1、外文資料Value-Added Tax as a New Revenue SourceJames M. BickleyVertical EquityThe vertical equity of a tax concerns the tax treatment of households with different abilities-to-pay. Vertical equity may be affected by the measure of ability-to-pay and the tax period. Some economists argue that personal co

2、nsumption is the best measure of ability-to-pay because consumption is the actual taking of scarce resources from the economic system. The most common measure of ability-to-pay is still income. Proponents of income as a measure of ability-to-pay argue that saving yields utility by providing househol

3、ds with greater economic security.Tax incidence usually is measured by using a one-year period. Data on consumption and income are readily available in one-year increments and the concept of a one-year period is easily understood. But some tax economists believe tax incidence is more accurately dete

4、rmined by measuring consumption and income over a households lifetime.If consumption is used as a measure of ability-to-pay, a single-rate VAT with a broad base would be approximately proportional regardless of the time period. In other words, the percentage of consumption paid in VAT by households

5、would be approximately constant as the level of household consumption rises.If disposable income over a one-year period is the measure of ability-to-pay then a VAT would be viewed as extremely regressive; that is, the percentage of disposable income paid in VAT would decrease rapidly as disposable i

6、ncome increases. In most discussions of tax policy, both a one-year period and annual disposable income (or some other annual income measure) are used; consequently, the VAT is viewed as being extremely regressive.If disposable income over a lifetime is the measure of ability-to-pay, a VAT would be

7、mildly regressive. For lower and middle income households, it appears that nearly all savings are eventually consumed. Thus, it may be that for the vast majority of households, lifetime consumption and lifetime income are approximately equal. High income households tend to have net savings over thei

8、r lifetimes; consequently, they would pay a lower proportion of their disposable incomes in VAT than lower income groups.Some supporters of progressive taxation oppose the VAT primarily because they believe that it is regressive. Some of these critics are especially concerned about the absolute burd

9、en of a VAT on low income households. The degree of regressivity, however, can be reduced by government policy. Three often-mentioned policies are exclusions and multiple rates, income tax credits, and earmarking of some revenues for increased social spending (including indexed transfer payments).Ne

10、utralityFrom an economic perspective, the greater a source of revenues neutrality, the more it is generally preferred; that is, the less it affects economic decisions. Conceptually, a VAT on all consumption expenditures with a single rate that is constant over time would be relatively neutral compar

11、ed to other major revenue sources.For households, two out of three major decisions would not be altered by this hypothetical VAT. First, this VAT would not alter choices among goods because all goods would be taxed at the same rate. Thus, relative prices would not change. Second, a VAT would not aff

12、ect the saving-consumption decision because saving would only be taxed once; that is, when savings are spent on consumption. But the third decision, a households work-leisure decision, would be affected by a VAT. Leisure would not be taxed, but the returns from work would be taxed when spent on good

13、s. (In contrast, the income tax affects both the saving-consumption decision and the work-leisure decision.)For a firm, the VAT would not affect decisions concerning method of financing (debt or equity), choice among inputs (unless some suppliers are exempt or zero-rated), type of business organizat

14、ion (corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship), and goods to produce. Other types of taxes may affect one or more of these types of decisions. But this conceptually pure form of a VAT is not feasible. A VAT cannot be levied on all consumer goods; consequently, prices of taxed goods will rise

15、 relative to untaxed goods. This change in relative prices would affect consumers decisions about which goods to purchase, and, consequently, firms decisions about which goods to produce. Furthermore, most nations with VATs have more than one rate. Multiple VAT rates alter relative prices of taxed g

16、oods. Finally, VAT rates in most nations have tended to rise over time. Despite these deviations from a pure form of VAT, a broad- based VAT is relatively neutral. This neutrality is greater if the tax rate is relatively low, as could be the case for a VAT to reduce the U.S. deficit.InflationA VAT i

17、nitially would cause a one-time increase in the price level if the Federal Reserve had an expansionary monetary policy to offset the contractionary effects of the tax. or example, a 4% VAT on 75% of consumer outlays might cause an estimated increase in consumer prices of approximately 3%.A VAT would

18、 have some secondary price effects. Some goods would rise in price because their factors of production, especially labor, are linked to price indexes. Yet, if the Federal Reserve disregarded these secondary price increases in formulating monetary policy, these secondary price increases would tend to

19、 be offset by price reductions in other sectors of the economy. In summary, a VAT would probably cause a one-time increase in the price level but not affect the rate of inflation i.e., increased prices in the future.Balance-of-TradeWith flexible exchange rates, the supply and demand for different cu

20、rrencies determine their relative value. If a country has a deficit in its balance-of-trade, this deficit must financed by a net importation of foreign capital. But net capital inflows cannot continue indefinitely. Thus, over time, this countrys currency will tend to decline in value relative to the

21、 currencies of other nations. Consequently, this countrys balance-of-trade deficit will eventually decline as its exports rise and imports fall. Hence, economic theory indicated that a VAT offers no advantage over other major taxes in reducing a deficit in the balance-of-trade.National SavingIf a VA

22、T is levied to replace part of income tax revenue, what would be the effect on the personal saving rate. A VAT taxes savings when they are spent on consumption, allowing savings to compound at a pre-tax rate. But an income tax is levied on all income at the time it is earned, regardless of whether t

23、he income is consumed or saved. The income tax is also levied on the earnings from income saved. Consequently, some proponents of the VAT have argued that choosing a VAT rather than an income tax to raise revenue would increase the return from saving, and, consequently, raise the savings rate. The r

24、ate of return on savings, however, has never been shown to have a significant effect on the savings rate because of two conflicting effects. First, each dollar saved today results in the possibility of a higher amount of consumption in the future. This relative increase in the return from saving cau

25、ses a household to want to substitute saving for consumption out of current income (substitution effect). But a higher rate of return on savings raises a households income; consequently, the household has to save less to accumulate some target amount of savings in the future (income effect). Thus, t

26、his income effect encourages households to have higher current consumption and lower current saving. In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that a VAT would increase the rate of national saving more than another type of major tax increase.中文譯文增值稅作為一種新的收入資源由比克利詹姆斯（一）縱向公平一種稅的縱向公平涉及不同的能力家庭與薪酬的稅務處理

27、問題。縱向公平可能受到的支付能力和稅期的措施。一些經濟學家認為個人消費是支付能力的最佳措施，這是因為消費從經濟系統的稀缺資源的實際獲得。大多數普通尺寸能力仍然是支付的收入。作為一種措施的能力支付收入的支持者辯稱節約產量的家庭提供更大的經濟安全的實用程序。稅收的歸宿通常是通過使用為期一年來衡量。對消費與收入的數據可方便地以一年為增量，為期一年的概念很容易理解。但一些稅經濟學家認為，測量一個家庭的生命周期內的消費與收入更能準確地確定稅收的歸宿。如果消費用作支付能力，單率增值稅與廣泛的基礎無任何時間段的關系。換句話說，在增值稅支付的家庭消費的百分比都是依據家庭消費水平上升。如果為期一年的可支配收入是

28、支付能力，然后增值稅將被視為回歸點；隨著可支配收入的增加，增值稅占可支配收入的百分比會迅速下降。大多數的稅收政策者的討論，其可用于每年可支配收入（或一些其他每年的收入）；即增值稅被視為是極其回歸。如果在生命周期內的可支配收入具有支付能力，增值稅將輕度回歸。從低等和中等收入家庭來看，幾乎所有的積蓄都是最終消費。因此，它可能使絕大多數家庭的飲用消費與終身收入大致相等。高收入家庭往往會節省了他們的壽命 ；因此，他們支付的增值稅占可支配收入的比例將比低收入群體低。一些支持累進稅的人反對增值稅，主要是因為他們認為這是倒退行為。這些批評者有些特別關注絕對增值稅對低收入家庭的負擔。但是，這樣可以減少政府的政

29、策。三個經常提到的政策是排除和多個費率，收入稅收抵免，并指定用途的一些收入增加社會支出 (包括索引的轉移支付)。（二）中立從經濟的角度看，更多的收入保持中立，在于有一般優先考慮；也就是說，少影響經濟決策。從概念上講，隨著時間的推移，相比其他的主要收入來源，有恒定的稅率的增值稅的所占消費支出情況將相對中性。假設這種家庭增值稅有三個重大的決定不會改變。第一，此增值稅不會改變貨物之間的選擇，因為所有的貨物將征稅率相同。因此，相對價格不會改變。第二，增值稅不會影響儲蓄消費決策因為節約征稅將只有一次 ；即僅當在消費上花費儲蓄時。第三，一個家庭的工作休閑的決定，將會影響增值稅。休閑時不征稅，但消費時花在貨物上就需要征稅。（相反，所得稅影響儲蓄消費決策和工作休閑決定。）一家公司的增值稅不會影響有關籌資投入（債務或股權）的決定，除非選擇一些供應商能豁免或零稅點。一個或多個這些類型的決策，可能會影響其他類型的稅。但這種概念上