Premier Li Keqiang stated at the State Council executive meeting on April 25th that tax cuts for enterprises and increasing financial input are actually two sides of a coin. They must aim at some major scientific research projects to increase financial support and pass tax reductions, etc. Relevant policies motivate companies to innovate independently.
In theory, the inhibition of taxation obstacles on corporate Ramp;D innovation may occur through the following mechanisms: In the Ramp;D and innovation activities, the external financing channels of the enterprise are ineffective, and they need to use their own funds for endogenous financing, while the higher tax burden is reduced. The companyrsquo;s retained earnings and free cash flow have a negative impact on Ramp;D and innovation activities. This is because, from the perspective of the economic characteristics of technological activities, Ramp;D innovation is a high-input, high-risk activity. For external capital providers (such as commercial banks), if the Ramp;D innovation rate is too low, Businesses often fail to pay off their debts and the banks will face the risk of bad debts. Even if the bank can auction the companyrsquo;s mortgage assets to make up for the losses, the time and transaction costs incurred by the legal process still make the bank more harm than good; and even if the Ramp;D and innovation are successful, the bank can only obtain the principal and interest of the contract, making it difficult for the company to succeed. 'One share.' The risk of only 'bitterness' and 'unity' - the misalignment of profits and the inherent information asymmetry between Ramp;D innovations inside and outside the enterprise means that external investors lack the incentive to support Ramp;D and innovation projects. Heavy tax burden reduces the number of companies The endogenous financing space, research and innovation activities will be negatively affected.
The tax burden reduces the operating profitability of enterprises and the rate of return on investment of Ramp;D projects. Faced with the predicament of high risks and low returns, the rational decisions of owners and managers of enterprises are to stop innovation activities or cut Ramp;D expenditures and adopt a more conservative approach. Business strategy. In addition, adequate cash flow and retained earnings are not only the basis for the company to carry out endogenous financing for Ramp;D innovation, but also the “risk reserve” when Ramp;D fails. Abundant funds can enable failed companies to maintain their survival and carry out follow-up Ramp;D of “doing a good job”. The heavier tax burden invades the “risk reserve” available to the company, thus restraining its incentives for Ramp;D and innovation activities.
Entrepreneurial activities can be divided into two categories: productive and rent-seeking. Under the constraints of entrepreneurs limited time and energy budget, these two types of behaviors are mutually substitute. Rational entrepreneurs allocate time, energy, and resources to different types of activities to maximize their overall returns based on considerations of realistic institutional constraints and the marginal returns of various activities.
In Chinas macroeconomic tax burden, tax collection and management, there is a flexible operating space, entrepreneurs engaged in tax avoidance activities have higher marginal revenue, they will spend more energy and resources for rent-seeking behavior, and thus significantly Extrusion of productive Ramp;D and innovation activities, if Ramp;D expenditures can be recorded as deductible expenses when calculating corporate income tax, and patents can be depreciated as intangible assets, tax barriers may not have a negative impact on Ramp;D and innovation. Some literature points out that the tax burden may incentivize Ramp;D innovation: Ramp;D expenses can be used as tax shields when companies conduct earnings management. At this time, the heavier tax burden may even encourage companies to conduct more Ramp;D in order to avoid tax.
In the context of China, Nie Huihua and others studied the impact of the VAT transition pilot in Northeast China and found that the reduction in tax burden significantly promoted the companys fixed asset investment, but the companyrsquo;s Ramp;D expenditures instead decreased, the Ramp;D density did not increase significantly, and the companyrsquo;s production The improvement of efficiency is mainly achieved by replacing labor with capital. Zhou Yean et al. used the provincial panel data and spatial econometric model to find that a variety of macro tax burden indicators had no significant impact on innovation, but tax competition among regions had a positive effect;
Zhang Xi and others found that the heavier tax burden on the region is, the more innovative output measured by the number of invention patents. They attributed this to the governmentrsquo;s investment in infrastructure after taxation and the “back-feeding” supporting services for innovative companies. Based on this, we
Another hypothesis of competitive research is proposed: The impact of different taxes on Ramp;D innovation may also be different. The value-added tax directly related to the manufacturing enterprises in the empirical sample of this article
With regard to corporate income tax, the former is an indirect tax and the latter is a direct tax. VAT is embedded in various commodities and factor inputs. It essentially becomes the price component of the companys raw materials and intermediate product inputs, machinery and equipment procurement, and final product sales. It penetrates through the companys research and innovation activities. In contrast, corporate income tax is charged “afterwards”, although the heavier income tax expropriates the funds and “risk reserve” that the company originally could use for Ramp;D investment, but this will only reduce the companyrsquo;s income after deduc
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
李克强总理在4月25日的国务院常务会议上表示，为企业减税与加大财政投入实际是一枚硬币的两面，既要瞄准一些重大科研项目加大财政支持力度，也要通过减税等相关政策激励企业自主创新。
理论上，税收障碍对企业研发创新的抑制可能通过以下几个机制发生：在研发创新活动中，企业外部融资渠道失效，需要动用自有资金进行内源性融资，而较高的税收负担减少了企业的留存收益与自由现金流，从而对研发创新活动造成负面影响。这是因为，从技术活动的经济特征来看，研发创新是一种高投入、高风险的活动，对于外部的资金提供者（例如商业银行）而言，在研发创新大概率失败的情况下，企业往往无法还本付息，银行将面临坏账风险。即使银行可以拍卖企业的抵押资产以弥补损失，法律程序所占用的时间成本与交易费用仍使银行得不偿失；而且，即便研发创新取得成功，银行也只能获取合同约定的本息，难以对企业的成功“分一杯羹”。只“共苦”不“同甘”的风险 - 收益错配以及研发创新在企业内外部间天然的信息不对称意味着外部投资者缺乏为研发创新项目提供支持的激励繁重的税收负担压缩了企业的内源性融资空间，研发创新活动将受到负面影响。
税收负担降低了企业经营利润率与研发项目的税后投资回报率，面对高风险与低回报并存的困境，企业所有者与经理人的理性决策是停止创新活动或削减研发支出，采取较为保守的经营策略。此外，充足的现金流与留存收益不仅是企业为研发创新进行内源性融资的基础，还是研发失败时的“风险准备金”。充裕的资金可使遭受失败的企业得以维系生存并开展“干中学”的后续研发，而较重的税收负担侵占了企业可用的“风险准备金”，从而抑制其开展研发创新活动的激励。
企业家活动可分为生产性与寻租性两类，在企业家的时间精力有限的预算约束下，这两类行为是相互替代的。理性的企业家根据对现实制度约束与各类活动边际回报的考虑将时间、精力与资源分配到不同类型的活动中以最大化其总收益。
在中国宏观税收负担较重、税收征管与执法存在弹性操作空间的大环境中，企业家从事避税活动的边际收益较高，他们会耗费更多的精力与资源进行寻租性行为，从而显著地挤出生产性的研发创新活动，如果研发支出在计算企业所得税时可被记为可抵扣的费用、且专利可以作为无形资产进行折旧，税收障碍可能就不会对研发创新造成负面影响。还有一些文献指出税收负担可能激励研发创新：研发费用在企业进行盈余管理时能够作为税盾，此时较重的税收负担甚至会促使企业进行更多的研发以便避税。
在中国情境中，聂辉华等研究了东北地区的增值税转型试点的影响，发现税收负担的减轻显著促进了企业的固定资产投资，但企业的研发支出反而下降、研发密度也没有显著提高，企业生产效率的提升主要通过以资本替代劳动而实现。周业安等使用省级面板数据与空间计量模型研究发现，多种宏观税负指标对创新的影响均不显著，但地区间的税收竞争却具有正向影响；
张希等发现，地区宏观税负越重，以发明专利数量衡量的创新产出就越多。他们将此归因于地方政府在征重税后对基础设施进行投资、为创新企业进行“反哺式”的配套服务。据此，我们
提出另一个竞争性研究假说：不同税种对研发创新的影响也可能不同。就与本文实证样本中的制造业企业直接相关的增值税
与企业所得税而言，前者是间接税，后者是直接税。增值税嵌入各种商品和要素投入中，实质上成为企业的原材料与中间产品投入、机器设备采购、最终产品销售等诸多流转环节的价格构成要素，贯穿于企业的研发创新活动之中。相比之下，企业所得税在“事后”收取，尽管较重的所得税挤占了企业原本可用于研发投入的资金与“风险准备金”，但这只会降低企业收入在扣除成本、费用、损失和其他支出后的利润总额。对于预期净现值为正的研发创新项目而言，对其征收所得税后的净现值仍然为正。两相比较，间接税改变了预算线的斜率，各种投入要素与商品间相对价格的扭曲将显著影响企业进行研发创新的边际决策，而直接税仅使预算线向内平行移动。在税收收益一定的情况下，间接税所导致的无谓损失与超额负担大于直接税。此外，根据中国的企业所得税法实施条例，研发费用可在计算所得税税基时做加计扣除，高新技术企业还可享受较低的税率。因此，我们猜测，企业所得税负担对研发创新活动的影响相对较小。
中美是当今世界前两大经济体，这两大经济体能否健康发展，对世界经济将产生直接影响。特朗普要让制造业回归美国。特朗普就任总统后对很多企业放话，谁不撤回美国生产就给谁加税，现在已经有一些企业答应回到美国办厂了，包括美国自己的企业，还有日本的、韩国的、欧洲的等等。
当美国税改新政成功后，我们的祖国的环保安监城管还在帮他们负责驱赶自己的原有大大小小的企业离开他的祖国他的根。
最重要是什么呢？是美国政府也在招商引资。他花了1000多万美元买了一块地，并且这块地既不在东部，也不在西部，而是在中部。这个地比较便宜，虽然花了1000多万美元，但是因为他雇佣了1100个蓝领工人，政府又给他补了1700万美元，相当于那块地没要钱，这也是招商。现在看，特朗普之所以能够竞选成功，很重要一点就是他要给蓝领的人找到就业机会。
税改将对美国企业产生直接的影响，税改前美国的 企业所得税名义税率为 35%，在美国的主要竞争对手OECD(经济合作与发展组织)国家中处于最高水平，加上 各州税率后，企业实际承担的税负水平特别高，而此次税 改将企业所得税降至 15%，会让美国的跨国公司及把总部设在税率较低的其他国家和地区的企业，将海外利润 转移到美国本土，促进美国国内就业和投资等多方面的 发展，从而拉动美国经济快速提升。还有税改第二个措施这也是特朗普特别霸道的做法，如果是美国公司不回国 生产征 10%的惩罚性税收，这明摆着就是为美国企业挖 好了坑就让你往里跳没有选择余地。税改将改变美国企业在全球的竞争力和经济环境。
美国有足够的财政综合实力来实现这个减税。如果实现了这个减税，就会吸引更多的资金到美国去。这些资金到美国后，他绝不会去搞那些低端的制造业，连我们现在都不干的事他更不会干。他会把这些资金投入到高科技领域，重点鼓励企业研发和创新，在这个问题上美国是有先例的。上个世纪80年代的里根减税，就促进了美国IT业的大发展，到上个世纪90年代，美国的IT业上了一个大台阶。把当时苏联的制造业，包括日本的制造业，统统甩在了后面。时过30年，他又开始大幅度减税。我觉得，美国很可能又在酝酿一个新的发明创新潮。如果真是这样的话，对后发国家的经济增长，对各方面的利益分配，就会出现一个新的格局。因此，此次税改有望更变美国在经济中的不利地位，我们不能光让企业提高产品在全球的竞争力，同时也要考虑国家税收政策在全球的竞争力，这就需要我们及时对原来的税收政策作出调整，甚至需要重新规划和设计。这正是当前我们面临的、迫切需要研究和处理的重大问题。
与特朗普政府声势浩大、“一鸣惊人”的减税政策不同，中国选择了长期、递增、适应性的减税模式。
4月25日的国务院常务会议上，进一步加大减税力度方案出炉。其中，取消企业委托境外研发费用不得加计扣除限制、将目前在8个全面创新改革试验地区和苏州工业园区试点的创业投资企业和天使投资个人投向种子期、初创期科技型企业的税收优惠政策推广到全国等一系列政策显示，以“减税”来激发民间经济的活力特别是技术研发活力的宏观政策导向不变。据测算，上述多项措施综合落地后，预计全年将再为企业减轻税负600多亿元。
这已是一个月内的第二次重磅减税措施。
当前，与减税政策同步推进的多项供给侧结构性改革持续深入，国际国内环境对制造业升级提出了要求，同时也释放着正向激励。制造业之春能否到来，取决于各方合力，包括政府机构、制造业企业等各主体均应该审视自己的角色。中国制造的强国之路不仅需要政府的驱动，也需要企业、研发机构等主体的共同努力。
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[24954]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
课题毕业论文、文献综述、任务书、外文翻译、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
