The reform of resource tax should of course be supported with both hands. To tolerate an extensive and low-cost exploitation of resources is to condone a predatory and unsustainable development model. No one will object to this.
However, many people are still suspicious of the pilot resource tax that has been started. Not the attitude and path of this reform, but the pace and intensity of this action --
first of all, we see that the adjusted resource tax rate is still low. Although the resource tax originally levied on a volume basis has been raised several times, due to the soaring oil price, the tax rate is less than 1% in price terms. Although the adjusted pilot tax rate in Xinjiang has been raised to 5%, it is still far from 12.5% in the UK, 16.5% in Russia and 14.6% in the United States. Some people will say that reform needs a process, and it is impossible to become a fat man in one bite. However, we can see that while raising the resource tax, relevant departments have also "lost no time" to raise the price of natural gas by 25%. Relevant departments explained that this is an arrangement after balancing the interests of all parties, while ye Tan, a financial commentator, said that this is entirely a "appeasement" policy.
secondly, for the two major oil giants, the reform may be difficult to touch the surface. The output of crude oil and natural gas of the two oil giants in Xinjiang accounts for 1 / 6 and 1 / 4 of their total output respectively. After the introduction of resource tax, it is expected that their pre tax profit of oil will decline. However, considering the increase of natural gas price and the special income of oil and gas originally collected by the central government, it is very likely to be reduced or exempted due to the introduction of resource tax, so the overall tax burden level of the two oil giants should not change much. In particular, the oil giant's ability to "control" the price can ensure that it has a full opportunity to recover the tax losses from the pricing mechanism after the full implementation of the resource tax. Don't you see, since December 2008, the price of refined oil in China has been raised seven times, but only four times, with positive and negative offsetting the net increase of 2630 yuan per ton; In the same period, the international oil price has dropped from 147 US dollars per barrel to 70 US dollars.
third, breaking the monopoly is still thunder and rain. For the oil giant with the monopoly of * * * *, there will be no market risk and operating pressure at all. Before the system reform, the increase of access threshold means the loss of the vitality of private capital. It is said that the price of natural gas has increased. Fertilizer enterprises such as urea and methanol, which use natural gas as raw materials, have begun to brewing price increases. The cost of price increases will naturally be passed on to fertilizer users, especially farmers with poor bargaining power. This shows that in the face of profit seeking monopoly, the market is still helpless to bear it silently; Under the monopoly clouds, consumers simply have no eaves to shelter from the rain.
although the reform of resource tax can not be achieved overnight, it can not "scratch the surface". In the future, gradually increasing the resource tax rate is a long-term trend, and it must be carried out without reducing the dividends paid by monopoly enterprises. Only by increasing taxes and reducing profits on the one hand can we create a fair environment and narrow the income gap; In order to alleviate social discontent and realize the goal of benefiting the people.
although the reform of resource tax cannot be achieved in one step, it cannot be applied to oil and gas. Today, when coal-fired power generation is dominant, timely raising the resource tax burden of the coal industry can force the adjustment of China's power structure and gradually increase the proportion of clean energy, which is also a matter of boundless merit for protecting the environment and YONGGU rivers and mountains.
leaving resource taxes to local governments is certainly a test for local governments. In the future, with the gradual increase of tax rate, while alleviating the financial pressure, local governments should also use this fund to do a good job in secondary distribution and feeding agriculture, rural areas and farmers, and solve the problem of widening the gap between urban and rural areas and the gap between the rich and the poor as soon as possible, rather than blindly enclosure buildings and large-scale construction.