- The Washington Times - Tuesday, March 8, 2005

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s comments last week to the tax reform commission on the desirability of a consumption-based tax system, are fueling new interest in the value-added tax (VAT), a type of consumption tax used in virtually every major country except the U.S.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas also hinted it may be time for a serious debate on this.

The VAT was invented in Europe mainly to facilitate trade. Europe needed a tax that could be applied at the border on imports and rebated at the border on exports. This was necessary to prevent taxes from being levied on top of taxes every time a good passed through a country. The VAT solved this by its incremental application at each stage of production or distribution, with an invoice trail showing precisely how much tax was embedded in the prices of all goods.

Economists have always liked the VAT because it is a highly efficient tax. That is, it discourages less output per dollar of tax than any other major tax. Some taxes are estimated to discourage $1 of output for every $1 raised. Overall, the U.S. tax system has what economists call a “deadweight cost” of about 20 cents per tax dollar, meaning every tax dollar costs the economy $1.20. The VAT, however, has a deadweight cost of just a few cents per dollar.

Economic theory tells us the more efficient the tax system, the more revenue it will raise. Thus many people have fought introduction of a VAT here on the grounds it would be a “money machine” to fuel the growth of government.

The Wall Street Journal routinely rails against the VAT on these grounds. As President Reagan said at a Feb. 21, 1985, press conference, “A value-added tax actually gives a government a chance to blindfold the people and grow in stature and size.”

While there is no question most countries with VATs are high-tax countries, almost all had high taxes before they adopted the VAT. And while most countries have raised their VAT rates over time, it is important to distinguish among those countries.

In general, those countries where the money machine argument is most valid are those that instituted a VAT before the great inflation of the 1970s, which hid VAT increases from view.

By contrast, countries that adopted VATs since inflation subsided have been much more restrained in raising their VATs. And those that adopted VATs during the relative price stability we have enjoyed for the last 20 years show no money machine evidence at all. Indeed, some are even starting to cut their VAT rates. Slovakia and the Czech Republic have both recently cut their VATs from 23 percent to 19 percent.

Looking at the data, we see the average increase in VAT rates for countries where the tax was established before 1974 is 7 percentage points and the median is 61/2 percent. For those where the VAT was established later, the average is just 1 percent and the median is zero.

Furthermore, not all countries introducing VATs have seen their overall tax burden rise. Taxes as a share of the gross domestic product have fallen from 29.8 percent in Japan the year its VAT was introduced to a current 25.8 percent. In Canada, the tax/GDP ratio fell from 36.4 to 33.9 percent. Other countries where the ratio has fallen since the VAT was introduced include Australia, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland and Poland.

Serious academic studies have concluded the VAT cannot be blamed for raising the overall tax burden even in countries where it was a new tax and did not replace an existing tax. Writing in the prestigious National Tax Journal (December 1985), economist J.A. Stockfisch found no support for the view VATs raise either the tax level or government spending.

A 1990 study for the American Petroleum Institute by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, now Labor Department chief economist, came to the same conclusion: “VAT rates and revenues have increased in OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries with VATs. However, these increases have been offset by a slower growth of other forms of taxes, leaving the aggregate growth rate of taxes the same.”

The VAT may or may not be a good idea for the United States. But it should not be casually dismissed as a money machine without seriously analyzing the tradeoffs. It may turn out to be the least bad way to finance needed tax reforms and the massive growth of federal health care spending that neither the White House nor Congress shows any interest in restraining.

Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide