Napkin Decoupage Requirement

About studying in private institutions? Who do in public? Microprogram

Now that the fiscal plan presented, one of the points that has been discussed is the relevance of taxing private education. In an exchange I had with Juan Carlos Hidalgo and Mishelle Mitchell, at the suggestion of José Francisco Correa, would provide some information that seems relevant to this debate. It was developed by the M.Sc. Raquel Barrientos, who was my partner in MIDEPLAN and currently serves on the Board of INEC, and always come when I need information of this type.

The data presented below were extracted from the Household Survey conducted by the INEC in 2009. The data for 2010, which used a new methodology for measuring household income are not yet available, although it is likely that the results are not dramatically different.

In 2009, 1,128,976 people were studying in public institutions, 24.891 in so-called semi-or quasi-official institutions, while 283.201 did in private. In college and para levels are more people in private institutions than in public, 159.064 and 124.734 in the first case and 6.024 and 4.651 in the second. In other levels there are more students in public schools than in private.

When analyzing educational enrollment on household income, the results show a large concentration of students higher income in private universities, although the percentage of people of low and middle income is important. In the case of university education, a 68.41% of those studying in private universities come from families whose income level places them in the three highest deciles, ie, 30% richer. On the other hand, only 5.69% of students in private universities from the three lowest deciles, ie the poorest 30%. The remaining 25.91% is in the middle deciles.

The pattern is repeated in the secondary school level. A 77.03% of students in private schools comes from the three upper deciles, while only 0.29% comes from the bottom three deciles and a 22.68 in the intermediates. At school, the percentages almost repeat: a 76.46% of private school students from 30% richer a 3.71% of the poorest 30% and 19.83% of the intermediates.

general conclusions one could argue based on this statistical information on average two thirds of those currently studying in private institutions are not likely to have trouble paying the tax is proposed, given the level of family income. From this perspective, the tax is progressive.

However there is another third may well be affected, especially at the university level, because in high school be exempted from taxation to the monthly payments less than ¢ 110,000. Be taken into account to that group in the debate of the proposed reform.

And what does the survey on public education? In 2009, 49.16% of public school students came from the bottom 3 deciles, a 39.81% of intermediate and 11.03% of the 3 higher. At school, things start to turn around, since only 39.85% of public schools comes from the poorest 30% (and I suspect that this number was higher before they advance the agenda Venture), 45, 38% intermediate and 14.78% from 30% richer. And finally in the public universities turns the tables: only 8.25% of those studying in public universities come from families whose income is classified in the bottom 3 deciles, a 32.42% of intermediate and 59.32% of families whose income ranks them within the 30% richest.

These are the numbers. There is much to discuss about this situation, not only is a discussion on taxes. But if the tax reform that encourages debate, big time. Let us debate, yes, based on real information, not subjective perceptions.

Tweet

How To Bandage My Dogs Elbows

Antonio Alvarez Desanti

Following the promotional tour made on the occasion of the publication of his book "The Way Out", some people proposed to Antonio to continue sharing their ideas and thoughts, especially about those things that are closer. Here is the result of that request, the first of a series of micros on familiar topics.

The Web Piercing Infection Symptom

Decentralize, what and how

Why should we carry out a process of decentralization and strengthening of local governments in Costa Rica? Although the current centralized management model has generated very positive results over the nation's history, its limitations become increasingly apparent to a complex reality checked by profound regional inequalities. When the state apparatus is centralized by vocation and conviction, their political leaders are not always aware of such asymmetries.

Most developed countries assign a weight to local bodies as implementers of total public expenditure, a condition that is indispensable for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness. The First World Report on Decentralization and Local Democracy by the United Cities of Local Governments in 2008 reveals dramatic contrasts: in European countries are more decentralized local expenditure as a percentage of GDP above 20% (Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland ) other are located between 10 and 20% (Norway, UK, France) and the more centrist reach proportions of between 5 and 10% (Spain, Germany). In Canada and the U.S. this figure rises to 7.5% and 9.6% respectively, in Japan, the amount spent by local authorities amounted to 12.3% of GDP in South Korea and China 16%, the shining star of the global economy, the percentage reaches an impressive 22%. Meanwhile, in Costa Rica local governments are responsible for an expenditure of only 1.2% of GDP, representing a modest 6% of total public expenditure.

These figures should not have doubts about the need to increase resources to municipalities. But this reality is contrary to a constantly repeated argument that has become a prejudice, based on an unfair generalization accepted without rigor and derived from a certain lack of knowledge about local realities in the country. How you can allocate more resources to the municipalities if they can not make good use of those days? Is not it true that they have high levels of budgetary underspending?.

The answer is simple and includes many elements that have been the subject of numerous studies in the past. Underspending is not always synonymous with inefficiency, local governments often fail to execute their budgets because the items are rotated in the second half of the year, making it virtually impossible to spend a timely manner within the existing legal framework governing the activities of public entities. But it is also essential to break the vicious circle in which some of the municipalities are stuck: you can not run current resources because they lack the necessary conditions to do so, conditions will only be taken if they have the resources to build such conditions. Considerations

how are you, and the realization of a constitutional amendment approved 10 years earlier, led by Dr. Oscar Arias government to push for a law of devolution has been the subject of intense discussion this year, a law that was passed unanimously in the previous Legislature. In Article 3 provides that "every law shall specify which powers are transferred, the rules regarding their exercise and to exercise the necessary funds." From here clearly indicate the possibility of defining alternative forms of transfer that go beyond the simple transfer of resources from one place to another, which is the only option that seems to have been discussed so far.

then is not a dictum to transfer money to dress undress one saint to another, but a comprehensive framework that allows creative definition of viable alternatives, if available, of course, the political will to do so. The law was conceived in that spirit, from this perspective, the figure of ¢ 40.000 million who are supposed to be transferred annually to the municipalities and that is a product of simple arithmetic and calculation of which was not necessary studies, is put forward as a result an inflexible view of the decentralization process, or a lack of conviction that it could be accepted once and for all so we know where we stand on this issue. A recent

to illustrate this. A few months ago the Comptroller General of the Republic ordered the MOPT move all resources to their maintenance cantonal routes to municipalities. The process is complex, because in order to run these resources requires a technical-administrative apparatus that most local governments do not have. Why not then transfer to municipalities the power to determine how to use these resources while maintaining centralized execution thereof to retain the advantages of economies of scale offered?.

Along the same lines could be an inventory of relevant ministries and autonomous institutions similar to the case of the routes mentioned cantonal and local governments to transfer the power of the definition of priorities, leaving the central institutions implementation of projects. In this way you can start the process of strengthening local governments that the country needs, without the apocalyptic prophecies of dismantling the state and massive layoffs that have been raised in this debate come true.

8801 law is a unique opportunity to initiate a thorough reform of our state. The challenge should be taken collectively by the Executive and the municipalities, in an effort to find ways to decentralization original concrete without causing damage this process of transformation of the Costa Rican government that can not be postponed.