Public Economics Indirect Taxation

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation
Ross Warwick, IFS

Upward pressures on UK public spending
Source: Figure 9 in Crawford and Emmerson (2017).
Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

UK tax revenue
Indirect taxes are

levied on the sale of
goods and services
Source: Figure 2 in Miller and Roantree (2017).

Even more pressing in developing countries
Strong relationship between development and size of state
• In period 2000-2009, tax/GDP ratio was 13.7% in low-income countries and

23.5% in high-income countries (McNabb & LeMay-Boucher, 2014). Why?
‒ Resource constraints on tax administrations
‒ Large informal sector
‒ More corruption impacts ability to tax higher earners and tax morale
‒ Public services (e.g. health care) as luxury goods? No consensus here

(Acemoglu et al, 2013)
• Average rates of corporate tax have been falling and trade is on average
becoming more liberalised
Indirect taxes have an important role to play

General sales tax revenues on the rise
40%
General sales tax revenue as % of total
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
Low Income
5% Middle Income
High Income
0%
1991
1993
2002
2004
2013
1990
1992
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: Figure 1 in Abramovsky, Phillips and Warwick (2017).

Outline of presentation
1. Introduction
2. Principles of indirect taxation

• What should be the tax base?
3. Rate structure (of VAT)

A. Equity arguments
B. Efficiency arguments
• Should all goods/services be taxed at an equal rate?

1. Introduction

Principles of tax system design
Worth bearing in mind a few guiding principles for the design of a

tax system when thinking about indirect taxes
• Simplicity – easy to understand and comply with
• Neutrality – treating similar activities in similar ways
• Stability – minimising the frequency of policy changes
• System as a whole – not evaluating a tax in isolation
All of this in order to minimise welfare losses, minimise administration costs and
promote fairness and transparency for a given distributional outcome.
See the key references at the end of this lecture for more detail on these!

Purpose of indirect taxes
Indirect tax revenues represent more than 10% of UK GDP

We need to understand what they try to achieve and how their effect on agents’
behaviour might determine what they do achieve
• Potential objectives
‒ Raise government revenue for investment in public goods or to redistribute

resources
‒ Correct market failures when marginal social costs and benefits are not
aligned by the market
‒ Serve political causes such as protecting domestic industry

Purpose of indirect taxes
Indirect tax revenues represent more than 10% of UK GDP

We need to understand what they try to achieve and how their effect on agents’
behaviour might determine what they do achieve
• Potential objectives
‒ Raise government revenue for investment in public goods or to

redistribute resources
‒ Correct market failures when marginal social costs and benefits are not
aligned by the market
‒ Serve political causes such as protecting domestic industry
• Today the focus is general commodity taxation

2. Principles of indirect taxation

What makes a good indirect tax?
Diamond-Mirrlees (1971)
Production Efficiency Theorem
• There should be no taxation of intermediate goods, thus ensuring production

efficiency in the economy – a second-best outcome
• The economy should be maintained at the boundary of Production Possibility

Frontier
Any set of final prices for commodities achieved by a mixture of taxes on

intermediate and final goods can be achieved by taxes on final goods alone while
increasing overall output, which would be a Pareto-improvement
The result does require assumptions of constant returns to scale and no market
failures

What makes a good indirect tax?
Production Efficiency Theorem

This theorem is closely linked to the general principle of Neutrality
• If taxes are levied on business inputs, a longer supply chain will attract more tax
• There would be distortive incentives for businesses to carry out multiple stages
of production
‒ So don’t tax business inputs (different to taxing businesses more generally!)
Production Efficiency Theorem is why economists like Value Added Tax
• Collected incrementally at each stage of production; businesses can reclaim the

VAT they have paid on inputs
• Ultimately the tax base is only consumption

Value Added Tax: Background
VAT charged VAT Net VAT

on sales reclaimed on liability
input
purchases
Analysis of transactions
Sale from A to B for £100 £20 £20 £0
Sale from B to C for £300 £60 £60 £0
Sale from C to consumer for £500 £100 £0 £100
Analysis of firms
Firm A £20 £0 £20
Firm B £60 £20 £40
Firm C £100 £60 £40
Source: Mirrlees et al (2011)

The spread of VAT
Source: OECD (2016)

Desirability of VAT
Why has it spread so rapidly?

• In general, it satisfies Production Efficiency Theorem
‒ Considered by many to be a “pro-growth” tax
‒ Exceptions include the cases of exemptions and unregistered businesses
• Also should aid tax compliance and formalisation
‒ A trader evading VAT only escapes with the VAT due on that transaction
‒ Dual invoice system provides a mechanism for cross-checking purchases

against sales, increasing compliance
‒ Unregistered firms cannot receive VAT refunds

Implementation issues
Exemptions
• Apply to certain goods and services and also for firms not registered for VAT
• Sellers are not required to charge VAT but they also cannot reclaim the VAT paid
on inputs – there is “embedded VAT” in their sales
• Distort production decisions (violating Production Efficiency Theorem), create

incentives to self-supply, and create additional compliance and admin costs
Administration
• Compliance costs of VAT can be significant for smaller businesses – justification
for a high registration threshold?
• VAT requires effective system of refunds to work well

3. Rate structure of VAT
a. Equity arguments

Rate structure of VAT
Given the desirable properties of VAT, a major question surrounding its

implementation concerns rate structure
Many countries have both reduced and zero rates of VAT for some goods as well as
exemptions
• The UK has a standard rate of 20% but charges 5% for home energy supply and
0% for most food
• Financial services and property transactions are exempt from VAT
Should there be a uniform tax rate or is there a case for rate

differentiation across goods and services?
There are arguments relating to efficiency and to equity or fairness.

Should they be taxed differently?
vs

Equity arguments I
One of the most common justifications for differential tax rates is distributional.
For instance, the poor spend a greater proportion of their budget on food and thus
this should be taxed more lightly.
Is this a good reason for redistribution via differential commodity tax rates?
Perhaps not – for two reasons
1. Measurement: the apparent distributional burden depends on how

households are ranked and what the taxes are compared to.

VAT expenditures in Ghana
350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%

350%
300% % of net income
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
Note: Households ranked by net income per capita

Source: Author’s calculations using GHATAX

14%
% of expenditure
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Note: Households ranked by monetary expenditure per capita


Equity arguments I
One of the most common justifications for differential commodity tax rates in
policy debates is distributional. For instance, the poor spend a greater proportion
of their budget on food and thus this should be taxed more lightly.

2. Absolute vs relative amounts: Even if the poor do spend proportionally more

on lower-rate commodities, they are unlikely to spend more in absolute terms.

Removing VAT exemptions in Ghana
0% GHC 0
-2% -GHC 500
Cash change in purchasing power

% change in purchasing power
-4% -GHC 1,000
-6% -GHC 1,500
-8% -GHC 2,000
-10% -GHC 2,500
-12% % of expenditure -GHC 3,000

Cedis
-14% -GHC 3,500


0% GHC 0
-2% -GHC 500
Cash change in purchasing power

-4% -GHC 1,000
-6% -GHC 1,500
-8% -GHC 2,000
-10% -GHC 2,500
% of expenditure
-12% -GHC 3,000
Cedis
-14% -GHC 3,500


...and using the revenue to fund a universal cash transfer
Decile 2
Decile 3
Decile 4
Decile 5
Decile 6
Decile 7
Decile 8
Decile 9
Poorest
Richest
35%
30% VAT
25% Demogrant
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%


Equity arguments I
One of the most common justifications for differential commodity tax rates in
policy debates is distributional. For instance, the poor spend a greater proportion
of their budget on food and thus this should be taxed more lightly.

2. Absolute vs relative amounts: even if the poor do spend proportionally more

on lower-rate commodities, they are unlikely to spend more in absolute terms.
Thus, in countries with sophisticated tax and benefit systems, indirect tax rates
are unlikely to be an effective way to redistribute resources

Equity arguments II
• “Specific egalitarianism” – inequality should be limited in specific domains as an
end in itself.
‒ “Essentials of life” (e.g. food or fuel) that some individuals will not buy
enough of when they are taxed
• Some purchases provide signals of consumer characteristics allowing targeting

of specific distributional goals (e.g. wheelchairs)
• Horizontal equity – treating similar people similarly – is also important.

Differential rates arbitrarily penalise people with different preferences – a
violation of Neutrality.

vs

3. Rate structure of VAT
b. Efficiency arguments

Efficiency arguments I
• Taxes distort decisions of agents and this leads to a loss of welfare
• In general, uniformity is desirable insofar as it reduces distortions – Neutrality

again
Ramsey (1927) reaches a different conclusion
• Imagine government needs to attain a revenue target using proportional taxes

whilst minimising total utility loss
• His result is known as the Inverse Elasticity Rule – charge a higher tax rate on
commodities with more inelastic demand
• Intuition is that this distorts choices less and thus minimises deadweight
welfare loss

vs

Efficiency arguments II
Atkinson & Stiglitz (1976)
• Argue that commodity taxation is superfluous when a non-linear wage tax is

available
• A key assumption is that of weak separability between commodities and work
However, if a link does exist between consumption choices and work, commodity
taxation might be used to offset some of the distortion induced by direct taxes
• Evidence suggests a link exists (Crawford, Keen and Smith, 2008)
• Most food products are found to be leisure complements while alcohol, food
eaten out and petrol are substitutes

Efficiency arguments III

In general, there is an efficiency argument for imposing lower taxes on things that
are complements to formal market activity
• Commodities complementary with work
• Services that might be produced at home (Kleven et al, 2000)
• Activity that can easily switch to informal sector (Piggott and Whalley, 2001)
This could help offset some of the disincentive to work created by other parts of
the tax system
But again, a question of implementation arises – it would be hard to know what to

tax differently on these grounds and could make the system complicated

vs

Efficiency arguments IV
A uniform rate of commodity taxation is also likely to be conducive to a more
simple and stable tax system:
• Reduced compliance costs for businesses who would not need to classify their
sales and fill out additional paperwork to comply with different rates
• Lesser workload for the revenue authority in terms of determining what

category goods should fall into
• Avoidance of political lobbying invited by differentiated regime

Summary
Production Efficiency Theorem (plus some benefits related to compliance) is why

economists like VAT – business inputs are not taxed
• But some issues of practical implementation remain
The rate structure of VAT is a complex policy question – should the rate be
uniform?
• On equity grounds, it depends on the direct tax and benefit system
• On efficiency grounds, there are arguments for differential rates: offsetting
distortions from direct tax system or minimising distortion of consumption
• But implementing such optimal taxes would be difficult and in general
neutrality is desirable
• Note that where externalities exist, we can look to other tax instruments
(System as a Whole)
The overall case probably favours uniformity aside from some particularly
compelling cases, such as childcare

References
Key references:
Crawford, I., Keen, M., Smith, S., 2010. Value added tax and excises. In: Adam et al ed. Dimensions of Tax Design, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Adam et al, 2011. Tax by Design, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Other references:
Abramovsky, L., Phillips, D., Warwick, R., 2017. Redistribution, efficiency and the design of VAT: a review of the theory and
literature. Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Acemoglu, D., Finkelstein, A., Notowidigdo, M.J., 2013. Income and health spending: Evidence from oil price
shocks. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), pp. 1079-1095.
Atkinson, A.B., Stiglitz, J.E., 1976. The design of tax structure: direct versus indirect taxation. Journal of public Economics,
6(1-2), pp. 55-75.
Crawford, I., Keen, M., Smith, S., 2008. Preference structures and optimal commodity taxation. Institute for Fiscal Studies,
Working Paper.
Crawford, R., Emmerson, C., 2017. Inevitable trade-offs ahead: long-run public spending pressures. Institute for Fiscal
Studies.

References
Diamond, P.A., Mirrlees, J.A., 1971. Optimal taxation and public production I-II. The American Economic Review, 61, pp. 8-
27, pp. 261-278.
Kleven, H.J., Richter, W.F., Sørensen, P.B., 2000. Optimal taxation with household production. Oxford Economic Papers,
52(3), pp.584-594.
McNabb, K., LeMay-Boucher, P., 2014. Tax Structures, Economic Growth and Development. ICTD Working Paper 22.
Institute of Development Studies.
Miller, H., Roantree, B., 2017. Tax revenues: where does the money come from and what are the next government’s
challenges? Institute for Fiscal Studies.
OECD, 2016. Consumption Tax Trends 2016: VAT/GST and excise rates, trends and policy issues, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD, 2016. Revenue Statistics 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Piggott, J., Whalley, J., 2001. VAT Base Broadening, Self Supply, and the Informal Sector. The American Economic Review,
91(4), pp. 1084-094
Ramsey, F.P., 1927. A Contribution to the Theory of Taxation. The Economic Journal, 37(145), pp.47-61.

Public Economics Indirect Taxation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Economics Indirect Taxation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Economics Indirect Taxation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation

Ross Warwick, IFS

Source: Figure 9 in Crawford and Emmerson (2017).

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

Indirect taxes are

Source: Figure 2 in Miller and Roantree (2017).

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

Strong relationship between development and size of state

• In period 2000-2009, tax/GDP ratio was 13.7% in low-income countries and

‒ Resource constraints on tax administrations

‒ Large informal sector

‒ Public services (e.g. health care) as luxury goods? No consensus here

Indirect taxes have an important role to play

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

2. Principles of indirect taxation

3. Rate structure (of VAT)

• Should all goods/services be taxed at an equal rate?

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

Worth bearing in mind a few guiding principles for the design of a

• Neutrality – treating similar activities in similar ways

• Stability – minimising the frequency of policy changes

• System as a whole – not evaluating a tax in isolation

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

Indirect tax revenues represent more than 10% of UK GDP

‒ Raise government revenue for investment in public goods or to redistribute

‒ Serve political causes such as protecting domestic industry

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

Indirect tax revenues represent more than 10% of UK GDP

‒ Raise government revenue for investment in public goods or to

‒ Serve political causes such as protecting domestic industry

• Today the focus is general commodity taxation

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

• There should be no taxation of intermediate goods, thus ensuring production

• The economy should be maintained at the boundary of Production Possibility

Any set of final prices for commodities achieved by a mixture of taxes on

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

Production Efficiency Theorem

‒ So don’t tax business inputs (different to taxing businesses more generally!)

Production Efficiency Theorem is why economists like Value Added Tax

• Collected incrementally at each stage of production; businesses can reclaim the

• Ultimately the tax base is only consumption

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

VAT charged VAT Net VAT

Sale from A to B for £100 £20 £20 £0

Sale from B to C for £300 £60 £60 £0

Sale from C to consumer for £500 £100 £0 £100

Firm A £20 £0 £20

Firm B £60 £20 £40

Firm C £100 £60 £40

Source: Mirrlees et al (2011)

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

Source: OECD (2016)

Public Economics: Indirect Taxation © Institute for Fiscal Studies

Why has it spread so rapidly?

‒ Considered by many to be a “pro-growth” tax

‒ Exceptions include the cases of exemptions and unregistered businesses

• Also should aid tax compliance and formalisation