摘 要
2012年开始我国GDP增速放缓标志着经济发展进入新常态，增值税取代营业税（简称“营改增”）是新常态下深化财政、税收体制改革的重要举措。“营改增”虽然旨在通过结构性减税降低全行业企业的税收负担，但是由于交通运输服务业、电信业和金融业等一类行业因为业务复杂，经营前期投入大，增值税进项发票取得难等问题导致税负不降反增。另一方面“营改增”在完善供给侧改革，促进产业升级中发挥了积极的政策效应，“营改增”突破了二、三产业间的抵扣壁垒，消除重复征税，理论上贯彻了货物劳务税的税收中性原则。原适用增值税企业在“营改增”后外购各类技术服务形成增值税可抵扣进项税额，降低企业采购成本，提升外购服务的意愿；原适用营业税企业在“营改增”后购进物资、设备和无形资产可抵扣应纳增值税，服务业企业采购成本下降。
创新驱动是经济稳定健康发展中必不可少的关键要素，是现代经济体系建设的战略支持。创新活动的正外部性导致研发投资的整体需求大于总供给，此时需要调整税收政策，引导资源流向高新技术企业，提高创新的供给量。结构性减税有效缓解企业财务压力，打通产业间抵扣链条实现固定资产抵扣和营业成本抵扣，政策利好下服务业快速发展，外包服务企业数量与合同金额快速增长，服务业市场竞争压力上升。根据Arrow和Aghion et al等有关竞争与创新关系的研究结论，上升的竞争压力会促进企业增加研发创新。当前我国服务业整体市场环境向好，企业在资金充裕时会增加研发支出，通过创新强化核心力量，实现长期可持续发展。
本文的研究主题是：“营改增”对服务行业创新的影响，国外文献梳理了税收制度与经济增长的关系，以及增值税对经济的影响。国内文献多是通过研究“营改增”探寻增值税的经济效应，本文从减税效应、产业升级效应和创新效应三方面整理了“营改增”相关国内文献。在理论分析中从“营改增”带来的结构性减税、固定资产抵扣、营业成本抵扣和服务外包四项改变切入，阐明了“营改增”通过节约企业资金、激励设备革新和优化市场环境三个角度促进企业增加研发投入。
实证方面的研究数据来源于Wind数据库和国泰安数据库提供的各项企业信息，剔除经营异常和多数年份数据缺失的企业，最终筛选出200家A股上市的服务业公司为样本，选取企业2008—2018年部分核心财务指标构建面板数据。实证检验分为两个部分，第一部分运用双重差分法和双重差分倾向得分匹配法研究“营改增”对首批试点行业的创新影响，实验组企业来源于受到“营改增”政策影响的部分现代服务业，对照组企业选自最后纳入“营改增”范围的四个行业。实证结果表明“营改增”政策促进了部分现代服务业企业增加研发创新投入，企业的总资产规模、资本支出比例、股权净利率和总资产周转率与创新投资有正向关系，总资产增长率和资产负债率则与创新投资有负向关系，稳健性检验中剔除国有企业和直辖市企业后实证结果仍然显着，“营改增”
对普通民营企业的研发投入有促进作用。第二部分实证分析对最后纳入“营改增”的建筑业、房地产业、金融业和生活服务业做出进一步验证，并理清“营改增”对服务业企业创新的作用机制。以“四行业”为对象的进一步实证中取直辖市企业为实验组，位于其他省市的企业为对照组，双重差分的实证结果表明“营改增”政策创新效应的显着性虽有减弱但依旧有效。在机制分析中选取赫芬达尔指数为中介变量衡量企业所在行业的市场竞争程度，中介效应的检验结果发现“营改增”提高了服务业各行业的竞争水平，更强烈的竞争压力促使企业增加研发投入，市场竞争压力作为部分中介效应传导了“营改增”政策对服务业的创新效应。
基于研究结论，本文建议政府可以利用即征即退和进项税额加计抵减的税收优惠政策帮助重点行业或重点企业发展，同时注意政策力度，把握好增值税税收中性的特征，减少税收扭曲，营造一个充满竞争活力的市场。企业应当提高治理能力，优化资金运转，积极了解并掌握税收新政。
关键词： “营改增”；服务业；创新；DID；PSM-DID。
Abstract
Since 2012, the slowdown of GDP growth in China marks that economic development has entered a new normal. Value added tax replaces business tax (hereinafter referred to as "replacing business tax with VAT") is an important step to complete the reform of financial and tax system under the new status. Although the purpose of "replacing business tax with value-added tax" is to reduce the tax burden of enterprises in the whole industry through structural tax reduction, due to the complex business, large investment in the early stage of operation, difficult to obtain VAT input invoice and other problems in the transportation service industry,construction industry, financial industry and telecommunications industry, the tax burden will not be reduced but increased instead. "Business tax to VAT" will help to break through the deduction chain between the two or three industries, and eliminates the distortion of double taxation to the business operation. Theoretically, the tax neutrality principle of turnover tax has been realized. The original applicable value-added tax enterprises purchased various technical services after "replacing business tax with value-added tax" to form the input tax deductible for value-added tax, reducethe purchase cost of enterprises, and enhance the willingness of outsourcing services;the original applicable business tax enterprises purchased materials, equipment and intangible assets after "replacing business tax with value-added tax" to deduct the payable value-added tax, and the purchase cost of service enterprises decreased.
Innovation driven is an essential key element in the stable and healthy development of the economy. The positive externality of innovation results in the marginal income of R&D investment less than the marginal cost, and the total demand of new technology greater than the total supply. At this time, we need to adjust the tax policy, guide the flow of resources to high-tech enterprises, and improve the supply ofinnovation. The structural tax reduction of "replacing business tax with value-added tax" reduces the tax burden, alleviates the capital pressure of enterprises, opens the inter industry deduction chain to realize the deduction of fixed assets and operating costs, promotes the rapid development of service industry under the favorable policies, increases the number of outsourcing service enterprises and the contract amount rapidly, and increases the market competition pressure of service industry.
According to the research conclusions of arrow and Aghion et al on the relationship between competition and innovation, rising competition pressure will promote enterprises to increase R&D innovation. It is possible for enterprises to increase their R&D expenditure when they are rich in funds and strengthen their core competitiveness through innovation so as to seek long-term sustainable development.
The research topic of this paper is the impact of "replacing business tax with value-added tax" on service industry innovation. Foreign literature has combed the relationship between tax system and economic growth, as well as the impact of value-added tax on economy. Most of the domestic literature is to explore the economic effect of value-added tax through the study of "replacing business tax with value-added tax". This paper collates the relevant domestic literature of "replacing business tax with value-added tax" from three aspects:tax reduction effect, industrial upgrading effect and innovation effect. In the theoretical analysis, from the four changes of structural tax reduction, fixed assets deduction, business cost deduction and service outsourcing brought about by "replacing business tax with value-added tax", it is clarified that "replacing business tax with value-added tax" can promote the increase of R&D investment of enterprises through three aspects:saving enterprise funds, encouraging equipment innovation and optimizing market environment.
The empirical research data comes from various enterprise information provided by wind database and guotai'an database, excluding the enterprises with abnormal operation and missing data in most years, and finally selecting 200 A-share listed service companies as samples, and selecting some core financial indicators of enterprises in 2008-2018 to build panel data. The empirical test is divided into twoparts. The first part uses the double difference method and the double difference tendency score matching method to study the innovation impact of "replacing business tax with value-added tax" on the first batch of pilot industries. The enterprises in the experimental group come from some modern service industries affected by the "replacing business tax with value-added tax" policy. The enterprises in the control group are selected from the four industries finally included in the "replacing business tax with value-added tax". The empirical results show that the policy of "exchanging value-added tax for business tax" will promote some modern service enterprises and increase their R & D innovation investment. The total assets scale, capital expenditure ratio, net interest rate and turnover rate of total assets are positively related to innovation investment. The growth rate of total assets and debt to assets ratio of enterprises are negatively related to innovation investment. After the state-owned enterprises and municipal enterprises are excluded from the robustness test The empirical results are still significant, "replacing business tax with value-added tax" can promote the R&D investment of ordinary private enterprises. Thesecond part of empirical analysis further verifies the construction industry, real estate industry, financial industry and life service industry which are finally incorporated into the "business to value-added", and clarifies the mechanism of "business to value-added" for service enterprise innovation. In the further empirical study of "four industries", the enterprises in the municipality directly under the central government are taken as the experimental group, and the enterprises in other provinces and cities are taken as the control group. The double difference empirical results show that although the significance of the innovation effect of "replacing business tax with value-added tax" policy is weakened, it is still effective. In the mechanism analysis,herfindahl index is selected as the intermediary variable to measure the market competition degree of the industry where the enterprise is located. The test results of the intermediary effect show that "replacing business tax with value-added tax"improves the competition level of various industries in the service industry, and the stronger competition pressure urges the enterprise to increase the R&D investment.The market competition pressure, as part of the intermediary effect, transmits the innovation effect of "replacing business tax with value-added tax" policy on the service industry Should.
Based on the research conclusion, this paper suggests that the government can use the preferential tax policies of immediate collection, immediate refund and input tax plus deduction to help the development of key industries or enterprises, pay attention to the policy strength, grasp the neutral characteristics of value-added tax,reduce tax distortion, and create a dynamic market competition environment Enterprises should improve their ability of governance, optimize the operation of funds, and actively understand and master the new tax policy.
Key words: Business Tax replaced with VAT; Service Industry; Innovation; DID;PSM-DID。
1、 绪论。
1.1、 研究背景。
从1994年实现分税制改革到2016年全面实现营业税改征增值税（以下简称“营改增”），营业税与增值税是我国货物劳务税的主体税种。这样的税制体系在运行之初发挥了促进经济发展、增加财政收入的作用。经过20多年的经济高速发展，两税种并行的税收制度形成增值税抵扣壁垒，适用增值税的制造业企业在购入适用营业税企业的技术服务时，采购成本中的营业税不能作为增值税进项税额抵扣，这一税负扭曲形成重复征税，阻碍了第二产业和三产业间协作发展。由此“营改增”作为一项旨在结构上降低企业税金压力，消除重复征税、突破二、三产业间抵扣壁垒的重要税收改革被提上日程。
2012年1月1日，上海市交通运输业与部分现代服务业开始试点，随后9月至12月试点范围逐渐扩大，截至2012年年末，上海市、北京市、江苏省、安徽省、福建省、广东省、天津市、湖北省、浙江省等九个省市加入了试点范围。此后“营改增”试点的推行速度大幅提升，2013年8月1日交通运输业与部分现代服务业的试行范围扩展至全国，4个月后邮政业与铁路运输业全国试点，6个月后电信业全国试点。
2016年5月1日，房地产行业、建筑业、金融保险业和生活服务业纳入增值税标志着实现全面“营改增”。服务业在产品到市场和市场到消费者间发挥了重要的协调连结作用，同时还具有劳动生产率高和提供就业岗位多的优点。
2011年以后我国GDP增速放缓成为经济发展的里程碑，新的经济发展阶段需要产业结构升级、转换和调整，要想实现供给侧改革，保持我国经济能稳中向好的持续发展，需要充分发展服务业，利用服务业的优点持续为经济增长输送动力。在2012—2016年“营改增”政策试行期间，我国服务业对GDP的贡献率从44.9%上升至57.5%，这一比率虽然距离美国等发达国家有一定差距，但我国服务业对GDP的贡献首次过半仍然意义重大。全面实现“营改增”已然是“箭在弦上”，只有打通了第二、三产业间的抵扣链条，才有利于下一步完成我国各产业转型升级。
当前稳定、可持续的经济发展模式必定以创新驱动为内核，十九大报告中再次强调：创新驱动作为推进发展的第一动力，是实现我国社会主义现代化的关键要素，是加强经济实力、科技力量、实现治理体系现代化的战略支撑。充分发挥服务业技术密集型的行业特征，助力我国转型为创新型国家。
所以，本文旨在研究“营改增”政策是否促进服务业企业研发创新，助力于完成专业分工，产业结构升级，实现服务业可持续发展。
1.2 、研究目的及意义。
1.2.1、 研究目的。
“营改增”是实现供给侧改革和财税改革进一步深化的关键节点，是细化专业分工，升级产业结构中必需完成的制度改革。从宏观上看，2012—2018年“营改增”政策已实现结构性减税累计2万亿元，降低企业税收负担，提升企业投资发展的积极性。更重要的是“营改增”政策通过贯通全行业间的抵扣链条消除了营业税的经济扭曲，给服务公司创造了新的市场机会。服务业快速发展，各服务业企业是否在发展中既兼顾了短期利益也考虑了长期发展？是否增加了研发创新？“营改增”政策对企业的研发创新投入又有什么影响？如果“营改增”政策促进了企业增加研发支出，那么又是通过怎样的作用机制？本文目的在于分析“营改增”政策是否具有创新效应，如果创新效应存在，进一步解析该效应的作用机制，为我国增值税及相关财税政策下一步改革提供建议，针对企业在“营改增”后如何发展提供思路。
1.2.2、 研究意义。
1.2.2.1、 理论意义。
有关“营改增”的文献目前大多集中于“营改增”两大政策目标效果的研究，分别是“营改增”是否达到对不同行业税收负担只减不增的政策目标，和“营改增”是否有效的促进了产业升级。本文更深一步的剖析“营改增”政策对企业的创新效应，研究“营改增”对企业研发支出的影响，为理清“营改增”政策与创新驱动两者间的关系补充经验证据。
目前文献的研究思路大多是从税收负担的角度研究“营改增”政策带来的一系列影响，然而“营改增”后企业税负并没有按照预期只减不增，有不少行业受行业特征影响，在过渡期后税负仍然很难下降，在这样的背景下仅从减税的角度分析“营改增”对企业创新的影响不妥。由此本文选取市场竞争为切入视角，分析“营改增”政策对服务业企业研发创新的影响，丰富了“营改增”的作用机制研究。
1.2.2.2 、实践意义。
“营改增”政策标志着营业税退出的同时，也意味着增值税将作为我国货物劳务税的第一大税种，增值税政策在2016年全面“营改增”后至今一直处于反复调整中，现今的增值税存在较多的税收优惠、各种类别的纳税人、四档不同的税率和两种征收率，这使得增值税十分复杂，增加了企业悉知政策的成本。如今增值税的设计是否符合增值税作为货物劳务税应当保持税收中性的特征？本选题研究“营改增”政策是否具有创新效应，以及该创新效应的作用机制，为进一步完善增值税税制提供依据。
【由于本篇文章为硕士论文，如需全文请点击底部下载全文链接】
1.3、 文献综述
1.3.1、 税收制度对经济增长的影响
1.3.2、“营改增” 对企业发展的影响
1.3.3、对现有研究成果的简要评述
1.4、研究思路、框架和方法
1.4.1、 研究思路
1.4.2、研究框架
1.4.3、研究方法
1.5、创新与不足
1.5.1、创新之处
1.5.2、不足之处
2、“营改增”影响服务业创新的理论分析
2.1、“营改增”的演进和发展
2.2、“营改增”促进企业创新的理论依据.
2.2.1、技术创新理论
2.2.2、税收制度优化理论
2.2.3、核心竞争力理论
2.3、“营改增”对企业创新的作用机理分析
2.3.1、“营改增”后结构性减税降负
2.3.2 、“营改增”打通全行业抵扣链条
3、“营改增"对服务业创新影响的研究设计
3.1、研究假设
3.2、数据处理和变量设计.
3.2.1、数据来源和数据处
3.2.2、变量选取.
3.3、模型构建
3.3.1、双重差分模型(DD)的基本原理
3.3.2、模型设计
4、“营改增"对服务业创新影响的实证结果分析
4.1、双重差分实证结果及分析
4.1.1、描述性统计
4.1.2、DID结果及分析
4.2、PSM-DID结果及分析
4.3、稳健性检验.
4.3.1、剔除国有企业
4.3.2、剔除各直辖市
4.3.3、安慰剂检验
4.4、进一步检验.
4.4.1、“营改增”对最后四个行业创新投入的影响
4.4.2“、营改增” 作用于创新的机制分析
5 结论
“营改增”政策的目的在于深化财税体系改革，通过贯通全行业间扣链条实现结构性降低企业税负，另一方面鼓励企业间细化分工协作，促进产业升级，完成供给侧改革。自2012年“营改增”政策在各行业试行以来，其减税效果各行业评价不一，如建筑业和金融业等，“营改增”试行后税负不降反升。但“营改增”政策试行期间我国服务业产值对GDP的占比从2012年的45%增长至2015年的55.9%，全面“营改增”后增长至2019年的59.4%，服务业的快速发展趋势与“营改增”政策对服务业的各项利好相吻合。
本文以税收制度与经济增长的关系为切入，“营改增”作为我国税收制度改革的关键一环，改善了企业的经营环境，从结构性减税和打通产业间抵扣链条两个维度有利促进了服务业发展，激励企业增加研发投入，参考先前学者的实证方法，剔除缺失数据后，选取A股上市的200家服务业企业为样本，通过Wind数据库获得其2008—2015年的相关数据，先后利用DID模型、PSM-DID模型、四种稳健性检验和机制检验研究“营改增”的政策效应，研究结果发现：“营改增”政策促进了企业增加研发创新投入，且该政策效应对最后纳入“营改增”的建筑业、房地产业、金融业和生活服务业依旧显着。在作用机制上，企业所在行业的市场竞争程度加剧会促使企业提高研发力度，公平有效的市场环境有利于企业研发创新。综上，“营改增”通过优化市场竞争环境有效促进了服务业企业增加研发投入。
参考文献
