● Only when Gao Peiyong judges the tax burden level from the clue that fiscal revenue is related to fiscal expenditure, and the price is related to the quality, can it draw a more comprehensive and reasonable conclusion. The annual "two sessions" opened, and the tax burden level in China will definitely become one of the focuses of NPC deputies and CPPCC members at this year's "two sessions". Moreover, compared with the past, the current tax burden level in China seems to be worthy of attention by delegates and members: in 211, China's total fiscal revenue and "excess revenue" both jumped to a new high platform. The budget report submitted by the Ministry of Finance has already told us that in 211, the national fiscal revenue scale was 1,374 billion yuan, accounting for 22.1% of GDP. Not only that, according to this calculation, the national fiscal revenue "over-received" scale is 1,42 billion yuan. The "excess revenue" accounted for 13.5% and 67.9% of the total national fiscal revenue and the "increased revenue" of the national fiscal revenue in that year respectively. Comparing last year's "over-income" figures through time and space may make us appreciate it more deeply. In the history of China's financial development, at least the following two years are often mentioned as landmark events: in 1999, the national fiscal revenue exceeded 1 trillion yuan for the first time. In 21, the national fiscal revenue reached 1.5 trillion yuan. It can be seen that the "excess revenue" of 1,42 billion yuan last year is not only much higher than the total national fiscal revenue 12 years ago, but also roughly equivalent to the total national fiscal revenue 1 years ago. This is how China's fiscal revenue has come down and become what it is today. With the rapid increase of fiscal revenue scale, of course, at the same time, with the rapid awakening of China people's tax awareness, people have become very concerned about the change of tax burden level. With the advent of the information age and the deepening development of economic globalization, people know more and more about the tax burden level outside the country, and learn to express their views on China's tax burden level in a comparative way. As a result, there is a growing concern about the tax burden level in China, and even a growing voice of criticism. It is often said that the tax burden in China is very heavy. In today's world, China is one of the few countries with heavy tax burden. Some people even used Forbes' statement that the so-called "tax pain index" ranks second in the world to prove that China's tax burden has reached a fairly high level. However, perhaps it is limited by the angle of observation, or perhaps people are not good at evaluating economic issues including tax burden level more comprehensively. So far, the discussion about the tax burden level in China is mostly limited to a clue of income-tax revenue is discussed, or at most, tax revenue is linked with national income to make a simple comparison between them. Because of this, so far, the judgments we can see about the level of tax burden in China are not so convincing because they are difficult to justify. For example, when people compare the macro tax burden level-the proportion of fiscal revenue or government revenue to GDP-between China and foreign countries, whether it is based on general budget revenue or so-called full-caliber government revenue including general budget revenue, government fund budget revenue, social security budget revenue and state-owned capital operation budget revenue, they will find that in today's world, China is by no means the country with the highest tax burden level, or even a country with a high tax burden level. People at least know that Nordic countries are known for their high welfare, which is accompanied by high tax burden-the macro tax burden level is usually above 5%. Because, after all, there is no free lunch in the world, and the wool will eventually come out of the sheep. For another example, when people use Forbes' so-called "tax pain index" to evaluate China's tax burden level and make a comparative analysis between China and foreign countries, they will find that the basis for calculating the tax pain index is mostly the tax system and tax structure of mature market economy countries. There, direct taxes are often the main part, while the proportion of indirect taxes is often very low. In China, the situation is the other way around. Indirect taxes are the main part, and the proportion of direct taxes is very low. Therefore, the so-called "tax pain index" calculated mainly on the basis of the tax system and tax structure of mature market economy countries is applied to the evaluation of China's tax burden level, and even the conclusion that it is the second in the world is definitely flawed and unconvinced. Or, at least, it is not accepted by people with certain professional qualities. For another example, when people compare the tax burden level of today with that of yesterday and the day before yesterday in the historical space, they will certainly find the fact that the tax burden level of China has jumped again and again. As a result, many people have come to the conclusion that the tax burden of enterprises and residents is increasing day by day. Once such a comparative perspective is slightly broadened, such as fiscal expenditure, we will find that at the same time, the scale of fiscal expenditure is also increasing. Once we notice that fiscal expenditure itself is a factor closely related to the welfare level of enterprises and residents, and with the improvement of the level of economic and social development, this relationship is getting bigger and bigger, it is not sufficient, at least not comprehensive enough, to simply talk about the tax burden of enterprises and residents in terms of tax revenue scale figures. Because, after all, fiscal revenue is collected as the basis to support fiscal expenditure. At least the welfare expenditure directly related to people's lives should be counted as the offset of tax burden to some extent. It is necessary to introduce such a basic logical relationship that is purely common sense: the reason why the government wants to collect taxes is to meet its expenditure needs. The reason why the government needs to spend is because it has to perform its own functions. In the final analysis, the government's function is to produce or provide public goods and services that the market can't meet or can't meet well, and are indispensable to people's lives. That is to say, government departments and enterprise departments, in the final analysis, are born, exist and operate based on meeting the needs of people's material and cultural life. What is different is that enterprises have to meet people's personal needs for material and culture. The mechanism that connects the enterprise sector with private individual needs is the market. What government departments need to meet is the social needs of the people for material and cultural life. The mechanism that connects government departments with social needs is non-market-oriented-fiscal revenue and fiscal expenditure. Comparing the government sector with the enterprise sector can help us recognize something that may not be recognized on other occasions: the government is also an industrial sector. However, the industry operated by the government has its particularity. It is an activity to produce and provide public goods and services in the form of public goods and services to meet the needs of the public, which can be called "public goods and services". As a special industrial sector, its manifestation is different from that of the enterprise sector, but the basic principles of its birth, existence and operation are similar to those of the enterprise sector. Therefore, it is not only completely appropriate, but also necessary to use the standards suitable for judging the activities of enterprises in producing and providing private goods and services as the activities of government departments in producing and providing public goods and services. This is a very important judgment. It means that we can and should judge the level of tax burden on a higher and broader platform. It depends not only on how much money the government collects, but also on what the government does after collecting money. It depends not only on the amount of money collected by the government, but also on the quality or efficiency of work after the government collects money. That is to say, only by judging the tax burden level from the clues that fiscal revenue is related to fiscal expenditure, and the price is related to the quality, can a comprehensive and reasonable conclusion be drawn. In fact, in real life, such a judgment clue or judgment angle has long been integrated into our blood as a culture. However, we are often used to connecting it with the enterprise sector and private goods and services. For government departments, for public goods and services, we are often used to judging them with relatively sacred or even extraordinary eyes. The problem is that it is difficult to find an equilibrium point when judging two departments and two industries with similar nature from completely different clues or fundamentally different angles. Having said that, it may be appropriate to draw the following conclusions: good quality, low price and genuine goods are not only our criteria for the production and provision of private goods and services by enterprise departments, but also our criteria for the production and provision of public goods and services by government departments. Just as we judge the price level of any private goods and services that can be bought in the market, we can also judge the tax level levied by the government for the purpose of producing and providing public goods and services by using cheap and genuine standards. Therefore, whether ordinary people are discussing the actual tax burden level in China, or NPC deputies and CPPCC members are paying attention to the tax burden level in China based on the decision-making of state affairs, they should jump out of the limitation of taxation and extend to the overall situation. While discussing or paying attention to the indicators such as tax scale, tax growth and tax burden level and their changing trends, we should lock the basic foothold in a deeper and more substantive question: what has the government done for us with this money? What is the level of government work? How efficient is it? Is the money spent for this worth it? If you operate it, can you save some money?