Os impactos da Crise nas Receitas das Três Esferas de Governo

Transcrição

1 Os impactos da Crise nas Receitas das Três Esferas de Governo XXIII Seminario Regional de Politica Fiscal CEPAL Santiago de Chile, 18 al 21 de enero de 2011 Luis Felipe Vital Nunes Pereira Secretaria do Tesouro Nacional

2 AGENDA: Financial crisis and its impacts on Brazilian Economy Fiscal policy s role in supporting economic growth Revenues affected by the Financial Crisis Methodology Results Concluding remarks Next steps 2

3 Financial crisis and its impacts on Brazilian economy Labour Market: 9,3% 9,0% 8,8% 8,5% 8,3% 8,0% 7,8% 7,5% 7,3% 7,0% 6,8% 6,5% 6,3% 6,0% 5,8% 5,5% Job Creation (right) Unemployment rate (left) Nov-10 Sep-10 Jul-10 May-10 Mar-10 Jan-10 Nov-09 Sep-09 Jul-09 May-09 Mar-09 Jan-09 Nov-08 Sep-08 Jul-08 May-08 Mar-08 Jan-08 Source: IBGE and MTE. 3

4 Financial crisis and its impacts on Brazilian economy GDP (supply side): 5% 4% 3% 1,77% 1,85% 1,59% 1,98% 2,64% 2,12% 2,28% 1,76% 3% 2% 2% 1% -1% 1% 0,52% 0% -2% -3% -4% Agriculture -1,85% -1% -2% -5% -6% Industry Services -3% -7% -8% GDP (right) -4,37% -4% -9% 2008.I 2008.II 2008.III 2008.IV 2009.I 2009.II 2009.III 2009.IV 2010.I 2010.II 2010.III -5% Source: IBGE 4

5 Financial crisis and its impacts on Brazilian economy GDP (demand side): 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% -10% -12% -14% -16% -18% Source: IBGE 1,77% 1,85% 1,59% -1,85% -4,37% 1,98% 2,64% 2,12% 2,28% Households GFCF Import Government Export GDP (right) 2008.I 2008.II 2008.III 2008.IV 2009.I 2009.II 2009.III 2009.IV 2010.I 2010.II 3% 2% 1,76% 1% 0% -1% -2% -3% -4% -5% 5

6 Financial crisis and its impacts on Brazilian economy Industrial Production (2002 avg =100): Source: IBGE 6

7 Fiscal policy s role in supporting economic growth Revenue side (R$ billions) IRPF 4,9 IPI 5,8 IOF Consumer Credit 2,5 COFINS Motorcycles 0,2 Special taxation regime 0,2 Total 13,6 0,4% of GDP Expenditure side (R$ billions) FPM Compensation 2,0 Increase in jobless assistance 0,4 Fiscal measures were aligned with monetary easing acts, and represented 1,0% of GDP Housing Program 6,0 Increase in Investments 9,0 Total 17,4 0,6% of GDP Total Geral 31,0 1,0% of GDP Source: Ministério da Fazenda 7

8 Revenues affected by the financial crisis Analysis of time dimension of data: E ( E( )), t = δ + t i R i Differences between cross section units heterogeneity); Visual inspection of series. γ are removed (specific Table1 Taxesaffectedbythecrisis Affected Taxes Non-affected Taxes Federal IPI (total, autos, import., outros), Cofins, PIS/PASEP, CIDE, Imp. Importação IR (total, PF, PJ), IPI (bebidas, fumo), IOF, CSLL States ICMS, FPE IPVA Municipalities FPM ISS, IPTU Source: authors 8

9 Revenues affected by the financial crisis Federal Government 9

10 Revenues affected by the financial crisis - Federal Government 10

11 Revenues affected by the financial crisis - Federal Government 11

12 Revenues affected by the financial crisis - States 12

13 Revenues affected by the financial crisis - Municipalities 13

14 Methodology : tax revenue in region i, at time period t R i, t :Crisis measure at time t C t : activity measure at time t Y i, t Reduced form: ln Structural form: ln lny δ β + ε R i, t = i + i ln Ci, t i, t R i, t i, t = lnτ + α lny = γ Y i i + β Y i i ln C i, t i, t + ε + u i, t i, t 14

15 Methodology Ĉ t : counter-factual of crisis at time period t ˆ :counter-factual of revenue, estimated with R i, t Ĉ t The estimated loss is given by: R i, t Ri, t Tax rate effect:impact due to changes in the effective tax rate. Activity effect: Impact due to economic slowdown; Estimation: OLS and Instrumental Variables. ˆ 15

16 Methodology Crisis measure 0 S&P 500 3/1/2006 3/1/2007 3/1/2008 3/1/2009 3/1/2010 3/1/ Dow Jones /1/2006 3/1/2007 3/1/2008 3/1/2009 3/1/2010 3/1/201 0 Ibovespa 2/1/2006 2/1/2007 2/1/2008 2/1/2009 2/1/2010 2/1/ ,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0, VIX Index 3/1/2006 3/1/2007 3/1/2008 3/1/2009 3/1/2010 3/1/201 Ted Spread 3/1/2006 3/1/2007 3/1/2008 3/1/2009 3/1/2010 3/1/201 16

17 Results Table 2 Impacts on Federal Government(months) Reduced Form (total effect) StructuralApproach (activity effect) Difference (tax rate effect) IPI Total 0,75 0,73 0,02 IPI Automóveis 1,37 0,16 1,25 IPI Vinculado à Importação 0,67 0,8-0,13 IPI Outros 0,89 0,89 0 COFINS 0,66 0,66 0 PIS/PASEP 0,62 0,65-0,03 Imposto de Importação 0,75 0,98-0,23 CIDE 1,3 0,85 0,45 Source: authors 17

18 Results Table 3 Impacts on Federal Government(R$ millions) Revenues (Oct/2008) Reduced Form (total effect) Structural Approach (activity effect) Difference (tax rate effect) IPI Total IPI Automóveis IPI Vinculado à Importação IPI Outros COFINS PIS/PASEP Imposto de Importação CIDE Total União Source: authors 18

19 Results Table 4 Impacts on States Revenues (oct/2008) Reduced Form (total effect) Structural Approach (activity effect) Difference (tax rate effect) ICMS (months) -- 0,03 0,15-0,12 ICMS (R$ millions) FPE (months) -- 0, FPE (R$ millions) Source: authors 19

20 Results Table 5 Impacts on Municipalities Revenues (oct/2008) Reduced Form (total effect) FPM (months) -- 0,94 FPM (R$ millions) Source: authors 20

21 Concluding remarks Total effect in terms of revenues: R$ 17,4 billions, mostly concentrated in Federal government; Impacts on States and Municipalities were mainly due to intergovernmental transfers; Most important transmission channel was the economic activity; Results for IPI revenues indicates that lowering taxes for autos was a well succeeded policy; 21

22 Concluding remarks States managed to compensate part of ICMS losses by increasing its effective tax rate; Taxes on autos and properties (as IPVA and IPTU) were less affected since they are based on stocks; Financial support to States and Municipalities reduced the impact they had due to lower intergovernmental transfers; Actions in line with Brazilian context of federalism, where the federal government has more power to absorb shocks. 22

23 Next steps Include countercyclical actions as revenues for states and municipalities, and reestimate the impacts for these government levels; Study international experience on how governments managed to reduce impacts of the crisis through intergovernmental transfers. 23

24 Contact: Luis Felipe Vital Nunes Pereira Project Manager Fiscal Economic Studies Department Tel.: +55 (61)