commission on fiscal imbalance 合集

This component is also weighted 15 times in the total

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: oach dominated the other question of unit cost, in particular because of the difficulty in defining needs, average versus minimum provision and relative costs, which induced strategic behaviour of recipient governments. As a result, three out of four arguments in the formula for computing the financial capacity of the Cantons (see below) now refer to revenue-raising abilities. From the very beginning, equalisation has excluded differences in cantonal outlays for services other than or above minimum standards and differences in the progressiveness of the tax rate schedules that reflect the concept of income redistribution or the mix between benefit tax and ability-to-pay tax at cantonal level. At the local level, many cantons have introduced inter-communal equalisation, with similar ends and means 20 The most direct means for reducing cantonal disparities is through fiscal equalisation measures, i.e. payments from the federal government to the Cantons with the purpose of reducing differences in fiscal capacity. There are, today, in Switzerland, three sets of policies which include equalisation components. But for the last twenty years they have not proved very efficient (DAFFLON, 1995): discussion are presently taking place to reform the whole system. 6.1. Financial capacity of the Cantons All equalisation programmes have in common the fact that they relate to the financial capacity of the Cantons. The actual formula for computing the financial capacity of the Cantons has four components (table 10): a. the NIC (National Income in the individual Cantons) per capita (column 2), as a measure of each canton's financial resources. This component is weighted 1.5 times in the computation of the total index ; b. the inverse of the tax burden of the Cantons and the communes (column 3), as described in the previous section ; c. the per capita tax revenues of the Cantons and their communes, from different tax sources, weighted by the indices of tax burden in order to obtain comparable values (column 4). This component is also weighted 1.5 times in the total index ; d. an approximation of the Cantons' expenditure requirements, taking into account the population density and the relative importance of each canton's agricultural surfaces in the mountain and in the plain (column 5). The average value of each component, for the 26 Cantons, is given the value of 100 points; all indices are proportionally calculated. The total index for each Canton is the weighted average (column 6), proportionally corrected in such a way that the lowest single index is given the value of 30 points (column 7). The cantons with more that 120 points are considered as having a high financial capacity; the cantons with 60 points and less a low financial capacity. The medium-capacity cantons stand between 61 and 119 points. With this formula, the min/max ratio is 6.877.6 points in 1998/99, from the Canton Jura with 30 points to the Canton Zoug with 206 points. The formula results in a relative expansion of the financial capacity scale in which the Cantons are positioned comparat...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online