To tax or not to tax - this question could have never been asked twenty years ago. Historically, income tax is a novel invention. Still, it became so widespread and so socially accepted that no one dared challenge it seriously. In the lunatic fringes there were those who refused to pay taxes and served prison sentences as a result. Some of them tried to translate their platforms into political power and established parties, which failed dismally in the polls. But some of what they said made sense.
Originally, taxes were levied to pay for government expenses. But they underwent a malignant transformation. They began to be used to express social preferences. Tax revenues were diverted to pay for urban renewal, to encourage foreign investments through tax breaks and tax incentives, to enhance social equality by evenly redistributing income and so on. As Big Government became more derided - so were taxes perceived to be its instrument and the tide turned. Suddenly, the fashion was to downsize government, minimize its disruptive involvement in the marketplace and reduce the total tax burden as part of the GNP.
As we said, VAT works. Despite some doubts by various analysts, for the most part it remains true that, if a country needs or wants a simpler tax, it is well to have a VAT. Nonetheless VAT does not always work well, principally because we yet are so tax educated society ready for "self-assessment". VAT is by no means necessarily the 'money machine' for every government.. Indeed, the equally conventional conclusion that a VAT is the most economically desirable and administratively effective way in which to collect a given share of national income through a general consumption tax also holds -- provided, again, that the capacity exists to administer VAT adequately. Similarly, as with any tax, although increasing the rate of an existing VAT rates will neither necessarily increase revenues proportionately nor be costless, it may nonetheless be the economically most sensible way to expand revenue shares in economy, if that is the policy goal.
Research demonstrated that most tax money benefited the middle classes and the rich, in short: those who need it least. Moreover, these strata of society were most likely to use tax planning to minimize their tax payments. They could afford to pay professionals to help them to pay less taxes because their income was augmented by transfers of tax money paid by the less affluent and by the less fortunate. The poor subsidized the tax planning of the rich, so that they could pay less taxes. No wonder that tax planning is regarded as the rich man's shot at tax evasion. The irony is that taxes were intended to lessen social polarity and friction - but they achieved exactly the opposite. In economies where taxes gobble up to 60% of the GDP (France, Germany, to name a few) - taxes became THE major economic disincentive. Why work for the taxman? Why finance the lavish lifestyle of numerous politicians and bloated bureaucracies through tax money? Why be a sucker when the rich and mighty play it safe?
How far Albania still seems to be from being able to run their tax systems on this basis? While there are many different reasons for this conclusion in different countries, only two points will be mentioned here. First, the policy process appears, almost inevitably, always to leave some problems in VAT design, and such problems are more likely to be exacerbated over time in the circumstances of Albania than those of developed countries. Secondly, the right way to implement a VAT is through "self-assessment". Potential taxpayers have many ways to escape the fiscal system. They (or at least their tax base) may, for instance, flee abroad. They may remain but hide in the shadow economy. They may secure some form of favorable treatment by exerting influence in various ways to have changes made in the law or its interpretation. If somehow trapped within the taxation system, they may finally seek relief by forgiveness of arrears through partially amnesty laws. Indeed, in some cases they may combine all of these methods of avoiding taxation. In some routine work of our tax administration the record over the years suggests that such processes have been at work, given the discouraging picture of repeated erosion of the base of the VAT through concessions at many levels as well as general administrative weaknesses.
Recent studies clearly indicate that a reverse relationship exists between the growth of the economy and the extent of public spending. Moreover, decades of progressive taxation did not reverse the trend of a growing gap between the rich and the poor. Income distribution has remained inequitable (ever more so all the time) - despite gigantic unilateral transfers of money from the state to the poorer socio - economic strata of society.
Originally, taxes were levied to pay for government expenses. But they underwent a malignant transformation. They began to be used to express social preferences. Tax revenues were diverted to pay for urban renewal, to encourage foreign investments through tax breaks and tax incentives, to enhance social equality by evenly redistributing income and so on. As Big Government became more derided - so were taxes perceived to be its instrument and the tide turned. Suddenly, the fashion was to downsize government, minimize its disruptive involvement in the marketplace and reduce the total tax burden as part of the GNP.
As we said, VAT works. Despite some doubts by various analysts, for the most part it remains true that, if a country needs or wants a simpler tax, it is well to have a VAT. Nonetheless VAT does not always work well, principally because we yet are so tax educated society ready for "self-assessment". VAT is by no means necessarily the 'money machine' for every government.. Indeed, the equally conventional conclusion that a VAT is the most economically desirable and administratively effective way in which to collect a given share of national income through a general consumption tax also holds -- provided, again, that the capacity exists to administer VAT adequately. Similarly, as with any tax, although increasing the rate of an existing VAT rates will neither necessarily increase revenues proportionately nor be costless, it may nonetheless be the economically most sensible way to expand revenue shares in economy, if that is the policy goal.
Research demonstrated that most tax money benefited the middle classes and the rich, in short: those who need it least. Moreover, these strata of society were most likely to use tax planning to minimize their tax payments. They could afford to pay professionals to help them to pay less taxes because their income was augmented by transfers of tax money paid by the less affluent and by the less fortunate. The poor subsidized the tax planning of the rich, so that they could pay less taxes. No wonder that tax planning is regarded as the rich man's shot at tax evasion. The irony is that taxes were intended to lessen social polarity and friction - but they achieved exactly the opposite. In economies where taxes gobble up to 60% of the GDP (France, Germany, to name a few) - taxes became THE major economic disincentive. Why work for the taxman? Why finance the lavish lifestyle of numerous politicians and bloated bureaucracies through tax money? Why be a sucker when the rich and mighty play it safe?
How far Albania still seems to be from being able to run their tax systems on this basis? While there are many different reasons for this conclusion in different countries, only two points will be mentioned here. First, the policy process appears, almost inevitably, always to leave some problems in VAT design, and such problems are more likely to be exacerbated over time in the circumstances of Albania than those of developed countries. Secondly, the right way to implement a VAT is through "self-assessment". Potential taxpayers have many ways to escape the fiscal system. They (or at least their tax base) may, for instance, flee abroad. They may remain but hide in the shadow economy. They may secure some form of favorable treatment by exerting influence in various ways to have changes made in the law or its interpretation. If somehow trapped within the taxation system, they may finally seek relief by forgiveness of arrears through partially amnesty laws. Indeed, in some cases they may combine all of these methods of avoiding taxation. In some routine work of our tax administration the record over the years suggests that such processes have been at work, given the discouraging picture of repeated erosion of the base of the VAT through concessions at many levels as well as general administrative weaknesses.
Recent studies clearly indicate that a reverse relationship exists between the growth of the economy and the extent of public spending. Moreover, decades of progressive taxation did not reverse the trend of a growing gap between the rich and the poor. Income distribution has remained inequitable (ever more so all the time) - despite gigantic unilateral transfers of money from the state to the poorer socio - economic strata of society.
About the Author:
Frank Miller has a Debt Consolidation Blog & Finance, these are some of the articles: Making A Certified Equifax Claim You have full permission to reprint this article provided this box is kept unchanged.
No comments:
Post a Comment