Personal income tax management in Ukraine on the game theory basis
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/pmf.07(1).2018.05
-
Article InfoVolume 7 2018, Issue #1, pp. 41-48
- Cited by
- 783 Views
-
93 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
One of the main problems of the fiscal decentralization in Ukraine is the substantiation of the optimal proportion of the personal income tax distribution among the state and different types of local budgets in order to insure the sufficient financial resources for the territorial communities. Since period of the Budget Code adoption, the percentage of the personal income tax paid from salaries to the different levels of budgets has changed three times. However, the methodic of such distribution is not clear. The authors suggest approach of analyzing the logic of the personal income tax distribution on the game theory basis. They consider different ways of making decisions and prove that in all of the analyzed cases the winner was the central government of Ukraine. Such behavior of the central government in making decisions does not meet the goals of the fiscal decentralization reform. The main reason of such situation is that the decisions are made by the state government, but not by the local communities or their representatives. Besides, it is difficult to distribute the expenditures among different types of budgets according to the Governments’ competences. The authors suggest some recommendation of the personal income tax distribution in order to ensure benefits for all participants of the game: communities, local governments and central government. But they conclude that the active influence of people on the behavior of the local governments is the basic premise for the scientific research of the PIT optimal distribution.
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G4, C70, H30, H24
-
References19
-
Tables3
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Changes in the percentage of PIT distribution among the state and local budgets
- Table 2. The PIT share in the local budget revenues, %
- Table 3. Dynamics of the PIT distribution among the budgets in 2010˗2017, in bln UAH and %
-
- Amato, L. H., Zillante, A., Amato, C. H. (2015). Corporate environmental claims: a game theory model with empirical results. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(1), 36˗55.
- Bhattacharya, S. (1979). Imperfect information, dividend policy, and the “bird in the hand” fallacy. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 259˗270.
- Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory. Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
- Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1), 9˗64.
- Cerqueti, R., Coppier, R. (2016). Corruption, evasion and environmental policy: a game theory approach. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics, 27(2), 235˗253.
- Diamond, D. W. (1984). Financial intermediation and delegated monitoring. The Review of Economic Studies, 51, 393˗414.
- Diamond, D. W., Dybvig, P. H. (1983). Bank runs, deposit insurance and liquidity. Journal of Political Economy, 91(3), 401˗419.
- John, K., Williams, J. (1985). Dividends, dilution and taxes: a signaling equilibrium. The Journal of Finance, 40(4), 1053˗1070.
- Kumacheva, S. Sh. (2010). A Game Theoretical Model of Interaction Between Taxpayers and the Tax Authority. Contributions to Game Theory and Management, 3, 257˗266.
- Martin, A., Lorek, К. (2017). Collusive tax evasion and social norms. International Tax and Public Finance, 24(2), 179˗197.
- McNamara, J. M., Weissing, F. J. (2010). Evolutionary game theory. In Tamás Székely, Allen J. Moore and Jan Komdeur (Eds.), Social Behaviour: Genes, Ecology and Evolution. Cambridge University Press.
- Miller, M. H., Rock, K. (1985). Dividend policy under asymmetric information. The Journal of Finance, 40(4), 1031˗1051.
- Shapiro, A. (2011). Budget Negotiations: A Study of Game. Theory NPR News, the White House.
- Sigmund, K. (2017). Games of Life: Explorations in Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. New York: Dover Publications. Updated edition.
- Smales, L. A., Thul, M. (2016). A game theory model of regulatory response to insider trading. Applied Economics Letters, 7, 1˗8.
- Smith, M. J. (1982). Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Taylor, P. D. (1996). Inclusive fitness arguments in genetic models of behavior. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 34, 654–674.
- The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine The Law of Ukraine “Budget Code of Ukraine” (2010).
- Vylkova, E. S. (2017). Taxation management: models of behavior of the state and economic subjects. News of DVFU. Economy and management, 2, 51˗58.