Understanding VAT Leads One to Oppose It
An understanding of the
local and global context of the value-added tax (VAT) shows that just like
other onerous policies, multilateral creditors like the IMF and WB are
behind this anti-people measure. This context serves to highlight the
opposition to the current proposal to increase the VAT to 12 percent.
BY DANILO ARAÑA ARAO
Bulatlat
In defending the
government’s move to increase by two percent the value-added tax (VAT),
Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye stressed that the people need not worry
since basic necessities are exempted from the VAT. Fears of any price
increase are also misplaced because according to him, “External factors,
such as the armed conflicts that cause the oil prices to shoot up, are the
ones that will make the prices of commodities go up.”
As regards
accusations that VAT is anti-poor, he argued, “VAT will not charge farmers
and fishermen who are responsible for our produce. Revenues to be
generated should the new VAT bill become a law would go back to the
taxpayers in the form of jobs, education, water and health projects.”
Just like Bunye,
pro-VAT legislators also argued that a combination of savings and new
revenues is necessary for the country to wipe out its P180 billion-budget
deficit ($3.27 billion, based on an exchange rate of P55.09 per US
dollar). They claimed that a 12 percent VAT would increase revenues by P35
billion ($635.32 million), almost half of the P80-billion ($1.45-billion)
projection from various revenue-generating measures to be passed by
Congress.
Walkout
House Bill No. 3555,
also known as the Value-Added Tax Restructuring Act, was passed on third
and final reading last Jan. 27 with 129 in favor and 11 against.
Twenty-two legislators walked out of the session hall on the night of Jan.
26 as the motion to recommit the bill back to the ways and means committee
was defeated by only one vote.
The bill is now
scheduled for discussion at the Senate. But this early, Senate President
Franklin Drilon reportedly stressed that there is a commitment by the
majority to pass this measure.
The 12 percent VAT is
the sixth revenue measure approved by the House in three months. The House
approved the bills raising excise taxes on sin products, lateral
attrition, tax amnesty, fiscal incentives and extending the franchise of
the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) by 25 years.
The VAT was
implemented in 1988 through Executive Order No. 273 signed by then
President Corazon Aquino two days before the opening of Congress in July
1987. At that time, the 10 percent VAT replaced the four-tiered sales tax
structure and some 60 other taxes like advance sales tax, miller’s tax and
contractor’s tax.
It initially covered
goods. However, goods produced for exports are zero-rated, which means
that they are not subject to VAT and producers may even avail of tax
credits.
In 1996, the VAT was
expanded to include most types of services and selected products not
originally covered by VAT like pesticides and specialty feeds. The
expanded VAT was passed in 1994 through Republic Act No. 7716 but the
implementation was delayed due to a temporary restraining order in 1995.
In 1994, the
administration of then President Fidel Ramos applied for a $650-million
loan under an extended fund facility (EFF) of the International Monetary
Fund (IMF). One of the commitments of the government at that time was the
expansion of the coverage of the VAT.
At present, the VAT
covers a wide range of goods and services. According to research by Bayan
Muna, these include “food products (processed meat, canned fish, coconut
and vegetable oil, bakery products, noodles, milk, dairy products, coffee,
sugar); clothing, footwear, tannery and leather products; drugs and
medicine, furniture, pulp and paper, glass and glass products; cement,
steel, iron, wood and most construction materials; electrical lamps and
equipment, machinery and equipment both for manufacturing and agriculture,
wholesale trade and retail trade, pawnshops, restaurants, cafes and other
eating and drinking places; employment and recruitment agencies; motion
picture production; hotels and motels, telecommunications (including
landline, post-paid and pre-paid mobile phone services.”
Currently exempted
from VAT include raw agricultural products, magazines, public
transportation, shipping and apartment units with monthly rental of not
more than P8,000 ($145.22). Fees of doctors and lawyers are also exempted
while other professionals like accountants, athletes and actors were able
to get postponements in the collection of VAT.
In the past, Congress
has allowed firms mostly engaged in exports and those under investment
priority areas to avail of various VAT exemptions and zero-rated
privileges.
These exemptions and
zero-rated privileges amounted to P195.5 billion ($3.55 billion) in 2003,
during which year the budget deficit was pegged at P199.9 billion ($3.63
billion). According to Bayan Muna, “(this amount) cornered the biggest
share of tax and duty exemptions granted by the government in that year
which amounted to P299.42 billion ($5.44 billion).”
Global context
Economists Paul
Samuelson and William Nordhaus explained that Congress is “infatuated with
the idea of a VAT” because it is a tax on consumption. In the context of
the United States, they argued, “many economists think that (the tax
structure should be changed) toward one based on consumption and away from
one based on income.”
Once called “The Sexy
European” given its being a politically-palatable sales tax in the eyes of
neoliberal economists, the VAT has been implemented since the 1960s in
Europe and Latin America. The IMF and the World Bank pushed for the global
adaptation of VAT to establish a uniform taxation system.
In Europe and Latin
America, the VAT averages 20 percent and 14 percent respectively. Iceland
has the highest rate of 24.5 percent. France, Germany, Greece, Italy,
Mexico, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh are reportedly among 98 countries
whose VAT rates are more than 10 percent, according to Rep. Eric Singson,
a sponsor of HB 3555.
According to Bayan
Muna, the Philippines currently has the same rate as Cambodia, Indonesia
and South Korea, while “VAT is much lower in…Thailand (7%), Singapore (5%)
and Japan (5%) while Vietnam charges a VAT of (5% to) 10% depending on the
nature of transaction.”
Increasing VAT gap
As early as 1984, or
a year after the country’s debt moratorium, the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) pushed for tax reforms whose purpose is to “reduce reliance on
taxes on foreign trade and increase taxes on domestic transactions so as
to make taxes more buoyant and to avoid discouraging exports.”
In 1988, VAT
collections amounted to P5.74 billion ($104.19 million) which was
substantially more than the P1.5-billion to P2.0-billion ($27.23 million
to $36.30 million) projection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
during its first year of implementation. The 1988 projection allows for a
50 percent leakage, or an assumption that half of actual collections will
not be collected for various reasons like inefficiency.
In 2003, the VAT
collections reached P82.63 billion ($1.50 billion), an increase by more
than P16 billion ($290.43 million) compared to 2002. Congressman Singson
noted that VAT collections have increased by “an average of 20.64 percent
(from) 1988 to 2003.”
Data from the
National Tax Research Center (NTRC) however, showed that the average
leakage from VAT was estimated at 29.8 percent annually from 1998 to 2002
which resulted in losses of about P41.6 billion ($755.13 million) yearly,
or P208.1 billion ($3.78 billion) over the five-year period. According to
the Department of Finance (DoF), VAT revenues in 2003 amounted to P135
billion ($2.45 billion) but the collection target was P279 billion ($5.06
billion), resulting in a VAT gap of P144 billion ($2.61 billion). (See
Table 1) Taking this into account, the accumulated VAT gap amounts to
P352.1 billion ($6.39 billion) from 1998 to 2003, or P58.7 billion ($1.07
billion) annually.
Terms of opposition
As early as 1988,
opposition to the VAT was premised on its nature as a regressive form of
taxation. By its nature as an indirect tax (or a tax on goods and
services), both the rich and the poor are made to pay for this.
The DoF argued that
VAT is progressive on the premise that tax liability depends on
consumption rather than income (i.e., “the more you consume, the more
taxes you pay). However, it must be noted that basic commodities like
canned fish, bakery products, noodles, milk and coffee are covered by VAT.
If the DoF argument were any indication, the government seems to imply
that a solution to the problem is for the poor to eat less, or not at all.
This situation
highlights the need to oppose not just the passage of the 12 percent VAT
but also the junking of the VAT altogether.
Granting that there
is a need for government to increase its revenues, this must not be done
at the expense of the poor who are already suffering from the situation of
low purchasing power mainly due to low wages and high cost of living.
While it is true that there is a need to be efficient in its tax
collection as may be gleaned from the glaring gaps in VAT collection
through the years, the collection of personal income and business taxes
particularly from rich tax evaders must be the government’s focus.
One must not fall
into the political trap of calling on government to improve its efficiency
in VAT collection. Such a reformist demand may give the impression that
the VAT per se is acceptable and that only the proposed
two-percentage point increase is not.
Comparing the VAT
rate of the Philippines with that of other countries is also senseless
given the difference in the people’s standard of living, wages and
purchasing power. Such an argument is reminiscent of excuses made by
government and oil companies in justifying oil price increases in the
country.
An understanding of
the local and global context of the VAT shows that just like other onerous
policies, multilateral creditors like the IMF and WB are behind this
anti-people measure.
This context serves
to highlight the opposition to VAT which is essentially a continuation of
past struggles against regressive taxation. Bulatlat
Table 1
Estimated VAT GAP and Leakage Rate
1998-2003 |
|
VAT Gap
(in billion pesos) |
Leakage
Rate |
1998 |
35.7 |
31.0% |
1999 |
26.9 |
22.6% |
2000 |
34.3 |
26.3% |
2001 |
54.3 |
33.8% |
2002 |
56.9 |
33.0% |
2003 |
144.0 |
51.6% |
Source: Bayan
Muna research based on NTRC (1998-2002); DOF (2003) data |
BACK TO TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■ Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified. |