경기도 재정혁신TF “세수 부족 넘어 중앙 집중 재정 구조 한계”

A task force in Gyeonggi-do aimed to diagnose the financial crisis in the region, labeling it as stemming from an outdated centralized system of local governance. On the 12th, the task force, known as TTF, held a press conference where it released a comprehensive diagnosis and a roadmap for financial decentralization. The task force proposed 16 key challenges across four areas: establishing a stable source of regional tax revenue, innovating in financial operations, reforming local government fiscal systems, and strengthening fiscal health.

The immediate cause of financial strain was the sharp decline in property transaction fees, which fell from 11 trillion won in 2022 to around 8 trillion won recently. This drop in revenue resulted in a deficit-driven structure as businesses expanded to meet fluctuating tax income. The centralized nature of government fiscal adjustments, particularly in terms of funding for essential expenditures like childcare fees, disadvantaged Gyeonggi-do compared to other metropolitan areas.

The task force highlighted that the national subsidy matching rate was about 5 percentage points lower than other metropolitan areas, resulting in less national funding per year. Moreover, the central government's tendency to shift responsibilities to local governments through budget transfers further exacerbated the financial burden.

Gyeonggi-do's reliance on adjusted taxes from metropolitan regions added to the pressure, with the local government's share of national subsidies falling to about 37% as of 2024, far higher than the national average of 24.8%. This imbalance in available resources for metropolitan infrastructure has led to a strain on the central government's fiscal capacity.

The task force proposed a series of 10 priority challenges, including adjusting property tax rates for a more equitable distribution, revising the adjusted tax fund contribution rates, and expanding the fire safety tax to support firefighting personnel. However, many of these measures depend on legislative changes, making their implementation uncertain, particularly in light of potential resistance from other local governments seeking fairness in the decentralization process.