The fiscal policy is an instrument that collects resources for the state budget necessary to perform state functions; stabilize the economy; regulation of the economy and recovery growth. The most important instruments are taxes and taxpayers. Since 1989, with the transition to a market economy, a special tax policy has been known by excise taxes. Analyzing the case of Romania and the evolution of excise duties (hereinafter ED) conformity we created some regressions that illustrate the ED correlation in Romania between 2002 and 2015. The methodology used: three unifactorial regression models showing how ED impacts economic indicators such as GDP, power purchase expressed through the net annual average salary, and household final consumption expenditure. Moreover, each model has been tested and verified using statistic tests to give reliable results. In a first stage, we analyzed the correlation between GDP and consumption as endogen variable and ED, then we created another model that we kept ED as an independent variable, but we changed the dependent variable using the purchasing power as a dependent variable. Because according to the used tests we demonstrated that correlation coefficients are significant, we proceeded to explain them starting from fiscal policy and economic reality, own of these analyzed 14 years. In conclusion we highlighted below as the ED depends on GDP and consumption and the purchasing power can influence the ED. For future discussion and studies we intend to compare the results with other countries in different geographic areas in Europe
5. Selective bibliography
1. Anghelache, C., Pagliacci, M, Prodan, L., „Model de analiză macroeconomică bazat pe funcţia de regresie”, Romanian Journal of Statistics no. 1/2013.
2. Anghelache, G.-C., Anghelache C., Prodan, L., Dumitrescu, D., Soare, D., V., „Elemente teoretice privind utilizarea modelului econometric de regresie multifactorială”, Romanian Statistical Review Trim III / 2012-Supplement.
3. Dervis, K., De Melo, J. and Robinson, S. (1982). “General Equilibrium Models for Development Policy” New York, Cambridge University Press Devarajan, S., Lewis, J.D. and Robinson, S. (1994). “Getting the Model Right: The General Equilibrium Approach to Adjustment Policy” Mimeo
4. OECD Åsa Johansson, Christopher Heady, Jens Arnold, Bert Brys and Laura Vartia 2008,, Tax and economic growth” Economics Department, Working Papers nr 620
5. Parry, C.D.H. (1997). Alcohol misuse and public health: A 10-point action plan. Policy Brief No1, February 1997. South African Medical Research Council. Available [online] http://www.mrc.ac.za/policybriefs/6polbrief1997.htm
6. Penu, D. „Indirect Taxes in Romania – an Econometric Analysis”, Academic Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 2, No.1, March 2016, pp. 121-128, ISSN 2393-4913, ISSN On-line 2457-5836
7. Single, E., Robson, L, Xie, X. and Rehm, J. (1998). “The Economic Costs of Alcohol, Tobacco and Illicit Drugs in Canada, 1992”. Addition 93: 991-1006.
8. Sorensen, P.B (1998), “Recent Innovations in Nordic Tax Policy: from the Global Income Tax to the Dual Income Tax”, in: Tax Policy in the Nordic countries, Macmillan Press.
9. Van As, S. 2004. “The taxing issue of alcohol abuse. Establishing an alcohol injury fund” Science in Africa, January 2004. Available [online]: www.scienceinafrice.co.za.