Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija

Another key objective of the paper is to disclose how citizens perceive taxation and public spending. The objective of the paper is to show the impact of the tax incidence in Lithuania during the last decade. Thus, we can consider almost doubled increase in the burden of direct taxes compared with the officially declared average tax burden of the country. Nonetheless, an additional tax burden includes hidden taxes related to payments from the individuals’ total income. On the average, the tax burden for an ordinary worker can be about two-thirds of his/her gross annual income. The perception of the tax burden can lead every citizen of the country to be responsible for all the actions of public servants and budget planning processes. Raising government revenues is often difficult due to the use of the concept of fixed costs for public sector when a person directly pays additional payments for most public sector services. Thus, the confusion of terms is quite constant showing the need for literacy in public finance. In recent years, the accredited tax burden of Lithuania has been more than thirty per cent of the country’s nominal gross domestic product. However, political leaders and experts suggest plans for increasing Lithuania’s tax burden. Besides, there was a critical error concerning contributions to social insurance and compulsory health insurance funds. Fortunately, in 2018, the national budget included social payments in the budget revenues.

Another crucial task of the paper is to reveal how taxation, public debt and spending and fiscal policy are perceived by the citizens. In addition, it also tries to respond to questioning about the financial and economic importance on financial education. Furthermore, the theoretical task of the paper is to show the size of the government debt, its service and expenditure in Lithuania and Latvia during the last crisis in 2008. Therefore, it is possible to consider the increase of direct taxes burden by almost twice comparing to the formally announced country’s tax burden. However, additional tax burden includes hidden taxes related to the aggregated spending of an individuals’ income. In an average case, the tax burden for an ordinary employee could come near to two-thirds of the gross yearly income. Then, the overpaid debt services can be very sensitive given to the assumption that an ordinary worker has an approximately adequate level of financial and economic education. The perception of tax burden can encourage each citizen of the country to be responsible for all public servant activities and budget planning processes. Public revenue enhancement is often difficult due to the use of the same concept of taxes as fixed costs for public sector when a person directly receives nothing but additional payments for the majority of public sector services. Therefore, the confusion of terms is fairly constant, which once again shows the need for public finances literacy in all areas of study programs for students or cadets. An authorized Lithuania’s tax burden has comprised less than thirty percent of the country’s nominal gross domestic product in recent years. Nevertheless, political leaders and socalled experts suggest the necessity for increasing Lithuania’s accumulated tax burden. However, there may be a fundamental mistake that social insurance and compulsory health insurance contributions to the funds are not calculated into private individuals and legal entities tax burden. Fortunately, the last year’s budget considered social payments as part of tax revenues. Unfortunately, there are diminutive amount of signs in the continuity of Lithuania’s fiscal policy in the 21st century.