💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 6050.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 17:22:08. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2016-05-19 11:11:54
Reforms to VAT may lead to a more democratic but convoluted system
May 14th 2016
IN THE battle to smash the patriarchy, feminist campaigners have found an
unlikely ally: the European Commission. Their gripe is with the tampon tax, the
minimum 5% rate of value-added tax (VAT) on sanitary products imposed by
European law. This is tantamount, in their eyes, to a tax on women and worse,
one which European governments have no power to undo. But new proposals on VAT
reform from the commission may change that.
The European Union has no authority over income and payroll taxes, but great
authority over VAT. Members must apply a standard VAT rate of no less than 15%;
they can have up to two concessionary rates, of at least 5%, but these can only
be applied to certain goods, including food, books and medical equipment. There
are numerous exceptions to these rules (Ireland exempts tampons from all VAT,
for instance), but they were negotiated by the countries concerned upon joining
the EU.
This system of centrally imposed exceptions is an odd compromise between two
sensible but incompatible goals. It is not very flexible or democratic, as
governments have only limited scope to modify the system. But it is not simple
or coherent either: rates on a single item can vary wildly (see chart).
Moreover, the past 40 years have seen 750 court decisions interpreting VAT law.
Surely the European Court of Justice has better things to do than mull Poland s
refusal to levy VAT on disinfectants or France s low rate on early performances
at theatres with bars?
The effort to minimise the variation in rates stems from a time when VAT was
charged according to the rate in a product s country of origin, rather than
where it was bought. The commission did not want countries to give their
manufacturers a leg-up (or to poach firms from other members) by setting lower
VAT rates on their wares. But since it is now the VAT rate in the purchaser s
country that applies, there is no longer any risk of that. Consumers, after
all, are relatively immobile, despite the odd cross-border shopping trip.
The commission has proposed two options for reform, both of which hand more
VAT-setting power to national governments. The first would maintain a central
list of items on which reduced rates are allowed, but expand it and review it
more often. It would also rationalise the rules, by letting any country charge
the lowest rate on a given item that applies anywhere else in the EU. Britain,
for example, could exempt tampons from VAT, as Ireland does.
The second option is more radical: it would scrap the list, and transfer
VAT-setting powers to national governments. There would be limits if countries
started applying sweeping carve-outs in an effort to entice shoppers over the
border, the commission might intervene but otherwise countries would be free to
adopt as many rates and exemptions as they liked.
No country currently applies the minimum 15% standard rate (the average is
21%), so it seems unlikely that governments would take the opportunity to lower
rates across the board. Rather, they would probably tinker: since the crisis
there has been an increase in the number of countries using two reduced rates,
from 14 out of 28 in 2007 to 19 this year. Analysis from the Centre for Social
and Economic Research found that in 2013 countries sacrificed a median of 11.3%
of potential VAT revenue via reduced rates. If the current restrictions were
lifted, discounts and exemptions would presumably proliferate, to the delight
of special interests.
Although such concessions may be good politics, they are sloppy economics. The
more exemptions there are, the higher the standard rate has to be to raise the
same amount of revenue. Different rates also distort people s spending,
penalising some industries and rewarding others. It is an inefficient way to
redistribute: when Sir James Mirrlees, a Nobel-prize-winning economist,
reviewed Britain s tax system, he found that the government could scrap all
concessionary rates, compensate the losers and still bring in 3 billion ($4.8
billion) more.
Grzegorz Poniatowski, an economist, notes that a proliferation of reduced rates
provides more scope for tax dodging by misclassifying products as low-rate
items. For Patrick Gibbels of the European Small Business Alliance, there is
too much fragmentation. Encouraging a multitude of different systems could
create an administrative burden, which would be particularly onerous for small
businesses of the sort that Europeans are keen to cultivate. He prefers the
first, more cautious option.
But Pierre Moscovici, the commissioner in charge of VAT, prefers the more
radical option. Even if governments do not use the extra freedom wisely, there
is a case for letting them make their own mistakes.