value added tax south africa: 1991 - 2011 · 2015. 1. 27. · • when the vat act, no 89 of 1991,...

3/23/2011

1

VALUE ADDED TAX SOUTH AFRICA: 1991 - 2011

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

Presenter: Cecil Morden | Chief Director, Tax Policy, National Treasury | 23 March 2011

2

Contents

1. Introduction

2. History of VAT in South Africa

3. VAT revenue performance

4. Concessions and exclusions

5. Requests for VAT concessions

6. Exemptions and apportionment problems

7. Tax burden / regressivity

8. Multiple VAT rates

9. VAT in South Africa, Cnossen(Katz Commission)

11. Taxing consumption, WB, Prof. Richard Bird

12. Consumption taxes, OCED

13. Mirrlees Review, – UK

14. IES, Stats SA 2005/06

15. Concluding remarks

3/23/2011

2

3

Introduction (1)

• Following the Margo Commission (1986) Government released a WhitePaper in 1988 indicating its intention to replace the then one-stageGeneral Sales Tax (GST) with a Value-Added Tax system (VAT).

• Concerns raised with respect to GST - evasion, the extent of the erosionof the sales tax base due to general exemption of food items and theexclusion of most services.

• Businesses could partially escaped cascading effect of GST by means ofGST credit certificates - certificates were abused leading to concernsabout tax evasion. Registration certificates used to buy goods GST freeif bought for resale or used as intermediate inputs for further processing.

• However, capital goods and other intermediary inputs (e.g. advertising)formed part of the GST base.

4

Introduction (2)

• Value Added Tax was introduced on 30 September 1991.

• It is a destination VAT, invoice credit method, with full credits

for capital goods.

• VAT is payable when invoice is issued – payment basis for

municipalities and sole traders with an annual turnover

below R2.5 million per annum

• Value-Added Tax Committee (VATCOM) recommended a

broad tax base with minimal exclusions

3/23/2011

3

5

History of sales tax rates in South Africa

• General Sales Tax (GST)

– 3 July 1978: 4%

– 1 March 1982: 5%

– 1 September 1982: 6%

– 1 February 1984: 7%

– 1 July 1984: 10%

– 25 March 1985: 12%

• Value Added Tax

– 30 September 1991: 10%

– 7 April 1993: 14%

6

VAT history (1)

• When the VAT Act, No 89 of 1991, was promulgated on 12

June 1991 no provisions were made to exclude (zero-rate)

any goods or services.

• On 17 July 1991 the zero-rating of brown bread and maize

meal were included.

• On 29 September 1991 (the Sunday before the scheduled

introduction of VAT on Monday 30 September 1991),

following extended public protest, eight additional basic food

items were added to the zero-rated list.

3/23/2011

4

7

VAT history (2)

• At the beginning of 1993 further public protest resulted in the zero rating of an additional nine basic food items with effect from 7 April 1993.

• The VAT rate was increased from 10 per cent to 14 per cent on the same day.

• Pressures for a higher VAT rate on luxury goods were allayed, to an extent, by the extension of ad valorem excise duties on luxury goods to items such as air conditioners, cell phones, video cameras, jetskis and domestic dishwashers. Motor vehicles were later added to the list by way of a progressive ad valorem duty formula that excluded the cheapest vehicles from this impost.

8

Revenue performance

• VAT is the second most important source of revenue for the South African fiscus, after PIT, and that the South African VAT system appears to be, after New Zealand, one of the better performing VAT systems.

3/23/2011

5

PIT, CIT & VAT as % of Total Tax Revenue

9

% of Total Tax Revenue

Individuals GST / VAT Companies

1983/84 28.9% 19.7% 25.9%

1984/85 31.5% 23.8% 23.0%

1985/86 29.0% 26.1% 25.2%

1989/90 30.5% 25.6% 21.1%

1990/91 33.5% 25.3% 20.5%

1991/92 38.4% 24.1% 18.0%

1992/93 40.8% 21.1% 15.8%

1993/94 39.1% 26.3% 11.9%

1994/95 40.0% 26.1% 12.1%

1995/96 40.6% 26.0% 12.4%

1996/97 40.6% 24.5% 12.9%

1999/00 43.3% 24.4% 10.6%

2000/01 40.1% 25.3% 13.7%

2001/02 36.4% 24.6% 17.1%

2002/03 34.0% 25.3% 20.1%

2003/04 32.9% 26.9% 20.3%

2004/05 31.9% 28.2% 20.3%

2005/06 30.5% 27.8% 20.9%

2006/07 29.2% 27.9% 24.7%

2007/08 30.1% 26.9% 25.0%

2008/09 32.0% 25.4% 27.2%

2009/10 35.4% 25.4% 23.3%

TAX/GDP ratios

10

Tax Revenue as a % of GDP

Individuals GST / VAT Companies Total Tax / GDP Budget Rev / GDP

1983/84 5.9% 4.0% 5.3% 19.5% 20.3%

1984/85 6.8% 5.2% 5.0% 21.0% 21.8%

1985/86 6.9% 6.2% 6.0% 23.1% 23.7%

1989/90 7.6% 6.4% 5.3% 24.7% 25.0%

1990/91 8.1% 6.1% 4.9% 24.0% 24.1%

1991/92 8.7% 5.5% 4.1% 22.9% 22.7%

1992/93 8.9% 4.6% 3.4% 21.9% 21.8%

1993/94 8.5% 5.7% 2.6% 21.9% 21.8%

1994/95 9.0% 5.9% 2.7% 22.8% 22.6%

1995/96 9.1% 5.8% 2.8% 22.5% 22.4%

1996/97 9.4% 5.6% 3.0% 23.1% 23.0%

1999/00 10.3% 5.8% 2.5% 24.0% 23.7%

2000/01 9.1% 5.7% 3.1% 23.1% 22.6%

2001/02 8.6% 5.8% 4.0% 24.0% 23.7%

2002/03 7.9% 5.9% 4.7% 23.5% 23.2%

2003/04 7.6% 6.3% 4.7% 23.5% 23.2%

2004/05 7.8% 6.9% 5.0% 24.9% 24.4%

2005/06 7.9% 7.2% 5.4% 26.3% 26.0%

2006/07 7.7% 7.3% 6.5% 27.0% 26.2%

2007/08 8.1% 7.2% 6.7% 27.5% 26.9%

2008/09 8.4% 6.7% 7.1% 26.9% 26.2%

2009/10 8.4% 6.0% 5.5% 24.3% 23.6%

3/23/2011

6

TAX/GDP ratios

11

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

11.0%

%

YEAR

TAX / GDP ratio: Three main taxes

Individuals

VAT

Companies

VAT revenue trend

12

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

6.0%

6.5%

7.0%

7.5%

8.0%

15.0%

16.0%

17.0%

18.0%

19.0%

20.0%

21.0%

22.0%

23.0%

24.0%

25.0%

26.0%

27.0%

28.0%

29.0%

%

YEAR

VAT Revenue: % of Tax Revenue (lhs) and of GDP (rhs)

% of Tax Revenue

% of GDP

3/23/2011

7

Household consumption & VAT as a % of

GDP

13

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

58.0%

59.0%

60.0%

61.0%

62.0%

63.0%

64.0%

65.0%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FHCE/GDP

VAT/GDP

VAT performance

14

0.30

0.32

0.34

0.36

0.38

0.40

0.42

0.44

0.46

0.48

0.50

0.52

0.54

RA

TIO

YEAR

GST / VAT: "Efficiency" = ( VAT Revenue /GDP ) / VAT Rate

3/23/2011

8

VAT Revenue

15

VAT in South Africa

% of Tax Revenue % of GDP "Efficiency" "Rate"

1989/90 25.6% 6.4% 0.49 13.0%

1990/91 25.3% 6.1% 0.47 13.0%

1991/92 24.1% 5.5% 0.47 11.5%

1992/93 21.1% 4.6% 0.38 12.0%

1993/94 26.3% 5.7% 0.41 14.0%

1994/95 26.1% 5.9% 0.42 14.0%

1995/96 26.0% 5.8% 0.42 14.0%

1996/97 24.5% 5.6% 0.40 14.0%

1999/00 24.4% 5.8% 0.41 14.0%

2000/01 25.3% 5.7% 0.41 14.0%

2001/02 24.6% 5.8% 0.42 14.0%

2002/03 25.3% 5.9% 0.42 14.0%

2003/04 26.9% 6.3% 0.45 14.0%

2004/05 28.2% 6.9% 0.49 14.0%

2005/06 27.8% 7.2% 0.52 14.0%

2006/07 27.9% 7.3% 0.52 14.0%

2007/08 26.9% 7.2% 0.52 14.0%

2008/09 25.4% 6.7% 0.48 14.0%

2009/10 25.4% 6.0% 0.43 14.0%

VAT = 30 September 1991: Fiscal Year 1 April to 31 March

16

OECD: 2001

VAT / GDP

%

Standard

Rate %

"Efficiency

"

Australia 3.70 10.0 37.0%

Austria 8.38 20.0 41.9%

Canada 3.10 7.0 44.3%

Denmark 9.69 25.0 38.8%

Finland 8.17 22.0 37.1%

Germany 6.70 16.0 41.9%

Greece 7.40 18.0 41.1%

Hungary 8.40 25.0 33.6%

Ireland 6.85 21.0 32.6%

Japan 2.40 5.0 48.0%

Korea 4.74 10.0 47.4%

Netherlands 7.44 17.5 42.5%

New Zealand 8.63 12.5 69.0%

Poland 7.30 22.0 33.2%

Slovak Republic 7.77 23.0 33.8%

Spain 5.30 16.0 33.1%

Sweden 9.20 25.0 36.8%

Switzerland 4.10 7.5 54.7%

Turkey 6.86 16.0 42.9%

United Kingdom 6.10 17.5 34.9%

3/23/2011

9

VAT concessions

• As a consumption destination based tax exports are zero-rated and imports are subject to VAT

• Most countries exclude non-fee based financial services from the VAT base due to practical difficulties

• Many analysts have demonstrated that in absolute monetary

terms the middle and higher income earners benefit more from

the zero-rating than the poor. However, public opinion is very

strongly in favour of maintaining the zero rating of basic

foodstuffs.

• An effective VAT system, not unduly compromised by well-

intended but doubtful concessions, is essential in generating the

necessary tax revenues to fund Government's expenditure

programmes, including initiatives to help the poor.

17

18

Zero-rated and exempt supplies

The following goods and services are zero-rated:

• Exports

• 19 basic food items

• Illuminating paraffin

• Goods which are subject to the fuel levy (petrol and diesel)

• International transport services

• Farming inputs

• Sales of going concerns, and

• Certain grants by government.

Goods and services exempted from VAT are:

• Non-fee related financial services

• Educational services provided by an approved educational institution

• Residential rental accommodation, and

• Public road and rail transport.

3/23/2011

10

19

Basic foodstuffs zero-rated in South Africa

• Brown bread.

• Maize meal.

• Samp.

• Mealie rice.

• Dried mealies.

• Dried beans.

• Lentils.

• Pilchards/sardinella in tins.

• Milk powder.

• Dairy powder blend.

• Rice.

• Vegetables.

• Fruit.

• Vegetable oil.

• Milk.

• Cultured milk.

• Brown wheaten meal.

• Eggs.

• Edible legumes and pulses of

leguminous plants.

Request for VAT concessions

During the last few years, especially since the zero-rating of illuminating

paraffin in 2001, the Minister of Finance has received several requests

from the public, certain interest groups and by way of questions in

Parliament to abolish VAT on the following goods and services:

– medicines;

– medical services;

– books;

– electricity;

– water;

– red meat;

– mageu (a maize based soft drink, largely consumed by the poor);

– security related expenses by private individuals;

– canned vegetables; and

– 450 gram household candles. The South African Candle Manufacturers argued that the

zero-rating of illuminating paraffin has impacted negatively on the sales of household

candles.

– And most recently toll fees

20

3/23/2011

11

21

Exemptions and apportionment problems

• It has been argued that exemption is also an elegant way of relieving certain businesses from the administrative burden of complying with the VAT system (e.g. public transport, taxis).

• In this regard, the threshold below which certain businesses do not have to register for VAT is also an indirect form of exemption.

• However, whilst VAT exemption might result in administrative relief for businesses that make only exempt supplies, it actually results in major administrative complexities for those businesses that make both exempt supplies and taxable supplies (standard- and /or zero rated).

22

Tax and regressivity (1)

• The debate on the effectiveness of attempts to help the needy via the zero rating persists. Many analysts have demonstrated that in absolute monetary terms the middle and higher income earners benefit more from the zero-rating than the poor.

• The zero-rating of illuminating paraffin (IP) in South Africa is probably a case in point of well intended but misguided zero-rating.

• It would appear that most of the benefits of the VAT zero-rating of IP was captured by retailers in the form of higher profit margins.

• Providing relief in the form of reduced rates, zero-rating (or exemption) for “merit” goods might even worsen the regressivity of a VAT system because these goods (books, medical services, etc) are mostly bought (in the private sector) by individuals in the middle and higher income groups.

3/23/2011

12

VAT and regressivity (2)

• "In the final analysis…it is not whether the VAT itself is regressive or

not, but whether the entire tax and expenditure system is achieving the

pattern of household income net of taxes and gross of transfers and

government expenditures that society desires. The case for VAT does

not fall on its regressiveness. The case for VAT is that it is an efficient

way of collecting a large and buoyant revenue for government; other

parts of the budget should take care of progressiveness, and the VAT

should be kept as simple and efficient as it is intended to be - for that is

its justification" (Tait: 1988).

• "The justification for VAT is that it is a neutral, efficient, buoyant,

revenue-raising instrument. It is not designed to correct income or

wealth inequalities. Other aspects of the tax system, such as the

progressive income tax and more specifically the expenditure side of

the government budget should take care of progressiveness, thus

leaving the VAT system as simple and effective as possible" (Adams:

1994).

23

Multiple VAT rates

• Most VAT multiple rates are as a result of political concessions rather

than sound socio-economic and tax administrative considerations. The

Margo Commission (1987) recommended a single rate VAT structure

and inter alia quoted the Irish Commission in this regard. The Irish

Commission on Taxation concluded in its Third Report of 1984, that an

attempt to make VAT progressive by using a multi-rate system is not

recommended. Instead, it recommended a single-rate broad-based

system on all purchases. The Commission stated:

• "We are satisfied that to charge different rates of indirect tax on

different goods and services is a most wasteful and ineffective way of

trying to redistribute income. That task is best achieved by well-

designed public expenditure programmes, supplemented at the top of

the range of income and wealth by a progressive expenditure (income)

tax. Measures on the indirect tax side complicate the system, give

increased scope for evasion and accomplish little in the way of

redistribution."

24

3/23/2011

13

Administration & Compliance costs

• Differential VAT rates (including concessions in the form of zero-

rating, reduced rates and /or exemptions) results in increased

administration and compliances costs.

• There is a (+) correlation between the compliance costs of VAT

and the number VAT rates. (Compliance of VAT in Sweden, Report 2006:3B)

• “Global VAT experience has shown that, regardless of the effort

which goes into defining the scope of a concession, borderline

cases will subsequently result in uncertainties for both the

Revenue Authority, as well as evasion opportunities for

unscrupulous vendors (p.167)”

25

VAT in South Africa: What Kind of Rate Structure? Cnossen, VAT

Monitor, 2004 (Katz Commission,1994)

• “providing relief to the poor through exemptions and VAT zero-

rating is likely to be both unsound tax policy and ineffective

social policy”

• “the disadvantages of multiple VAT rates outweigh the possible

redistributive gains available from this option”

• “VAT impact studies in other countries also confirm specific

conclusions of the Katz Commission. In Ireland, for example, it

was found that the poor spend relatively more of their income on

food than the rich, (however) in absolute amounts the rich spend

twice as much (on food) as the poor. Consequently, Ireland’s

zero-rating of food gives twice as much tax relief to high-income

groups than to low-income groups - an odd way of alleviating

the plight of the poor”.

26

3/23/2011

14

VAT in South Africa: What Kind of Rate Structure? Cnossen, VAT

Monitor, 2004 (Katz Commission,1994)

• “An important administrative advantage of a VAT is that the

whole production-distribution process is involved in collecting

the tax from the consumer. Basically, zero-rating (other than

for exports, for which it is imperative) nullifies this advantage

and turns it into a disadvantage. It involves the tax office in

an expensive collection and refund process that does not

yield revenue. Refund returns must be monitored with

particular care even though no revenue is realized”.

27

28

Taxing Consumption, World Bank,

PREM notes June 2009. Richard Bird

• “.. The best sales tax (VAT) with respect to both efficiency and administration is undoubtedly one with a single uniform rate applied to all taxable transactions”.

• “.. Higher rates on ‘luxury’ goods are an ineffective means of increasing the progessivity of the fiscal system, and, most importantly, lower tax rates on ‘necessities’ are generally poorly targeted and ineffective”.

• “The rich may spend relatively less of their income on ‘basic food’, but they are likely tp spend absolutely more and hence receive more benefit from such concessions.”

3/23/2011

15

29

Consumption Taxes: the Way of the Future? OECD, Policy

Brief, October 2007

• “… many countries apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain “necessities” in order to reduce the tax burden on the poor. However, this is a relatively ineffective way of dealing with the problem as the rich typically consume more of the “necessities” than the poor”.

• “An argument can also be made in the case of using VAT to reduce employers social security contributions, thus reducing the cost of exporting and importing-competing firms”.

• “Germany increased its VAT rate at the beginning of 2007, partly to finance a cut in social security contributions”.

30

Mirrlees Review of the UK tax system, Institute for

Fiscal Studies, Nov 2010

• “Value added tax (VAT) is an important and, on the whole, well-designed tax.But in the UK, zero rates are applied to an unusually wide range of goods andservices. There may be convincing arguments to justify a few of thesedepartures from uniformity, but not most. We favour a broadening of the VATbase in the UK, applying the standard rate to a wider range of goods”.

• “The central component of both reform packages we look at is a broadening ofthe VAT base such that goods and services now subject to zero and reducedrates of VAT – principally food, passenger transport, books and other readingmatter, prescriptions drugs, children’s clothing, and domestic fuel and power –would be taxed at the standard rate after the reform”.

• “Why should the tax system favour people who like reading magazines more thanlistening to music, or who buy their children more expensive clothes and lessexpensive toys than other?

• The UK recently increased the standard VAT rate from 17.5% to 20%

3/23/2011

16

IES, Stats SA, 2005/06

(% expenditure by expenditure group)

31

R million Lower 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Upper

Average household size 2,6 3,4 4,0 4,3 4,6 4,8 4,7 4,5 3,9 3,5 3,8

Main expenditure group

Food and non-alcoholic beverages 36.1% 35.7% 34.1% 32.6% 30.8% 28.1% 24.5% 19.6% 13.1% 7.0% 14.4%

Alcoholic beverages and tobacco 3.4% 2.5% 2.0% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% 2.0% 1.5% 1.3% 0.6% 1.2%

Clothing and footwear 9.4% 9.3% 8.9% 9.3% 8.7% 8.4% 7.9% 7.0% 5.1% 2.9% 5.0%

Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels 21.1% 19.4% 18.7% 18.4% 18.7% 18.1% 19.4% 22.5% 27.4% 24.6% 23.6%

Furnishings, household equipment and routine

maintenance of the dwelling 4.9% 5.7% 6.9% 7.3% 7.8% 8.5% 8.9% 8.2% 6.8% 6.3% 6.9%

Health 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% 1.5% 1.7% 1.7%

Transport 8.2% 8.5% 9.1% 9.9% 9.7% 10.1% 11.0% 12.5% 14.9% 27.6% 19.9%

Communication 2.8% 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 4.1% 3.2% 3.5%

Recreation and culture 1.5% 2.0% 2.6% 2.8% 3.2% 3.8% 4.0% 4.2% 4.3% 5.4% 4.6%

Education 0.9% 1.1% 1.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.9% 1.9% 2.5% 3.2% 2.5% 2.4%

Restaurants and hotels 3.5% 2.8% 3.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.7% 2.8% 2.0% 2.1% 2.0% 2.2%

Miscellaneous goods and services 6.3% 7.9% 8.1% 8.6% 10.0% 11.1% 11.9% 14.1% 16.0% 15.9% 14.4%

Other unclassified expenses 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Expenditure deciles Total

%


(% expenditure by expenditure deciles per expenditure group)

32




Food and non-alcoholic beverages 2.6% 4.3% 5.6% 6.7% 7.9% 9.2% 10.8% 13.0% 15.6% 24.3% 100%

Alcoholic beverages and tobacco 3.0% 3.8% 4.1% 5.3% 6.5% 7.8% 10.9% 12.2% 19.1% 27.2% 100%

Clothing and footwear 2.0% 3.3% 4.2% 5.6% 6.5% 8.0% 10.1% 13.5% 17.7% 29.2% 100%

Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels 0.9% 1.4% 1.9% 2.3% 2.9% 3.6% 5.2% 9.2% 20.1% 52.4% 100%


maintenance of the dwelling 0.7% 1.4% 2.3% 3.1% 4.2% 5.9% 8.2% 11.4% 17.0% 45.7% 100%

Health 1.1% 1.7% 2.3% 3.1% 3.4% 4.2% 5.6% 10.4% 15.4% 52.7% 100%

Transport 0.4% 0.7% 1.1% 1.5% 1.8% 2.4% 3.5% 6.0% 12.9% 69.6% 100%

Communication 0.8% 1.6% 2.4% 2.9% 3.9% 5.0% 7.0% 10.6% 20.1% 45.8% 100%

Recreation and culture 0.3% 0.8% 1.3% 1.8% 2.6% 3.9% 5.6% 8.8% 16.2% 58.6% 100%

Education 0.4% 0.8% 1.0% 1.7% 2.0% 3.8% 5.1% 9.7% 22.9% 52.7% 100%

Restaurants and hotels 1.6% 2.2% 3.4% 3.0% 3.9% 5.7% 8.2% 8.8% 16.7% 46.4% 100%

Miscellaneous goods and services 0.4% 1.0% 1.3% 1.8% 2.6% 3.6% 5.2% 9.4% 19.2% 55.4% 100%

Other unclassified expenses 0.5% 1.0% 1.6% 2.3% 2.8% 3.8% 5.4% 8.9% 16.4% 57.2% 100%

Total 1.0% 1.7% 2.4% 3.0% 3.7% 4.7% 6.3% 9.6% 17.3% 50.3% 100%

2.8% 5.1% 8.1% 11.8% 16.5% 22.9% 32.4% 49.7% 100.0%

%


3/23/2011

17


(% expenditure by expenditure group)

33




Food and non-alcoholic beverages 4.6% 5.7% 6.4% 7.5% 8.1% 9.1% 9.8% 11.4% 14.8% 22.5% 100%

Alcoholic beverages and tobacco 3.7% 4.6% 4.5% 5.8% 6.4% 9.0% 10.6% 11.9% 17.3% 26.1% 100%

Clothing and footwear 3.3% 4.0% 5.0% 6.1% 6.7% 7.8% 9.7% 12.3% 17.3% 27.8% 100%

Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels 1.6% 1.9% 2.4% 2.8% 3.2% 3.9% 5.4% 9.3% 20.1% 49.4% 100%


maintenance of the dwelling 1.8% 2.6% 3.6% 4.4% 4.6% 6.1% 7.2% 10.4% 16.6% 42.7% 100%

Health 1.6% 2.5% 2.9% 3.5% 4.4% 5.2% 5.4% 9.2% 18.4% 46.9% 100%

Transport 1.1% 1.5% 1.6% 2.0% 2.3% 3.4% 4.5% 8.1% 22.1% 53.4% 100%

Communication 1.7% 2.1% 2.8% 3.3% 4.1% 4.8% 7.1% 10.4% 19.7% 44.0% 100%

Recreation and culture 1.0% 1.2% 2.0% 2.4% 3.1% 4.3% 5.8% 8.2% 17.8% 54.1% 100%

Education 1.8% 2.0% 2.2% 3.1% 3.3% 3.5% 6.2% 15.8% 21.7% 40.5% 100%

Restaurants and hotels 3.9% 2.6% 3.0% 3.4% 4.2% 6.3% 7.6% 8.9% 18.7% 41.4% 100%

Miscellaneous goods and services 1.1% 1.4% 1.8% 2.7% 2.9% 3.8% 5.1% 9.7% 20.6% 50.8% 100%

Other unclassified expenses 1.3% 1.6% 2.2% 2.8% 3.3% 5.1% 6.3% 10.1% 18.0% 49.4% 100%

Total 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.7% 4.1% 5.1% 6.4% 9.8% 19.3% 44.3% 100%

4.5% 7.5% 11.2% 15.2% 20.3% 26.6% 36.4% 55.7% 100.0%

%

Income deciles Total


(% expenditure on books, etc. and education)

34

Lower 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Upper


Third expenditure group

Books 0.05% 0.06% 0.07% 0.07% 0.10% 0.12% 0.13% 0.18% 0.25% 0.22% 0.19%

Newspapers and periodicals 0.19% 0.24% 0.29% 0.31% 0.33% 0.37% 0.55% 0.59% 0.41% 0.39% 0.41%

Miscellaneous printed matter 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02%

Stationery and drawing materials 0.23% 0.22% 0.25% 0.25% 0.20% 0.21% 0.19% 0.18% 0.17% 0.11% 0.15%

Sub total books & stationery 0.47% 0.52% 0.61% 0.64% 0.63% 0.71% 0.87% 0.96% 0.84% 0.74% 0.77%

Education 0.92% 1.10% 1.02% 1.34% 1.27% 1.94% 1.93% 2.46% 3.20% 2.53% 2.42%

Pre-primary and primary education 0.40% 0.49% 0.45% 0.42% 0.41% 0.47% 0.46% 0.62% 0.79% 0.62% 0.61%

Secondary education 0.47% 0.47% 0.42% 0.41% 0.40% 0.52% 0.53% 0.55% 0.61% 0.74% 0.64%

Tertiary education 0.03% 0.11% 0.11% 0.44% 0.39% 0.88% 0.87% 1.23% 1.73% 0.76% 0.93%

Education not definable by level 0.02% 0.03% 0.04% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.06% 0.07% 0.42% 0.24%


%

3/23/2011

18


(% expenditure on books, etc. and education per expenditure

deciles)

35

Lower 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Upper


Third expenditure group

Books 0.28% 0.56% 0.84% 1.02% 1.85% 3.06% 4.45% 8.90% 22.47% 56.58% 100%

Newspapers and periodicals 0.48% 1.00% 1.66% 2.27% 3.01% 4.28% 8.47% 13.96% 17.40% 47.47% 100%

Miscellaneous printed matter 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.18% 1.18% 2.35% 2.35% 8.23% 16.49% 68.23% 100%

Stationery and drawing materials 1.52% 2.57% 3.87% 4.92% 4.92% 6.56% 7.73% 11.23% 18.87% 37.82% 100%

Sub total books & stationery 0.63% 1.18% 1.86% 2.46% 3.06% 4.39% 7.20% 12.04% 18.94% 48.24% 100%

Education 0.39% 0.80% 1.00% 1.65% 1.95% 3.80% 5.06% 9.75% 22.87% 52.73% 100%

Pre-primary and primary education 0.68% 1.41% 1.73% 2.06% 2.50% 3.70% 4.82% 9.71% 22.40% 50.99% 100%

Secondary education 0.75% 1.28% 1.56% 1.89% 2.34% 3.82% 5.21% 8.29% 16.48% 58.37% 100%

Tertiary education 0.04% 0.21% 0.29% 1.42% 1.56% 4.50% 5.94% 12.72% 32.28% 41.05% 100%

Education not definable by level 0.07% 0.22% 0.37% 0.88% 1.10% 1.33% 1.84% 2.35% 4.86% 86.96% 100%

Total 1.02% 1.74% 2.35% 2.97% 3.71% 4.73% 6.34% 9.58% 17.28% 50.27% 100%

%


Estimated Household expenditure &

VAT, 2009

36

R million Expenditure Est. VAT

Books 2 831 348

Newspapers and periodicals 6 013 738

Miscellaneous printed matter 223 27

Stationery and drawing materials 2 243 275

Sub total : Books & stationery 11 310 1 389

Sub total : Education 35 587

Pre-primary and primary education 8 939

Secondary education 9 425

Tertiary education 13 657

Education not definable by level 3 566

2009

3/23/2011

19

37

Concluding remarks

• “The VAT has been seen as a key instrument for securing

macroeconomic stability and growth by placing domestic revenue

mobilization on a sounder basis, so that the IMF has attached

considerable importance to its proper design and implementation”.

• “Has the VAT lived up to its promises as an efficient, and fair source of

revenue?” ( IMF: The Modern VAT, 2001).

• The proposal to zero books is not supported.

• If there is a case to support students it should be done more directly and

on budget.

• Resources should be made available for school and public libraries to

ensure better access to reading material for all citizens.

38

Thank you

value added tax south africa: 1991 - 2011 · 2015. 1. 27. · • when the vat act, no 89 of 1991,...

Documents