Discussion on a multiple rate system in Japan April 2014 Yutaka - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Discussion on a multiple rate system in Japan

April 2014

Yutaka Ito

Director of the Consumption Tax Policy Division, Tax Bureau Ministry of Finance, Japanese Government

2

Outline

 Background  Political discussion  Political needs

3

 Background: the introduction of consumption tax and its rate hikes

• 4/1989: Introduction of consumption tax (single rate at 3%)
• 4/1997: Consumption tax rate hike (from 3% to 5%)
• 3/2009: Enactment of the Program Act, prescribing implementation of fundamental

tax reform which contains consumption tax rate hike 《 9/2009: LDP and New Komeito → DPJ 》

• 8/2012: Enactment of the Act on Comprehensive Reform of Tax System, including

consumption tax rate hikes to 8% and 10% (Based on the agreement between DPJ, LDP and NK) 《 12/2012: DPJ → LDP and NK 》

• 4/2014: Consumption tax rate hike (from 5% to 8%)
• 10/2015: Consumption tax rate hike (from 8% to 10%)

(stipulated by the 2012 Act)

4

 Political discussion on a multiple rate system - 1

• The 2012 Act

The act, which stipulates consumption tax rate hikes to 8% and 10%, also stipulates that the government should consider measures to help low-income households, assuming the regressivity of consumption tax. The act states the following two options:

• 1. Provision of benefit / Refundable tax credit
• 2. Multiple tax rate system

The act states that the government should introduce a simplified provision

• f benefit at the time of consumption tax rate hike to 8%, until either of the

above options is introduced.

5

 Political discussion on a multiple rate system - 2

• The simplified provision of benefit

According to the 2012 Act, the Japanese government has decided to provide the simplified benefit this year to low income households.

• Recipients: members of the households which are exempt from the municipal inhabitant tax.
• Approximate number of the recipients: 24 million (cf. the total population in Japan: 127

million)

• Approximate annual income of the recipient household: Under about 2.5 million yen (about

25 thousand USD) with a spouse and two children (Note: It should be a different amount with a different family structure.)

• Amount of the benefit per recipient: \10,000 (about 100 USD) based on the following

calculation: (Average annual expenditure on foods per household in the bottom deciles) * (3%: additional burden by tax rate hike from 5% to 8%) / (average number of family members per household in the bottom deciles) * (1.5 years: from April 2014 to September 2015, the period between the first rate hike and the second rate hike)

(reference) Annual report on the family income and expenditure survey 2012 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications) http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/zensho/index.htm

6

• The Tax Reform Plan (1/2013) announced by the ruling parties immediately

after the change of government includes: ✔ A multiple tax rate system is aimed to be introduced at the time consumption tax rate is raised to 10% ✔ The following three matters will be discussed continuously:

• 1. How to draw lines between items for different tax rates with enough

reasonability to convince the people.

• 2. How to finance the revenue to be lost by the introduction of a reduced tax

rate.

 Political discussion on a multiple rate system - 3

7

 Political discussion on a multiple rate system - 4

• 3. The Japanese consumption tax system has adopted the subtraction method,

not an invoice system. If a multiple rate system is introduced in Japan, then introducing an invoice system would be necessary. How can we cope with its administrative burden for SMEs?

• The ruling parties had discussed the above matters in detail, conducting

hearings with experts and concerned businesses, but they were unable to reach a conclusion. Then, the Tax Reform Plan (12/2013) announced by the ruling parties indicates:

• 1. A multiple tax rate system will be introduced when the consumption tax rate

is 10%.

• 2. The above three matters will be discussed continuously.

8

 Political needs for a multiple rate system - 1

• Why does a country need a multiple rate system with a value added tax,

especially at a higher rate? Does Japan need it at the rate of 10%? Possible justification for certain items might consist of some of the following points: ✔ Counter measure against regressivity of VAT for low-income households ✔ Measure to relief tax burden felt by consumers every time they purchase goods and services ✔ Consideration of daily necessities ✔ Consideration of necessities for life-support ✔ Consideration of frequently purchased goods and services ✔ Measure for public understanding of consumption tax hikes ✔ Consideration in terms of social welfare policy ✔ Consideration supporting specific industries ✔ Economy-boosting measure ✔ Measure to keep the base of democracy and right to know

9

• Amount of annual expenditure on each item and proportion of annual expenditure to annual income - 1

(source) Annual report on the family income and expenditure survey 2012 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)

• http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/kakei/index.htm

The Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) is a sample survey conducted each month. It aims to grasp the actual conditions of income and expenditures of households in order to provide a base for social and economic policy. The survey covers all types of households, excluding households with student only, hospitalized person only, etc. In the FIES, about 9,000 sample households are selected based on statistical methodologies so that they represent all households in the whole country. (In ten thousand yen)

Bottom quintile Top quintile

Average 722 ～ ～ 248 515.0 515.0 170.0 170.0 1065.0 1065.0 ( 100.0% ) ( 100.0% ) ( 100.0% ) ( 100.0% ) ( 100.0% ) ( 100.0% ) 297.2 165.4 458.4 ( 57.7% ) ( 97.3% ) ( 43.0% ) 57.4 36.2 76.8 ( 11.1% ) ( 21.3% ) ( 7.2% ) 6.6 4.2 8.5 ( 1.3% ) ( 2.5% ) ( 0.8% ) 6.4 4.1 8.3 ( 1.2% ) ( 2.4% ) ( 0.8% ) 5.9 2.9 8.9 ( 1.1% ) ( 1.7% ) ( 0.8% ) 3.3 2.1 4.6 ( 0.6% ) ( 1.2% ) ( 0.4% ) 8.1 5.5 10.6 ( 1.6% ) ( 3.2% ) ( 1.0% ) 3.2 2.4 3.9 ( 0.6% ) ( 1.4% ) ( 0.4% ) 3.3 2.0 4.4 ( 0.6% ) ( 1.2% ) ( 0.4% ) 6.6 3.9 9.3 ( 1.3% ) ( 2.3% ) ( 0.9% ) 9.4 6.4 12.4 ( 1.8% ) ( 3.7% ) ( 1.2% ) 4.5 2.8 6.0 ( 0.9% ) ( 1.7% ) ( 0.6% )

Annual income quintile group

Annual income

Total consumption expenditure 2.26 2.77

Food (excluding Alcoholic beverages and Meals outside the home)

2.95 2.95 2.12 2.12

Cereals 3.12 3.12 2.01 2.01 Fish & shellfish 3.10 3.10 2.02 2.02 Meat 2.06 3.04 Dairy products & eggs 2.84 2.21 Vegetables & seaweeds 3.22 3.22 1.95 1.95 Fruits 3.92 3.92 1.60 1.60 Oils, fats & seasonings 2.79 2.24 Cakes & candies 2.60 2.41 Cooked food 3.23 3.23 1.94 1.94 Beverages 2.96 2.96 2.12 2.12

proportion of Bottomquintile proportion of Top quintile expenditureof Top quintile expenditureof Bottom quintile

10

• Amount of annual expenditure on each item and proportion of annual expenditure to annual income - 2

(In ten thousand yen)

Bottom quintile Top quintile

Average 722 ～ ～ 248 3.6 2.0 5.1

( 0.7% ) ( 1.2% ) ( 0.5% )

15.9 7.5 25.9

( 3.1% ) ( 4.4% ) ( 2.4% )

22.8 19.0 24.2

( 4.4% ) ( 11.2% ) ( 2.3% )

23.3 16.4 30.0

( 4.5% ) ( 9.6% ) ( 2.8% )

10.6 6.3 16.0

( 2.1% ) ( 3.7% ) ( 1.5% )

12.5 5.9 23.0

( 2.4% ) ( 3.4% ) ( 2.2% )

13.2 8.5 18.0

( 2.6% ) ( 5.0% ) ( 1.7% )

40.8 18.6 66.9

( 7.9% ) ( 10.9% ) ( 6.3% )

9.8 0.7 26.4

( 1.9% ) ( 0.4% ) ( 2.5% )

32.1 17.0 51.5

( 6.2% ) ( 10.0% ) ( 4.8% )

55.3 27.3 94.6

( 10.7% ) ( 16.1% ) ( 8.9% )

Other consumption expenditures

(e.g.Personal care services, Tobacco)

1.81 3.46

Education

（e.g.tuition）

0.18 35.35

Culture & recreation

(e.g.newspaper, book, travel expenses)

2.06 3.04

Medical care

2.96 2.96 2.12 2.12

Transportation & communication

1.74 3.60

Furniture & household utensils

2.45 2.56

Clothing & footwear

1.60 3.92

Housing

（e.g.Rents for dwelling & land）

(4.92) (1.27) Fuel, light & water charges

3.42 3.42 1.83 1.83

Alcoholic beverages

2.47 2.54

Meals outside the home

1.83 3.43

Annual income quintile group

proportion of Bottomquintile proportion of Top quintile expenditureof Top quintile expenditureof Bottom quintile

11

 Political needs for a multiple rate system - 2

• Why are many countries unable to abolish multiple rate systems

which are widely understood as inefficient?

• Are there any affirmative reasons to introduce a multiple rate

system?

• Can we discover or create any balanced solutions between

academic/scientific considerations and political reality?