He Argentine Institute of Fiscal Analysis (Iaraf) He analyzed the direct and indirect tax burden that ends up affecting different profiles of salaried workers. Thus they were determined that The four income profiles (ranging from $ 1,500,000 to $ 7,100,000) They reflect an integral tax burden that is between 47.3% and 49.9% of the total income.
It should be noted that for the analysis they were included in the estimate the taxes that are applied directly on income and assets, such as those that are paid indirectly to consume. In other words, what the work seeks to estimate is what percentage of income stops charging a worker, given the existing tax burden.
For this, four cases were raised: a worker who earns $ 1,550,000, another of $ 1,550,000, in case three, $ 1,550,000 and and finally $ 7,100,000.
The results of the tax charge for the four income profiles reflect a comprehensive tax burden that is between 47.3% and 49.9% of the total incomethat is to say that it presents A low dispersion, despite the fact that the maximum income level is equivalent to 4.6 times the minimum income.
Another way to see these results is transforming the percentages in number of days of a calendar year, arising accordingly until what day of the year a citizen must work to fulfill their tax obligations. With this look, you have to The profiles analyzed should work between 173 and 182 days to fulfill their obligationswhich implies a “Tax Independence Day” between June 22 and July 1.
RESULTS ANALYSIS: How much impact the tax burden on wages
The study revealed a “regressivity” in the tax burden. Indeed, Cases 2 and 3 of income, which have a total income by 118% and 219% higher than case 1, respectively, have a load between 1.5 and 2 lower percentage points. For its part, Case 4, with a salary 360% higher than that of case 1, has a tax load only 0.6 higher percentage points.
Therefore, from Iaraf, they expressed that given This behavior of the formal tax burden for each of the four cases of income considered, it is essential to identify the main factors of the regressiveness that is evidenced.
One of them arises from Personal contributions. Case 1 has 7.4 more percentage points of tax load than case 4, since it has a contribution of 13.7% of the total income, while the fourth case has one of 6.3%.
The other relevant explanatory factor is The typical regressiveness of indirect taxes. In relation to case 1, case 2 has a lower 1.9 percentage points, case 3 one of 2.7 percentage points lower and case 4 one of 3.8 lower percentage points.
Source: Ambito
