Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
世帯の主な仕事

農 家 世 帯 最多所得者が農業だけ又は農業とその他の仕事を持っている世帯

自 営 業 者 世 帯 最多所得者が自由業・商工業・サービス業等を個人で経営している世帯

常用勤労者世帯（Ⅰ）最多所得者が企業・個人商店等（官公庁は除く）の常用勤労者世帯で勤め先の従事者数が1人から99人までの世帯（日々または1年未満の契約の雇用者はその他の世帯）

常用勤労者世帯(Ⅱ) 最多所得者が常用勤労者世帯(Ⅰ)にあてはまらない常用勤労者世帯及び会社団体の役員の世帯（日々または1年未満の契約の雇用者はその他の世帯）

その他の世帯最多所得者が上記にあてはまらないその他の仕事をしている世帯

無 職 の 世 帯 仕事をしている者のいない世帯（年金・利子等の収入で生活している世帯を含む）

(参 考)

常用勤労者世帯(Ⅱ)

## 離婚の種類

協議離婚　戸籍法上の届出によって成立する（民763・764・739）が、これが有効に成立するためには、夫婦間に離婚についての意思の合致がなければならない。離婚意思の合致のない離婚は無効である。裁判離婚　裁判所が関与して成立する離婚であって、調停離婚、審判離婚、和解離婚、認諾離婚及び判決離婚の5種があり、調停が成立したとき、和解が成立したとき、請求の認諾をしたとき、又は審判若しくは判決が確定したときに離婚の効果が生ずる。

調停離婚　当事者の申立て又は家庭裁判所の調停に付する処置により調停が開始される（家18・19 I）。

調停において当事者間に離婚の合意が成立し、これを調書に記載したときは、調停が成立したものとし、その記載は、確定判決と同一の効力を有する（家21 I）。

審判離婚 調停が成立しない場合に、家庭裁判所は、調停に代わる審判をすることができる（家24Ⅰ）。

当事者が、2週間内に異議を申し立てると、審判はその効力を失うが、異議がなければ、審判は確定判決と同一の効力を有する（家25）。

和解離婚 離婚訴訟上において和解ができる（人訴37 I）。和解が成立し、それが調書に記載されたときは、その記載は、確定判決と同一の効力を有する（民訴267）。

認諾離婚 離婚訴訟上において請求の認諾ができる（人訴37 I）。請求の認諾があり、それが調書に記載されたときは、その記載は、確定判決と同一の効力を有する（民訴267）。

判決離婚 調停が成立せず、審判も確定しない場合に、法定の離婚原因があるときは、当事者の訴えの提起により離婚の判決がなされる（民770、人訴2・4以下）。

（引用の条文 民＝民法、家＝家事審判法、民訴＝民事訴訟法、人訴＝人事訴訟法、条数は1,2、項数はⅠ,Ⅱ）

注：家事事件手続法の施行（平成25年1月1日）に伴い、家事審判法は廃止されたが、本報告書では、平成24年調査時点において施行されていた家事審判法の条文を引用している。
## 第 1 第 6 5 回被保護者全国一斉調查個別調查要綱

## 1 目的

この調査は、被保護世帯の実態、特に保護の決定状況、世帯員の状況等を詳細に把握し、生活保護制度及び厚生労働行政の企画運営に必要な基礎資料を得るために行うものである。

## 2 調查時点

平成２３年７月３１日現在とする。

## 3 調査客体

この調査の客体は、第65回被保護者全国一斉調査基礎調査の調査客体となった世帯とする。

※ 保護停止中の世帯を対象とする。調査月における保護廃止世帯を対象とする。

## 4 調査事項

調査事項は、生活保護業務データシステムインタフェース仕様書個別項目データに掲げる事項とする。

## 5 調査方法及び個別項目データの登録

（1）福祉事務所の地区担当員が「第2個別項目データの登録要領」に基づき、各自が担当する調査客体について、平成23年7月31日の保護の決定状況及び当該世帯の実態により必要な事項を個別項目データに登録する方法で実施する。

（２）都道府県・指定都市・中核市本庁は、個別項目データの内容を審査し、平成２３年８月３１日までに確認処理をする。

## 6 厚生労働省における集計及び結果の公表

厚生労働省における集計は外部委託し、結果の公表は厚生労働省社会・援護局保護課が行う。
④－2 日本語指導が必要な日本国籍の児童生徒の言語別在籍状況（都道府県別）
## 平成28年度厚生労働省予算概算要求の姿

(27年度予算額)

29兆9, 146億円

(28年度要求・要望額)

30兆6, 675億円

（対27年度増額）

（+7,529億円）

## 一 般会计

(单位: 億円)

区分	平成27年度予算額(A)	平成28年度要求・要望額(B)	増△減額(C)(B)-(A))	増△減率(C)/(A)
一般会計	299,146	306,675	7,529	2.5%
うち年金・医療等に係る経費	280,378	287,126	6,748	2.4%
うち新しい日本のための優先課題推進枠	-	2,252	2,252	-

[計数整理の結果、異動を生ずることがある。]

（注1）平成27年度予算額は当初予算額である。

（注2）計数は、それぞれ四捨五入によっているので、端数において合計と合致しないものがある。

（注3）平成27年度予算額及び平成28年度要求額は、B型肝炎の給付金等支給経費（平成27年度予算 572億円、平成28年度要求 572億円）を含む。

（注4）平成27年度から保育所運営費等（平成27年度予算1兆8,126億円）が内閣府へ移管されている。
## 政策評価調書（個別票 1）

【政策ごとの予算額等】

政策名	公害紛争の処理、土地利用の調整	評価方式	実績	番号	①
22年度	23年度	24年度	25年度	26年度概算要求額
予算の状況	当初予算(千円)	65,970	63,304	62,291	60,484	60,300
補正予算(千円)	-681
繰越し等(千円)
計(千円)	65,970	63,304	61,610
<65,970>	<63,304>	<61,610>
執行額(千円)	55,885	52,037	53,335

政策評価結果の概算要求への反映状況	政策評価結果を踏まえ、事件調査経費は前年度と同額で要求。一方で、予算概算要求基準等を踏まえ、現地期日等開催経費及び一般事務費の更なる見直しによる削減を実施。
## 政策評価調書（個別票2）

【政策に含まれる事項の整理】

政策名	公害紛争の処理、土地利用の調整	番号	①	(千円)
予算科目	予算額	政策評価結果の反映による見直し額合計
整理番号	会計	組織/勘定	項	事項	25年度当初予算額	26年度概算要求額
対応表においてとなっているもの	●1	一般	公害等調整委員会	公害等調整委員会	公害紛争処理等に必要な経費	60,484	60,300	-184
●2
●3
●4
小計	60,484	60,300	-184
対応表においてとなっているもの	●1
●2
●3
●4
小計
対応表においてとなっているもの	○1	<	>	>
○2	<	>	>
○3	<	>	>
○4	<	>	>
小計
対応表においてとなっているもの	●1	<	>	>
●2	<	>	>
●3	<	>	>
●4	<	>	>

合計	60,484	60,300	-184
## 政策評価調書（個別票3）

【見直しの内訳・具体的な反映内容】

政策名	公害紛争の処理、土地利用の調整	番号	①	(千円)
事務事業名	整理番号	予算額	政策評価結果の反映による見直し額(削減額)	政策評価結果の概算要求への反映内容
25年度当初予算額	26年度概算要求額	增減
公害紛争処理等に必要な経費	●	1	60,484	60,300	△ 184	△ 184	政策評価結果を踏まえ、事件調査経費は前年度と同額で要求。一方で、予算概算要求基準等を踏まえ、現地期日等開催経費及び一般事務費の更なる見直しによる削減を実施。
ESRI Discussion Paper Series No.14

# Micro Data Studies on Japanese Tax Policy and Consumption in the 1990s

By

# Masahiro Hori and Satoshi Shimizutani

September 2002

Economic and Social Research Institute

Cabinet Office

Tokyo, Japan
# Micro Data Studies on Japanese Tax Policy and Consumption in the 1990s $ ^{*} $

By

Masahiro Hori and Satoshi Shimizutani **

September 2002

# Part I : Consumer Response to the 1998 Tax Cut: Which of Tax Cut or Coupon Program is More Effective?

Part II : Consumer Response to the 1994 Tax Cut: Evaluating the First Tax Cut in the 1990s.

Part III : Consumer Response to the 1995/96 Tax Cut: Are Temporary Tax Cuts Effective in Anticipation of Tax Increase?

Please address correspondence to:

Masahiro Hori, ESRI, Cabinet Office, Tokyo, Japan

Satoshi Shimizutani, ESRI, Cabinet Office, Tokyo, Japan
# Consumer Response to the 1998 Tax Cut: Which of Tax Cut or Coupon Program is More Effective?

## Abstract:

The Japanese Government implemented two tax cut packages in 1998. A unique feature of the 1998 tax cuts is that the tax cut amount for each household is based on the number of family members regardless of income level. A wage-earner's household receives the tax cut benefit as a decrease in withheld taxes. Wage earners are entitled to receive a national income tax cut of up to 18,000 yen plus 9,000 yen for each dependant (effective from February) as well as a local inhabitant's tax cut of up to 17,000 yen plus 8,500 yen for each dependant (effective from June). Using monthly data on worker's households from the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES), in this study we explore the variation in the impact of the tax cut episode across families with different numbers of family members to identify its impact on consumption. The estimates using monthly change in consumption indicate that consumers responded to the 1998 tax cut with the implied MPC of 0.6 on impact with stimulating services consumption but the MPC declined in subsequent months. A comparison of the impact on consumption with the shopping coupons program administered in the spring of 1999 based on the same specification demonstrates that the 1998 tax cut and the coupon program affected consumption of different types of goods and that the estimated MPC was roughly comparable and followed the similar pattern.
### 1. Introduction

Keynesian economics tells us that consumers respond to temporary changes in income as opposed to the permanent income hypothesis. However, both theories do not discuss how consumption may respond differentially to different forms of income change. Thus, implicitly, consumption behavior is the same whether one receives a windfall in decrease in tax withheld or a coupon. Therefore, it is assumed that changes in income of the same amount have the same effect on consumption, regardless of the way the change in income is received. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the effect of a temporary tax cut implemented in Japan in 1998, and to compare the effectiveness with that of the 1999 shopping coupons program that we examined in our previous study (Hori, Hsieh, Murata and Shimizutani [2002]).

The Japanese economy peaked out in the spring of 1997 right after the consumption tax rate was raised from 3% to 5% in April and fiscal consolidation had been completed. The onset of the Asian financial crises and the financial crisis in Japan itself in the fall of 1997 exacerbated the economic downturn. In order to alleviate the weakness of the economy, the Japanese Government implemented temporary tax cuts, called “special tax cuts”, in two 1998 tax packages incorporating national income tax cuts and local inhabitant’s tax cuts.

In Japan, the amount of national income tax due from monthly salary is determined through the “withholding table”, based upon the number of dependants and current monthly income of a household. The amount of local inhabitant’s tax is a fixed amount per month between June and May determined by the previous year’s annual income. Both tax payments are withheld from salary and the amounts are exogenously determined. In the 1998 tax cuts, a household’s tax cut amount was based upon the number of dependants, regardless of income level. Thus, the Japanese tax cut episode in 1998 is a nice “natural experiment”, offering an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of tax cut policy.

In addition to its relevance for Japanese fiscal policy, this paper also contributes to the large literature on the empirical relevance of the life-cycle/permanent income hypothesis (LC/PIH) of consumption. Recent work in this area exploits quasi-natural experiments to identify households that are subject to anticipated income changes. $ ^{1} $ To our knowledge, our study is one of the first attempts to take tax cut episodes as a “natural experiment” to test the LC/PIH in Japan using individual micro data.

On tax policies, there are at least two recent papers that investigate Japanese experiences using other source of data. Watanabe et. al. (1999) tackles an empirical assessment of Japanese tax cuts after the mid 1970's, distinguishing temporary and permanent as well as anticipated and unanticipated tax changes. Following the methodology of Poterba (1988) $ ^{2} $ , they find that the impact of temporary
tax reductions is significantly smaller than that of permanent cuts and that 80% of Japanese consumers respond to tax changes at their implementation, not at their announcement. The other quantitative work on Japanese tax reduction is Carroll (1999). He uses a simulation methodology based on habit formation. He argues that habits imply an immediate marginal propensity to consume out of permanent shocks of much less one and that “the immediate MPC out of permanent tax cuts maybe as low as 30%, suggesting that calls for permanent income tax cut as a quick means of stimulating aggregate demand in Japan may be misguided”.

However, these findings are not fully convincing partly because they are not based upon micro-level data analysis. The impact of tax reductions on consumption is likely to be different across households with different characteristics or different liquidity positions, and it is critically important to consider heterogeneity of consumers when evaluating the effect of tax changes. As for the US case, Shapiro and Slemrod (1995) utilize a questionnaire survey to evaluate the effect of a reduction in standard rates of tax withholding on consumption in 1992. They conclude that 43% of households spent most of the extra take-home pay. However, they perform a similar survey in 2001 and conclude that only 22% of households spent the tax rebates administered in mid 2001 (Shapiro and Slemrod [2001]). But, as for Japan's case, so far, our previous study (Hori, Hsieh, Murata and Shimizutani [2002]) is the only related research using micro data.

In this paper, we use monthly data on worker’s households in the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) to explore the variation in the impact of the tax cut episode across families with different numbers of family members to identify its impact on consumption. We control for normal seasonal patterns of consumption across families in consumption in 1998 with those in previous years without tax cut. The estimates indicate that the 1998 tax cuts stimulated consumption of services with the MPC of 0.6 on impact but it declined over subsequent months. A comparison of the impact on consumption with the 1999 shopping coupons program demonstrates that the 1998 tax cuts and the coupon program affected consumption of different types of goods and that the estimated MPC was roughly comparable and followed the similar pattern.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly describes the 1998 tax cut episodes and Section 3 gives a description of the micro-data used to evaluate the 1998 tax cuts. Section 4 turns to evaluate the effect of the 1998 tax cuts quantitatively across households and Section 5 compares the effects of the tax cuts and the coupon program. The final section concludes.

## 2 The 1998 Tax Cut Episodes

In 1998, the Japanese government implemented two tax cut packages. Both packages included national income tax cuts and local inhabitant's tax cut. The first tax cut package was announced on December 19 and the part of national income tax cut was enacted from the beginning of February.
1998. The part of local inhabitant’s tax cut was implemented from June 1998. This package was called a “special tax cut” and the name itself implied it was temporary. But in face of the stagnant economy, the Japanese government approved the “comprehensive economic measures” in April 2004, 1998. As a part of this package, an additional national income tax cut package was implemented from the beginning of August and an additional local inhabitant’s tax cut was implemented together with the first package in June 1998. As a result, households benefited from the tax cuts effective from February (national income tax), June (local inhabitant’s tax) and August (national income tax). The sum of these tax cuts was 4 trillion yen (about 40 billion dollars).

As discussed below, this paper focuses on worker’s households whose tax payments were withheld. The amount of national income tax due for workers each month is determined through the “withholding table”, based upon the number of dependants and taxable income. The cumulative annual tax payment is adjusted at the end of each year. The local inhabitant’s tax is a fixed amount per month between June and May, based upon the previous year’s annual income. Both tax payments are withheld by salary payers and thus the amounts are exogenously determined. In the 1998 tax cuts, a household was exempted from paying national income tax or local inhabitant’s tax up to its eligible amount, as determined by the number of household members, regardless of income level $ ^{3} $ . Since the tax cut amount is usually proportional to individual household’s tax payment based on its income, the 1998 tax cuts were unusual $ ^{4} $ . In the first package, the eligible national income tax reduction for a household was set at 18,000 yen (for a household head) plus 9,000 yen for each dependant. For example, a household with three dependants would have been eligible for 45,000 yen in tax exemptions. The local inhabitant’s tax reduction was calculated in a similar way: up to 8,000 yen (for a household head) plus 4,000 yen for each dependant. The second package allowed for national income tax deductions of up to 20,000 yen (for a household head) plus 10,000 yen for each dependant and for local inhabitant’s tax deductions of up to 9,000 yen (for a household head) plus 4,500 yen for each dependant. Since the tax reduction in local inhabitant’s tax was implemented at the same time, the total reduction in local inhabitant’s tax, effective from June, was a total of 17,000 yen (8,000 yen from the first package plus 9,000 yen from the second package for a household head) plus 8,500 yen (4,000 yen from the first package plus 4,500 yen from the second package) for each dependant.

All these tax reductions were temporary $ ^{5} $ . Households realized the benefits of these tax cuts with tax withholding exemptions. In the case of the national income tax cut, a household did not have to have any tax withheld until it had used up the eligible amount. For example, consider a household
with three dependants whose withheld income tax payment without the tax cut would have been 30,000 yen in February, 20,000 yen in March and 25,000 yen in April. This household was eligible for income tax cuts up to 45,000 yen in the first episode (18,000 yen for the head and 9,000 yen each for three dependants). In this case, the household did not have to pay tax (that is, no salary is withheld) in February (tax cut amount is 30,000 yen), only 5,000 yen would have been withheld from salary in March (tax cut amount is 15,000 yen) and 25,000 yen would have been withheld in April (no tax cut). As long as the total tax amount did not exceed the eligible mount, a household was exempt from withholding tax during 1998.

On the contrary, no local inhabitant’s tax was withheld in June for any household and after July, a household was withheld an amount equal to the due amount without the tax cut minus the tax cut amount $ ^{6} $ . Consider the same example, a household with three dependants whose due amount of inhabitant tax without the tax cut would have been 10,000 yen. This household would have been eligible for an inhabitant’s tax cut of up to 42,500 yen. In this case, the household’s salary would not be withheld in June and the monthly tax amount would be 10,000 yen minus (42,500 yen - 10,000 yen) divided by eleven in the remaining months until May of the following year.

## 3 Data and Calculation of Tax Cut Amounts

The data source is micro-level data from the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) from 1990 to 2000 $ ^{7} $ . This survey provides detailed information on income and expenditures for individual households as well as on the characteristics of these households. The monthly consumption data is compiled from a diary, which is collected twice a month. The survey covers approximately 8,000 households, which are representative at the national level $ ^{8} $ . Approximately, 1,300-1,400 households enter the sample and the comparable number of households exits the sample each month. Each household is surveyed for six months and one–sixth of the households are replaced by new households every month, making it possible to construct six-month panels.

To improve the reliability of the estimates, some households were dropped from the sample due to the following criteria. First, a household is deleted in which the household head is self-employed, which occupies roughly half of the sample. For two reasons we restrict our analysis to households whose household head is a wage-earner. First, monthly information on income is only available for these households. In addition, the monthly pattern of income for wage earners is very different than that of self-employed households due to the bonus system. Second, we also exclude a household if the reported age of the household head decreases or increases by more than one year.
during 6 months or if the household's tenancy status changes from owner to renter (or from renter to owner), because these changes are likely to be due to large shocks that may also have large effects on the household's consumption. Third, a household is excluded if the number of family members is greater than 10 because the consumption patterns of large extended households are likely to be significantly different from that of smaller households that are the norm in Japan. $ ^{9} $

Moreover, we need to drop more samples in order to calculate the monthly tax cut amounts as precisely as possible (see Appendix for tax calculation for detail). Monthly income tax payments for individual households are determined by the withholding table, based upon information on both the amount of taxable income (defined as salary after deduction of social insurance premiums) $ ^{10} $ and the number of dependants. In reality, non-taxable income is not included in calculating withholding tax, but only gross salary, including non-taxable income, is available in the FIES. Moreover, there is no explicit data on the number of dependants. Therefore, before following the withholding table, it is necessary to calculate the number of dependants and non-taxable income. First, in order to count the number of dependants precisely, we excluded any households in which more than three members are employed. Second, we excluded households in which two persons are employed and the spouse's annual income was greater than 1.03 million yen, the limitation to be eligible for a tax allowance for spouse $ ^{11} $ . Based on the number of dependants and monthly actual income tax payment in the months without tax cut, we calculate the taxable income and then non-taxable income, the gap between gross salary available in the FIES and estimated taxable income. Now it becomes possible to calculate monthly due income tax payment following the reverse process and using the withholding table. We excluded households whose tax payment without a tax cut is not estimated precisely. This process generates nice estimates of income tax payment, as evidenced by the correlation coefficient of 0.97 between estimated due income tax payments and actual income tax payment in months without a tax cut for the January-June panel utilized below. After these adjustments to the data, we end up with a sample of roughly 400 households in each six-month panel.

In addition to calculating national income tax cuts, it is necessary to estimate the amount of local inhabitant's tax cut. The inhabitant's tax is based upon annual salary in the previous year and is effective from June. That is, the inhabitant tax payment from January to May in year t is based on the annual salary in year t2 and that after June is based on the annual salary in year t1. The FIES collected at year t lacks information in year t-2 so that inhabitant's tax cut amount had to be determined by information beyond that available in the FIES. We used the growth rate of annual
wage data from the Basic Survey of Wage Structure $ ^{12} $ by industry, age, sex and firm size matching with individual head of household.

We will use the panel from January to June to evaluate the effect of the 1998 tax cuts on consumption. There are several reasons to use this panel. In order to assess the tax cuts totally, the panel should cover not only the initial month when the tax cuts were implemented (i.e. February or August) $ ^{13} $ but also the ending month when a household uses up its eligible amount of tax cuts. Households generally seem to have used up the eligible amount in June/July or December because large bonus payments in those months implied large tax payments. Moreover, the panel should include June, when the local inhabitant's tax cuts from the two packages were initiated simultaneously. Lastly, the January-June panel has precise estimates of tax cut amount as demonstrated by the high correlation coefficient of 0.97. Thus the January-June panel has little measurement error. Figure 1 shows the implementation of tax cuts initiated in February using the January-June panel. The figure shows that the cumulative monthly realized tax cut out of the eligible amount is more than 30% in the first month, about 60% in the second month, about 70% in the third month and more than 70% in the fourth month. Finally the figure increases up to 80%. These figures will be larger if a household, whose salary is below the minimum taxable income and therefore does not get benefit from the tax cut, is excluded $ ^{14} $ . In the following estimation, we disaggregate consumption into following categories: semi-durables, non-durables, and services. $ ^{15} $ The summary statistics of the panel used in this paper can be seen in Table 1.

## 4 Impact of the 1998 Tax Cuts on Consumption

We begin by using the six-month panels from the FIES to estimate whether consumption changes when a consumer receives a tax cut benefit. We will compare whether consumption of families with a larger tax cut amount increases by more than families with a smaller tax cut amount, controlling for the cross-sectional differences between similar families in other years.

The basic empirical specification is the following linear Euler equation: