The Comparative Study About Financial Income And Expenditure Structure Of China And England From17to19Century

State fiscal capacity determines national prosperity and Expansion of theboundaries of state power.17th-19th century, the two countries Britain and china are inthe transition period of the industrial structure and the financial system. Theexpansion of nation and public power bring the fiscal expansion, The determinants offiscal expansion is the country’s GDP and per capita GDP, is the country’s tax andfinancing capabilities. Thus, the Sino-British financial comparison study willinevitably deepen the Sino-British tax, fiscal revenue and expenditure structure ofresearch, is bound to promote the Sino-British GDP and per capita GDP in research.1. The Sino-British financial structure comparisonBritain’s fiscal revenue structure equals income tax revenue and debt, andChina’s fiscal revenue structure equals taxable income. It is because that, the structureof fiscal revenue in the English line of this fundamental difference between the twocountries, brings a result of the conversion of competitive advantage. Our study datasuggests that Britain’s per capita income, per capita taxes are much higher than China.People do not catch a fire, While China increased tax revenue. But only one, as longas a tax would lead to social unrest, and even bloody dynasties. The reason is that theBritish government through the issuance of bonds, successfully make taxpayersbecome shareholders, the establishment of the new company, the ocean for militaryexpansion, allowing citizens to assume more operational risks, to share more benefits.So, the biggest innovation treasury system, is to become part of the national taxinvestment into a government of national debt, So that the government’s actionsconstrained by investors. Treasury system is not only the British amassed morerevenue, But also embodies the people; Harmonization of national multi-partyinterests will be individuals, organizations and national multi-stakeholder co-ordinatetogether to achieve greater value, round a personal fortune dream and nationalhegemony.2. Differences in tax structures between Britain and ChinaOur research found that not only the Britain and China have a huge difference inrevenue, the Sino-British tax structure also has a huge difference. For example, a polltax in the nature of the salt tax, China has, the British did not; affect commodityexchanges often tariffs, China has, the United Kingdom no or very low; directtaxation of property and income from income tax and personal property tax, Britain,China did not. China and Britain own the different tax structures, reflecting thedifferences of Sino-British tax system and the taxation culture. Since the Sino-Britishcultural differences, lack of credit system in China, China in addition to such fixedassets other than land, fixed assets such as buildings, movable property such as cattleand sheep, as commercial sales, and business organizations like the family’s net profits, as the country’s tax base can not be: Even in today’s China, the residents of thehouse holds links taxation is not an easy task, This results in the assets and income, inaddition to taxes on land outside the Qing government is difficult to open upadditional financial resources to ensure that the necessary government spending. SoChina’s direct taxation on property and income taxes much, led to the shortage offinancial resources, the provision of public services is limited. Two different taxstructures, reflecting the two governments’ enrichment capacity and China’senrichment capacity is obviously much lower than the Britain.3. China and Britain tax policy comparisonThrough the Sino-British tax structure studies, We found that the Qinggovernment in tax policy than in the Britain, then at least the Ming and Qinggovernment trade; while in the tax system, the Britain may have to act as a"Restraining Commerce" role, because Britain in commodity circulation, sales andincome are three main areas, have a clear tax system, every year the high taxes intothe state treasury. Therefore, from the national fiscal policy is concerned, indicatingthe Qing government to curb the Chinese industrial and commercial development,without any factual basis, because the treasury does not impose high business taxes.From the three components of the national income, the wages and rent and tax ratio,the Ming and Qing Government’s consolidated tax rate of3%-8%, far belowpeacetime Britain11%to30%during the war Ming and Qing Government does notabuse the right to tax the country, to improve their proportion in the distribution ofnational income. Therefore, China’s per capita income, far behind the UnitedKingdom, it is an indisputable fact. There are complex reasons for this, such as thecost of money is too high, high interest rates, excessive transport costs, have increasedtransaction costs, which makes China the circulation of commodities, foreign-pricedgoods can not enter the market, even if the tax rate is0%. Therefore, China’s percapita income is low, which can not be called from the Ming and Qing government’spolicy of suppressing the Ming and Qing government did not destroy the seeds ofcapitalism.