budget for corresponding fiscal expenditure. Obviously, this will not happen in X state, or there is no such population advantage. There are hundreds of thousands of people in a WISCO, and the local government does not need to spend any financial expenditure on them. There are many such enterprises and institutions, such as Wuhan Branch of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changhang Administration, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Gezhouba Group, Dongfeng Group, Huazhong Dianguan Bureau, Wuhan Petrochemical Company, China Shipbuilding Wuchang Shipyard, Wuhan Branch of China People's Bank, Second Aviation Bureau of Ministry of Communications, Da Qiao Bureau, Wuhan Supervision Center of Ministry of Land and Resources, and hundreds of thousands to millions of students in subordinate institutions. That is to say, even with the same fiscal disposable income, Wuhan's per capita local disposable actual fiscal expenditure will be higher than that of X state, that is, X state needs to use the same local fiscal disposable income to solve the expenditure problem of more people in its actual jurisdiction. Third, in order to better spend the income, it is very telling that the annual fixed investment scale of X state is less than tens of billions in Wuhan, which is not only less than Wuhan, but even less than Changsha. It is the real disposable income, not the competition between Henkel and Wuhan, but much lower than Wuhan.

For example, in Wuhan, major investments by central enterprises do not require local expenditures, nor do they enter local budget management. And X state does not have this income share (or very little), so it can't do this expenditure. Another example is two national development zones, several national industrial bases, national ecological demonstration zones, key universities (2 1 1 and 985 projects), oil and gas pipeline construction, Yangtze River port and Wuhan comprehensive transportation hub construction. All of them need the support of local governments, and all of them have special transfer payments from the state finance, and all of them enter the local fiscal revenue caliber instead of the general fiscal budget revenue caliber. The actual result is that the actual disposable income and expenditure scale of Wuhan local finance is much higher than that of X state. To be exact, local fiscal revenue is a better comparison standard. There are obvious structural differences in the caliber of financial general budget revenue, especially those with more financial sharing or transfer payments but basically no such directional sharing and payment, which are basically not comparable.

It should be pointed out that as of 2006, the total area of Wuhan was 8467.6438+0 1 km2, and the total area of X state was 7446.2 km2. The total population of Wuhan is 8 188400, and that of Xuzhou is 7.243 million. Wuhan's total economic output (GDP) is 259 billion, and the state's total economic output (GDP) is 2001billion; Wuhan's fixed assets investment is 65.438+032.529 billion yuan, and Xuzhou's fixed assets investment is 65.438+003/kloc-0.90 billion yuan; The total fiscal revenue of Wuhan is 50.236 billion yuan, the local fiscal revenue is 23 1.85 billion yuan (local general budget revenue/kloc-0.78 billion yuan), and the local fiscal revenue of Xuzhou is 20.24 billion yuan (including general budget revenue/kloc-0.76 billion yuan). The geographical area of X-week is 87.94% of Wuhan's, the total population of X-week is 88.45% of Wuhan's (there are more than one million foreign students in Wu Hanyou who do not create output value, and the total local resident population should be similar), the total economic output of X-week is 77.26% of Wuhan's, the investment in fixed assets is 77.86% of Wuhan's, and the local fiscal revenue is 87% of Wuhan's. As can be seen from the above data, the crowd is relatively close. Considering the total student population in Wuhan, in fact, the total population of the two places is roughly the same. In these indicators, the gap is high and low, but the gap is all-round, not partial, nor a little! I don't know. What else do you need to compare?

Next, maybe we should ask a few questions: There are nearly two million people in Wu Hanyou who don't use this general budget income, and how many people in X state don't need this income? A large number of central enterprises in Wu Hanyou are divided into income and directional transfer payment income. In addition to the general budget revenue, how many yuan of local fiscal revenue does X State have? Obviously, the general budget income is the income of daily projects of local government departments, excluding any non-recurrent projects, and the expenditure is mainly for daily use in the budget of government departments. Many people deliberately pretend not to know or really don't know somewhere. In other words, I didn't know that financial sharing and transfer payments are one-off items, once or twice a year, which are not items that can be collected every day, so I deliberately confused people and then spread the truth. Of course, there are many people in a certain place who think that the fiscal revenue of X state is stronger than that of Wuhan or want to say that X state is richer than Wuhan, which is unclear.

According to the latest data, in the first five months of this year, the house price in X state rose by 20%, ranking first in the country (to be congratulated, it finally won the first place in the country). Here, quoting the original text of a report in the most important news of the country in the past two days may explain many phenomena: "A developer who asked not to be named told reporters privately that the house price in X State has risen by 20% this year, mainly because the land price has risen rapidly. With the increasing shortage of land resources, since 2007, the land price in X state has risen rapidly at a rate of almost 50%, accounting for almost 1/3 of the house price cost, and some projects are even higher than this figure. The government now almost completely manages land as a commodity, which leads to a crazy rise in land prices, which in turn leads to soaring housing prices. Most developers admit that rising land prices play a decisive role in rising house prices. " In this way, country X has a complete answer to the problem of high growth of general budget revenue in the first five months of this year. Maybe this kind of good thing will run through the whole year. I hope you can continue like this and surpass Wuhan. I believe that Wuhan people will never have any views or ideas about this.

In fact, some people are still sober. The governor of a certain place once said the original words to his capital city X: "As a capital city with a population of nearly 100 million, X's GDP has only increased by 1.7 percentage points in the past six years, ranking only 24th among the capital cities in China, with low primacy and weak driving effect; The industrial structure is unreasonable, and the proportion of the tertiary industry in GDP ranks only 2 1 among the provincial capital cities in China. The added value of high-tech industries only accounts for 2.7% of the added value of industrial enterprises above designated size in the city, ranking ninth in the province. The degree of economic extroversion is not high, the dependence on foreign trade ranks last among the nine provincial capital cities in central China and surrounding areas, and high-tech development zones are in a backward position in the country; Economic development relies too much on the accumulation of production factors in the province and the support of the county economy, and the urban economy is relatively weak. " In this case, in the provincial capital city, you are at the bottom of many indicators. There should be a lot of things to do, and there is an urgent need to do them. How can so many people be interested in caring about a place that you can't get through for decades?