189Acta všfs, 2/2008, roč. 2
Tax mix impact on the growing differences between
the tax quota of the Czech Republic and Slovakia
Vliv daňového mixu na rostoucí rozdíly mezi
daňovou kvótou Česka a Slovenska
Květa Kubátová
1	 Introduction
Two new states came into existence in 1993 - the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Simultaneously,
a new tax system came into force and effect in the two states. The tax systems of the
two states of the former Czechoslovakia were almost identical in the initial period, since
the same laws, approved in 1992, were in force and effect in the two countries. However,
amendments of all tax laws were being implemented as soon as in 1993. This development
has resulted in the growing differences of the formerly identical tax systems. The situation
then culminated in the public finances reforms in both countries at the beginning of the
new century.
Even though both reforms proclaimed rather ambitious goals, namely in keeping public
expenditures under control, in the simplification of taxes and their supply oriented characteristics,
this radical reform was only successful in Slovakia. The Czech Republic is currently
at a midpoint, in spite of the fact that the so-called equal tax has been introduced
this year. The most pressing issue is the pension system reform. The sustainability of the
public finances seems unthinkable without the reform, however, only its direction is still
being searched.
In the article, we will first focus on the development of overall tax quotas, and then we
will analyze the differences in the growth indices of tax quotas of the two countries in the
period of 2000 – 2005, i.e. the period, during which the last tax reforms took places.
2	 Tax quota development of the Czech Republic and the Slovak
Republic
Let us first state a brief characteristic of the tax revenues and their structure in the two
compared countries from the perspective of the 27 member states of the EU. The tax quota
of the Czech Republic amounted to 36.3 % in 2005, i.e. 1 % below the EU27 average. The
	 This essay was written as part of the project „New Approaches to an Optimization of Budgetary and Fiscal
Policy with Emphasis on the Fiscal Discipline“ financed by the Czech Science Foundation as project
no. 402/08/1134.
190 Acta všfs, 2/2008, roč. 2
tax quota of Slovakia amounted to 29.3 % - the third lowest among all EU members after
Romania and Lithuania.
The lowest tax burden of the GDP in the region of Central Europe is in Slovakia, followed
by Poland and the Czech Republic; the tax quota is the highest in Austria and Germany.
In comparison with the EU27 average, direct taxes do not play such an important role as
indirect taxes / social security contributions in either of the two countries.
The tax structure shows the second highest share of social security contributions in the
Czech Republic (after Germany), while indirect taxes form the highest revenue item in
Slovakia, which are the fifth highest in the EU27 from the perspective of their share. The
share of social security contributions has decreased substantially in Slovakia.
Together with Bulgaria, Romania, and Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are countries,
where the share of corporation income taxes is comparable with the personal income
taxes; the corporation taxes in the whole EU27 are substantially lower than the personal
income taxes, their share amounts to an average of 8.5 %. On the other hand, personal
income taxes amount to 20 % of all taxes. This distorted structure in the Czech Republic
and Slovakia is a reminiscence of the socialistic structure of contributions, in which the
corporation income taxes were absolutely dominant. The economic and tax reform at the
beginning of the 1990’s did not fully exceed these boundaries, as the government had to
consider the standard of living of the taxpayers and the goal was for employees not to pay
substantially higher taxes than in the“old”system. Another factor causing the high corporation
income taxes and low personal income taxes is still the unusually high leveling of
wages in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Chart 1: Tax quota development of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the period
of 1995 – 2005
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
%
S R
ČR
Source: Taxation trends (2007)
Chart 1 provides an overall view of the tax quotas (share of taxes in HDP) of the Czech
Republic and Slovakia since 1995 (Graf 1). This chart confirms the above mentioned facts,
i.e. that the quotas did not differ too much originally - the difference amounted to 3.4 %
191Acta všfs, 2/2008, roč. 2
in 1995 and the Slovak quota is in fact higher. However, the difference in 2005 already
amounted to 7 %, however, the Czech quota is higher this time.
The share of taxes in GDP has been decreasing nearly all the time in Slovakia, while the
Czech Republic has been affected by an absence of an effective tax reform – taxes correspond
more or less to the development of an economic cycle (that is why an increase has
been apparent after 2000), and there is no upward / downward tendency here.
3	 Effect of the tax mix on the development of the tax quota
differences
We will now analyze the period after the year of 2000, and the effect of individual taxes
of the tax mix on the growing differences of the tax quotas2
. The items shown in Table 1
correspond to the classification of Eurostat (Taxation trends, 2007).
Table 1 also shows the calculation of the figures (1) through (3). The tax quota (TQ) refers
to the share of the total tax revenues (TTR) in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP):
GDP
ttR
Qt =
		
			 (1)
The difference between the TQ of the Czech Republic and the TQ of the Slovak Republic
(QD) is:
RsRČ
QtQtDQ −=
			
(2)
The difference between the QD in 2005 (QD2005
) and 2000 (QD2000
) can be broken down to
addends, each of which showing the contribution of one tax type to the total difference
(the term in the parentheses for different i):
)DQDQ(DQDQ
2000
i
9
1i
2005
i20002005 −=− ∑=
	(3)
i = 1, 2,...., 9
QDi2005
, or QDi2000
, refers to the difference between the tax quota of the Czech Republic and
Slovakia in 2005, or 2000, for the tax “i”.
Contributions to the difference growth between the quotas of the Czech Republic and
Slovakia will then be shown in a column chart (see Chart 2). In 2000, the tax quota of the
Czech Republic amounted to 33.8 %, while the tax quota of Slovakia amounted to 32.9 %.
Until 2005, the tax quota of the Czech Republic increased to 36.3 %, while the tax quota
of Slovakia decreased to 29.3 % during the same period. The total difference between the
two quotas thus increased from 0.9 % to 7 %.
	���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������This section explaining the tax quota analysis has been taken over from Kubátová (2007)
192 Acta všfs, 2/2008, roč. 2
Individual taxes contribute either positively or negatively to the total amount of a column,
whereas the effect can always be broken down into two items - the tax revenues growth
index itself and the weight, which corresponds to the share of the given tax type in an
overall quota. High taxes thus have a higher potential to affect the total differences.
Out of the nine tax types being analyzed, seven contribute to the growing differences
between the tax quota of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the period of 2000 – 2005
in favor of a higher burden in the Czech Republic and decreasing burden in Slovakia, only
two tax types result in a reduction of the difference.
The difference is affected the most by the social security contributions from employment;
the corporation income taxes and personal income taxes have a high impact as well. Other
taxes on products, other direct taxes (property), VAT, and the social security contributions
of self-employed persons contribute less.
Table 1: Calculation concerning the structure of the growth of difference between the tax
quotas of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 2005 in comparison with 2000*
  TQCR05
TQCR00
TQSR05
TQSR00
QD2005
QD2000
QD2005
– QD2000
Tax quota 36.3 33.8 29.3 32.9 7.0 0.9 6.0
Indirect taxes 11.9 11.3 13.0 12.8 -1.1 -1.5 0.4
Value added tax 7.2 6.5 8.0 7.6 -0.8 -1.1 0.4
Excise duties 3.7 3.3 3.7 2.8 0.0 0.5 -0.5
OthertaxesonProducts
(incl. import duties)
0.5 1.0 0.4 1.7 0.1 -0.7 0.8
Other indirect taxes 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.8 -0.5 -0.1 -0.3
Direct taxes 9.3 8.3 6.1 7.7 3.2 0.6 2.5
Personal income tax 4.6 4.6 2.8 3.6 1.9 1.0 0.9
Corporation income tax 4.5 3.5 2.8 2.8 1.7 0.7 1.0
Other direct taxes 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.3 -0.3 -1.0 0.7
Social security contributions:
Employers
and employees
15.1 14.2 10.8 13.6 4.0 0.6 3.4
Social security
contributions: Self-
employed
14.1 13.5 10.1 12.9 0.4 0.0 0.3
Explanatory notes: TQ – percentage share of the total tax revenue in GDP, QD – difference
between the TQ of the Czech Republic and Slovakia
*The overall change in the difference of tax quotas of the Czech Republic and Slovakia
(QD2005 – QD1995) is 0.6 % lower than the sum of the contributions of individual taxes to
193Acta všfs, 2/2008, roč. 2
it (columns of the chart). This discrepancy has been caused by a statistical methodology
of including the so-called imputed social contributions, which governments should pay
on behalf of their employees. When allowing for this amount to be included, the quota
of the EU27 increases by 1 % on average, for Slovakia this difference amounts to 1.1% in
1995 and 0.5 % in 2005, however, no imputed social contributions have been registered
(see Taxation trends, 2007, p. 404).
Source: Taxation trends (2007); own calculations
Chart 2: Share of individual taxes in the growth of difference between the tax quotas
of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the period of 2000–2005*
S S C em ploy m ent;
3.4
CIT; 1
P IT; 0.9
O ther tax es on
produc ts ; 0.8
O th. dir.; 0.7
V A T; 0,4
S S C s elf-em pl.; 0.3
O th. Indirec t t.; -0.3
E x c . Duties ; -0.5
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
*The overall change in the difference of tax quotas of the Czech Republic and Slovakia
(QD2005 – QD1995) is 0.6 % lower than the sum of the contributions of individual taxes to
it (columns of the chart). This discrepancy has been caused by a statistical methodology
of including the so-called imputed social contributions, which governments should pay
on behalf of their employees. When allowing for this amount to be included, the quota
of the EU27 increases by 1 % on average, for Slovakia this difference amounts to 1.1% in
1995 and 0.5 % in 2005, however, no imputed social contributions have been registered
(see Taxation trends, 2007, p. 404).
Source: Taxation trends (2007), own calculations
Only two tax types reduce the gap due to the fact that their GDP share grows slower than
in Slovakia. This concerns excise duties as well as other indirect taxes. These are also the
taxes, the quota of which grew during the period of 2000 - 2005 in Slovakia. The VAT quota
grew in this period as well, however, since its growth was higher in the Czech Republic, it
also widens the gap between the quota of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and its contribution
can be found in the positive sector of the chart (Chart 2).
194 Acta všfs, 2/2008, roč. 2
On the other hand, most taxes show a growing share in GDP in the Czech Republic in
2000 - 2005, with the exception of minor, de facto marginal, taxes – other taxes on products
and other indirect and direct taxes.
We can see in the Chart 2 that a gradual decrease of the tax burden in Slovakia and its
growing difference in comparison with the Czech Republic has not resulted from a drastic
reduction of one or two taxes, but the tax reform targeted the system in its complexity and
certain success has been achieved for almost all tax types. Not only does this approach
correspond to the term“tax reform”, the attribute of which is, among others, a substantial
change of several tax laws (tax reform definition - e.g. Kubátová, 2006), but it also considers
the findings of the tax optimization according to the tax theory. An accomplished tax
optimization theory, the so-called “second best” theory, proclaims that several taxes are
likely to bring more deformations, however, these deformations are likely to be lower in
their sum than in case of one major tax. “Examples, where several smaller deformations
could be more beneficial than one major deformation, illustrated a general rule that the
elimination of one deformation (in case of an existence of several small ones) does not
necessarily have to increase an overall effectiveness.” (Stiglitz, 1997, p. 554). The reality of
an effort in terms of the “second best” implies an achievement of a better situation than
in case of the unrealistic “first best”.
4	 Conclusion
The paper deals with the effect of the tax reforms of the Czech Republic and Slovakia on
the tax quota and its structure from the perspective of the comparison of the two coun-
tries.
In 1995, i.e. two years after the first tax reforms (or one reform - since it was common for
both countries), the quotas vary, however, the difference amounts to just 3.4 % and the
Slovak quota is in fact higher. However, the difference in 2005 already amounted to 7 %,
and the Czech quota is higher this time.
In 2000 – 2005, the total difference between the quotas increased from 0.9 % to 7 %, and
the Czech quota is higher during the whole period.
This growing difference between the tax burden of the Czech and the Slovak taxpayers has
been caused by the difference in the tax rate of the seven out nine tax types, whereas only
two types - i.e. excise duties and other indirect taxes - lower the difference in the quota
of the two countries. The difference in the total taxation of the two countries is most contributed
by the social security contributions from employment, followed by corporation
income taxes and personal income taxes.
All these taxes are profitable, which is one of the reasons of their high impact on the total
differences in the quotas and their development, however, another profitable tax - the value
added tax - shows lower effects on the total trend of the growing differences between
the Czech Republic and Slovakia, mainly due to the fact that it has been harmonized in
the European Union and it cannot evolve too differently in these countries.
195Acta všfs, 2/2008, roč. 2
Abstract
Two new states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, came into existence upon the division of
one country in 1993, and these states implemented a new tax system in the same year. The
tax system was legalized in 1992 and that is why the taxes of the two states were originally
almost identical. However, many amendments of tax laws took place as soon as in 1993
and gradually, in spite of the tax harmonization process of the EU, the gap between the
tax systems of the Czech Republic and Slovakia has widened. The paper aims at analyzing
the growing differences in tax revenues (or in the tax burden of the two economies) and
at finding out which taxes contribute the most to the growing differences. The method of
breaking down the difference between the quotas to items - individual taxes - according
to the classification used by Eurostat has been selected.
Keywords
tax quota, tax mix, taxes in Slovakia, taxes in the Czech Republic
JEL Classification / JEL klasifikace
H20
Souhrn
Po rozpadu společného státu v roce 1993 vznikly dva nové státy, Česko a Slovensko a tyto
státy v témže roce zavedly novou daňovou soustavu. Soustava daní se uzákonila ještě
během roku 1992, a proto původně měly oba státy téměř stejné daně. Ale již v roce 1993
docházelo k mnoha novelizacím všech daňových zákonů a postupně, přes sbližovací
proces harmonizace daní v Evropské unii, se daně Česka a Slovenska stale více od sebe
vzdalovaly. Článek si klade za cíl analyzovat rostoucí rozdíly ve výnosech daní (respektive
v daňovém zatížení ekonomiky) a zjistit, které daně se na růstu rozdílů nejvíce podílejí.
Je zvolena metoda rozkladu rozdílu mezi kvótami na členy – jednotlivé daně - podle klasifikace
používané Eurostatem.
Klíčová slova
daňová kvóta, daňový mix, daně na Slovensku, daně v České republice
Contact address /Kontaktní adresa
prof. Ing. Květa Kubátová, CSc.
Professor of the University of Economics in Prague (VŠE) and the Institute of Finance and
Administration (VSFS)
(kveta.kubatova@vsfs.cz)
Literature and References
KUBÁTOVÁ, K. Odraz daňové politiky České republiky a Slovenska v daňové kvótě a její
struktuře (Reflection of the tax policy of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the tax quota
and its structure). Ekonómia a podnikanie. 2007, no. 1, p. 45–48. ISSN 1337-4990.
KUBÁTOVÁ, K. Daňová teorie a  politika (Tax theory and policy). Prague: ASPI, 2006.
279 p. ISBN 80-7357-205-2.
STIGLITZ, J., B. Ekonomie veřejného sektoru (Public sector economy). Prague: Grada Publishing,
1997. 664 p. ISBN 80-7169-454-1.
196 Acta všfs, 2/2008, roč. 2
STULTS, T. Tax Harmonization versus Tax Competition: A Review of the Literature. 2004.
Tom Stults’s entry for The 2004 Moffatt Prize in Economics Online: http://economics.about.
com/cs/moffattentries/a/harmonization.htm
Taxation trends in the European Union. Data for the EU Member States and Norway. European
Commission, Eurostat, Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union 2007.
ISBN :  978-92-79-04865-4. 447 p.
The Global Competitiveness Report 2007 – 2008. World Economic Forum 2008. Online:
http://www.gcr.weforum.org/