Brexit is a golden opportunity to get rid of all the trade tariffs we have been saddled with by the EU - that is, to reduce taxes on sales of goods and services, by dropping not only existing ‘free trade agreements’, with their enforced tariffs, but while we are at it, VAT as well.
VAT is a trade tariff - just the UK’s intra-national version. The irrationality of government, elected by the people, is here without bounds when it comes to such a destructive tax. Persisting with VAT merely retains our own home-grown version of the poison of trade tariffs.
What is called ‘free trade’ would be a misnomer for what would be left if VAT is not scrapped. A tax on sales is stifling. It enslaves trade. VAT differs from what is deceitfully labelled “free trade” only in that it ‘protects’ UK citizens from the competition of UK citizens!
If VAT were a good thing, why not have ‘free trade’ agreements between counties, or towns, or between households, yea, even unto trade between members of the family? Why not place a toll booth and customs house at every front door for every exchange that is made between UK citizens…except that is exactly what VAT does.
There cannot be a more irrational and damaging tax than one on the sale of goods and services - VAT in the UK, GST in Australia, and a similar one just introduced in India, ‘free trade’ internationally.
To abolish it overnight delivers an immediate boost to the economy by. It removes an obstacle to the exchange of goods and services. There is no need to substitute the ‘lost revenue’. At a conservative estimate, two thirds of this revenue is today swallowed up in costs and losses. Every hard working trader and enterprise can immediately do something useful with the time wasted in helping government collect these ‘free trade’ taxes. Government gets rid of a large dead weight administering their end of this nonsense. This is win-win.
Its abolition also raises the revenue base on which other taxes are levied: profits, incomes and rents all go up, due to the widespread increase in productive power now that the poison has been eliminated.
There is no need for scientific precision. Whatever happens will be gain.
THE LOSSES FROM VAT
A THE VAT GAP
For every five pounds of VAT revenue received, one pound is lost due to
- Payments in cash
- Fraudulent claims for refund of inputs
- Carousel fraud
The VAT gap is estimated at £12.7 billion in 2014-15. This equates to 10.3 per cent of the estimated net VAT total theoretical liability (in other words, the net VAT total that should, in theory, be paid). It is of course not a loss.
B THE ECONOMIC LOSS DUE TO VAT
B1 COMPLIANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COSTS
An official figure of 4.7% of the yield has been given
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtreasy/269/269.pdf https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/mirrleesreview/dimensions/ch12.pdf https://tarc.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/businessschool/documents/centres/tarc/publications/discussionpapers/13_09_24_Evans_Tax_compliance_costs_in_SMEs_Exeter.pdf
This Swedish study, based on a survey in 2006 (text in English) draws attention to the interest costs of VAT due to the adverse effects it has on business cash flows.
B 2 DEADWEIGHT LOSSES
Deadweight losses are due to economic activity which does not take place but would have done in the absence of the tax. Any figure must be conjectural. What counts here is supply/demand price elasticity. A deadweight loss of 1% of GDP is £15 billion. A part of this results in a loss of tax revenue, and in addition, contributes to welfare costs.
The reduction of VAT from 25% to 12% in the Swedish restaurant sector led to an 3500 additional full-time jobs.
This newer report estimates that 11,300 additional jobs were created by this cut in VAT.
The IFS Green Budget of 2009 worked on the assumption that a 1% cut in VAT would lead to a 0.5% increase in demand for goods and services. (Chapter 10). On this basis, abolition of VAT would lead to a growth in GDP of around 5%, ie worth £75 billion, of which tax revenue would be about £25 billion.
C THE COST OF VAT TO THE GOVERNMENT
C1 CHURNING LOSSES
This is the part of the cost of VAT to the government itself. It comprises, for example, payments to pensioners and recipients of welfare benefits - child benefit, incapacity benefit, unemployment benefit, etc. The total of these benefits is £195 billion. If 50% of spending is on VAT-charged items, at least 7% of this being paid out in VAT, ie £14 billion.
In addition there is the component of VAT which is paid by public sector employees out of post-tax income. There are 5 million workers in the public sector, average earnings £25,000 per year. This gives a total wage bill of £125 billion. Assuming 7% of the spending of this group is comprised of VAT, that is another £9 billion. Thus, total churning losses are £23 billion.
C2 DOWNSTREAM LOSSES
VAT results in the abstraction of revenue from other taxable sources eg incomes, profits, rental values (UBR valuations). A 10% loss of the total of income tax, national insurance, corporation tax and the UBR (£330 billion) is £33 billion. This is over and above the loss in tax revenue due to deadweight losses (section C3, below).
C3 CONSEQUENTIAL TAX LOSSES DUE TO DEADWEIGHT LOSSES
C4 CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIONAL WELFARE COSTS DUE TO DEADWEIGHT LOSSES
Total spending on pensions and tax credits 2015/6 is given as £213 billion. Of this amount, about £60 billion is accounted for by welfare and housing benefits for the unemployed and low-paid. Assuming that this is 10% higher than it would be with an economy that was no longer diminished by the deadweight loss from VAT, a cost of £6 billion can be attributed.
C5 ADMINISTRATION COSTS
These are given in ¶ B1 above.
D TOTAL LOSSES ARISING FROM VAT
- Compliance and administration £5 billion
- Churning £23 billion
- Downstream @ 10% £33 billion
- Deadweight @ £25 billion
- Consequential additional welfare costs @ £6 billion.
This indicates a total loss of £69 billion ie two-thirds of the revenue is swallowed up in costs and losses.
This is a work in progress. The article has generated an extraordinary amount of hostility. Strangely, this hostility has not attempted to examine the actual figures and assumptions quoted. So far as I am aware, there has been no double counting, which is an easy trap to fall into. The weakest of the assumptions concerns deadweight losses and consquential losses in tax revenues, which have been revised downwards. However, an additional loss has been inserted: the consequential welfare costs to government arising from the deadweight loss.
The topic requires a depth of analysis for which the Campaign lacks the resources. However, given the proportion of VAT that seems to be swallowed up in costs and losses, and given also the opportunity that now exists to scrap this tax, it cannot be reasonbly argued that it does not need to be examined seriously.
|< Prev||Next >|