Gerçek Vergi Yükü Rasyosuna Ulaşmada Yenilikçi Bir Yaklaşım: Türkiye, Birleşik Krallık ve Birleşik Devletler Verileriyle Ampirik Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Vergi yükü rasyosu hesaplamalarında toplam vergi tahsilatının esas alınması toplam gelir ile toplam vergi hasılatı arasında dönem uyumsuzluğuna neden olarak gerçek vergi yükü rasyolarından sapmalara neden olmuştur. Bu problemin çözümü için tahakkuk temelli vergi hasılatının esas alınması gereklidir. Vergi yükü hesaplamalarında tahsil edilen toplam gelir yerine tahakkuk eden toplam vergi gelirleri değişkeninin kullanılması gerektiğini savunan bu çalışma ile vergi yükü rasyolarındaki dönem uyumsuzlukları giderilerek Türkiye’nin, Birleşik Krallık’ın ve Birleşik Devletler’in vergi rasyoları karşılaştırmalı olarak yeniden hesaplanmıştır. Tahakkuk ve tahsilat temelli vergi yükü rasyolarını karşılaştıran bu çalışmanın sonucunda önemli farklılıklar tespit etmiştir. Türkiye'deki göreceli vergi tahsilatı etkinliğindeki yetersizliğe bağlı olarak tahakkuk temelli vergi yükü rasyosunun tahsilat temelli vergi yükü rasyosundan %15 oranında yüksek olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Buna karşın gözlem konusu diğer ülkelerde bu farkın göreceli olarak daha düşük olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak bu araştırmada, vergi yükü literatürüne metodolojik bir katkı sağlanmış ve ayrıca politika yapıcılar için daha gerçekçi vergi yükü hesaplamalarına dayanan karar alma süreçleri önerilmiştir.

Keywords

• Vergi Yükü
• Tahakkuk Temelli Vergi Gelirleri
• Tahsil Temelli Vergi Gelirleri
• Vergi
• Sosyal Güvenlik Katkı Payı.

Supporting Institution

yoktur

Ethical Statement

yoktur

An Innovative Approach to Achieving the True Tax Burden Ratio: An Empirical Study with Data from Türkiye, United Kingdom and United States

Abstract

Basing tax burden ratio calculations on total tax collections has caused temporal mismatch between total income and total tax revenue, leading to deviations from the actual tax burden ratios. To resolve this issue it is crucial to adopt an accrual-based approach for tax revenues. This study which argues that the variable of total accrued tax revenues should be used instead of total collected tax revenues in tax burden calculations, recalculated the tax burden ratio comparatively for Türkiye. United Kingdom and United States of America by eliminating the temporal mismatches in the tax burden ratio. Comparing accrual-based and collection-based tax burden ratios, this study identifies significant disparities. Due to the relative inefficiency in tax collection, Türkiye’s accrual-based tax burden ratio was found to be 15% higher than its collection-based counterpart. In contrast, this gap was observed to be significantly lower in the other examined countries. In conclusion, this research offered a methodological contribution to the tax burden literature and proposed decision-making processes grounded in more realistic tax burden calculations for policymakers.

Keywords

• Tax Burden
• Accrual-Based Tax Revenue
• Collected-Based Tax Revenues
• Tax
• Social Security Contributions

Supporting Institution

none

Ethical Statement

none

References

1. Aaron, H. J. (1982). Economic effects of social security. The Brookings Institution.
2. Akdoğan, A. (2017). Kamu maliyesi, Gözden Geçirilmiş ve Genişletilmiş, 18. Baskı. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
3. Aktan, C. C. and Çoban, H. (2006). Vergileme ekonomisi ve vergileme psikolojisi perspektiflerinden vergiye karşı tutum ve davranışları belirleyen faktörler, vergileme ekonomisi ve vergileme psikolojisi, (Der.: Coşkun Can Aktan, Dilek Dileyici ve İstiklal Yaşar Vural), Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
4. Aksoy, Ş. (2011). Kamu maliyesi. Filiz Kitabevi.
5. Arcas, G. J. (2014). Concepts and measurement of tax environment: A review of the literature. International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation (IBFD).
6. Auerbach, A. J., Gale, W. G., and Krupkin, A. (2013). Revisiting the federal budget outlook. Tax Policy Center. Becker, J. and Elsayyad, M. (2009). The evolution and convergence of OECD tax systems. Intereconomics, 44(2), 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-009-0285-0
7. Besley, T. and Persson, T. (2014). Why do developing countries tax so little? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(4), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.4.99
8. Boeri, T., Börsch-Supan, A., and Tabellini, G. (2001). Would you like to shrink the welfare state? A survey of European citizens. Economic Policy, 16(32), 7-50.

9. Blaufus, K., Chirvi, M., Huber, H. P., Maiterth, R., and Sureth-Sloane, C. (2022). Tax misperception and its effects on decision making – Literature review and behavioral taxpayer response model. European Accounting Review, 31(1), 133-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2020.1852095
10. Browning, E. K. (1987). On the marginal welfare cost of taxation. The American Economic Review, 77(1), 11–23.
11. Crandall, W. (2010). Revenue administration: Performance measurement in tax administration. International Monetary Fund.
12. Diamond, P. A. (2004). Social security. American Economic Review, 94(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282804322970670
13. Devereux, M. P. and Griffith, R. (2003). The impact of corporate taxation on the location of capital: A review. Economic Analysis and Policy, 33(2), 275-292
14. Feldstein, M. and Liebman, J. B. (2002). Social security. In A. J. Auerbach and M. Feldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Public Economics, 4, 2245-2324). Elsevier.
15. Hanappi, T. (2018). Corporate effective tax rates: Model description and results from 36 OECD and non-OECD countries. OECD Taxation Working Papers, No. 38. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a07f9958-en
16. GİB. (2023). Faaliyet Raporları. https://www.gib.gov.tr/kurumsal/stratejik-yonetim/faaliyet-raporlari Erişim Tarihi: 20.12.2024.
17. Goudswaard, K. and Caminada, K. (2015). SSC: Economic and public finance considerations. International Social Security Review, 68(4) 25-46.
18. Günay, K. (2007) Türkiye’de vergi yükü ve vergi kapasitesi hesaplaması üzerine örnek bir çalışma, İstanbul. HMRC. (2023). Annual Reports and Accounts 2022 to 2023. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e34f1c3309b700121c9baa/HMRC_annual_report_and_accounts_2022_to_2023.pdf
19. Hutton, E. (2017). The revenue administration—Gap analysis program: Model and methodology for value-added tax gap estimation. International Monetary Fund.
20. Jirsákova, J. and Kiss, G. (2018). How to measure tax burden in an internationally comparable way? European Central Bank. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/events/pdf/conferences/ws_pubfinance/paper_Kiss.pdf
21. Jones, D. (2012). Explaining the prevalence of income tax refunds. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(1), 158-185. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.4.1.158
22. Iturbe-Ormaetxe, I. (2015). Salience of SSC and employment. Interntaional Tax Public Finance, 22, 741-759. International Monetary Fund. (2004). Tax revenue, uncollectible tax, tax credits. https://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/tfhpsa/2004/060104.pdf
23. IRS (2022) Agency Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2022. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p5456--2022.pdf Lequiller, F. and Blades, D. (2014). Understanding national accounts (2nd ed.). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264214637-en
24. Merwe, T. V. D. (2000). The case for social security in South Africa: An economic perspective. Development Southern Africa, 17(5), 717-735.
25. Metcalf, G. E. (2002). The distribution of tax burdens: An introduction. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w8978/w8978.pdf
26. Munnell, A. H. (2009). Should social security rely solely on the payroll tax? TIAA-CREF Institute Research Dialogue, 92, 1-15.
27. Musgrave, R. A. and Musgrave, P. B. (1989). Public finance in theory and practice (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
28. Nickell, S. (1997). Unemployment and labor market rigidities: Europe versus North America. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(3), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.3.55
29. Pürem, S. (2023). Vergi yükü üzerine literatür incelemesi. Karaelmas Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), 117-138.
30. OECD. (2019). Revenue statistics - Interpretative guide. https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/oecd-classification-taxes-interpretative-guide.pdf
31. OECD. (2023). Revenue statistics 2023: Tax revenue buoyancy in OECD countries. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/947596a2-en
32. Samson, M. J. (2002), The social, economic and fiscal impact of comprehensive social security reform for South Africa. Social Dynamics, 28(2), 69-97.
33. Slemrod, J. and Bakija, J. (2017). Taxing ourselves: A citizen’s guide to the debate over taxes (5th ed.). MIT Press.
34. Šimková, N. (2015). The hierarchical clustering of tax burden in the EU27. Journal of Competitiveness, 7(3), 95-109.
35. Şen, H., and Sağbaş, İ. (2017). Vergi teorisi ve politikası. Ankara: Barış Arıkan Yayınları.
36. Tekbaş, A. and Dökmen, G. (2007). Türkiye’de vergi yükünün bölgesel dağılımı. Maliye Dergisi, 153, 195-23.
37. Ulriksen, M. (2012). How social security policies and economic transformation affect poverty and inequality: Lessons for South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 29(1), 3-18.
38. US Congressional Research Service (2015). Cash Versus Accrual Accounting: Tax Policy Considerations. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44002
39. Yaşa, M. (1962). Vergi yükü: Vergi yükü hesaplama usulleri ve mukayeseleri. İstanbul: Sermet Matbaası.
40. Williams, D. (2001). Social security taxation. In V. Thuronyi (Ed.), Tax law design and drafting (Vol. 1). International Monetary Fund.
41. World Bank. (2025). GDP (current US$) [Data set]. World Development Indicators. Retrieved November 26, 2025, from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
42. Zuzana, M. and Kotlan, I. (2012). The influence of corporate taxation on economic growth: The failure of tax quota? Politická ekonomie, 60(6), 743-763.