consumption tax

A consumption tax is a tax on spending on goods and services. The tax base of such a tax is the money spent on consumption. Consumption taxes are usually indirect, such as a value added tax. However it can also be structured as a form of personal taxation, as a sales tax, or as an income tax that deducts investments and savings.[1] A direct consumption tax may be called an expenditure tax, a cash-flow tax, or a consumed-income tax, and can be flat or progressive. Expenditure taxes have been briefly implemented in the past in India and Sri Lanka.[2]


Value-added tax (VAT)

This tax applies to the market value added to a product or material at each stage of its manufacture or distribution. If a retailer buys a shirt for $20 and sells it for $30, this tax would apply to the $10 difference between the two amounts. A simple VAT would be proportional on consumption, but would also be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income). Savings and investment are tax-deferred until they become consumption. A VAT may exclude certain goods, with the intent of creating progressive effects. The tax is widely used in countries within the European Union.

Sales tax

This tax typically applies to the sale of goods, and less often, to the sales of services. The tax is applied at the point of sale. Like VAT, simple sales taxes hit lower-income consumers harder than others, leading to exemptions for basic items such as food.

Excise tax

This tax is a sales tax that applies to a specific class of goods, typically alcohol, gasoline, or tourism. The tax rate varies according to the type of good and quantity purchased, and is typically unaffected by who purchases it.

Personal consumption tax

This tax applies to the difference between an individual's income and increase/decrease savings. Like the other consumption taxes, simple personal consumption taxes are regressive. However, because this tax applies on an individual basis, it can be made as progressive as a progressive personal income tax. Just as income tax rates increase with personal income, consumption tax rates increase with personal consumption.[3][4]


Consumption taxes, specifically excise taxes, have featured in several notable historic events. In the U.S., the Stamp tax, the tax on tea, and whisky taxes produced revolts, the first two against the British government and the latter against the nascent American Republic. In India, an excise tax on salt led to Gandhi's famous Salt Satyagraha, a seminal moment in his struggle to win independence from the U.K.

United States

In the early U.S., taxes were levied principally on consumption. Alexander Hamilton, one of the two chief authors of the anonymous Federalist Papers, favored consumption taxes in part because they are harder to raise to confiscatory levels than incomes taxes.[5] In the Federalist Papers (No. 21), Hamilton wrote:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed—that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.[6]

Although personal and corporate income taxes provide the bulk of revenue to the federal government, consumption taxes continue to be a primary source of income for state and local governments.

One of the first detailed proposals of a personal consumption tax was developed in 1974 by William Andrews.[7]

Savings effect

Consumption taxes do not tax savings, which allows invested assets to grow more quickly. If, in the absence of taxes, $1 of savings is put aside for retirement at 9% compound interest, this will grow to $8 after 24 years. Alternatively, assuming a 33% tax rate, the same $1 is reduced to $0.67 after taxes when earned. The effective interest rate thereafter is reduced to 6%, since the rest of the yield is paid in taxes. After 24 years, the balance increases only to $2.73. The cumulative taxes in the latter case are 1.01, producing more than a $4 overall loss to the economy. If the initial investment amount is not taxed when earned, but the earnings are taxed thereafter, the cumulative taxes paid are about the same, but are spread more evenly across the period and the asset grows to more than $4. These results are primarily sensitive to the rate of return. With a 3% return, most of the tax receipts come from the tax on the initial $1.00.

To the extent that taxing something results in less of it (whether income or consumption) taxing consumption instead of income should encourage both work and capital formation, which will increase economic growth, while discouraging consumption.[3][4] Secondly, the tax base will be larger because all consumption will be taxed.

Some critics argue that sales and consumption taxes can shift the tax burden to the less well off. The ratio of tax obligation shrinks as wealth grows because the wealthy spend proportionally less of their income on consumables.[8] An individual who is unable to save, will pay taxes on 100%, whereas individuals who save or invest a portion of their income will only be taxed on the remaining income.

Practical considerations

Many proposed consumption taxes share some features with the current income tax systems. Under these proposals, taxpayers would be given exemptions and a standard deduction in order to ensure that the poor do not pay any tax. In a completely pure consumption tax, other deductions would not be permitted, because all savings would be deductible.[3]

A withholding system might also be put into place in order to estimate the total tax liability. It would be difficult for many taxpayers to pay no tax all year, only to be faced with a large tax bill at the end of the year.

A consumption tax could also eliminate the concept of basis when computing the value of investments. All income that is put in investments (such as property, stocks, savings accounts) is tax-free. As the asset grows in value, it is not taxed. Only when the proceeds from the asset are spent is any tax imposed. This is in contrast with the current system where, if you buy land for $10,000 and sell it for $15,000, you have a taxable gain of $5,000. A consumption tax only taxes consumption, so if you sell one investment to buy another investment, no tax is imposed.

In Andrews' article, he notes the inherent problem with housing. Renters necessarily "consume" housing, so they will be taxed on the expenditure of rent. However, homeowners also consume housing in the same way, but as they pay down a mortgage, the payments are classified as savings, not consumption (because equity is being built in an asset). The disparity is explained by what is known as the imputed rental value of a home. A homeowner could choose to rent his or her home to others in exchange for money, but instead, the homeowner chooses to live in the home to the exclusion of all possible renters. Therefore, the homeowner is also consuming housing by not permitting renters to pay for and occupy the home. The amount of money that the homeowner could receive in rent is the imputed rental value of the home. A true consumption tax would tax the imputed rental value of the home (which could be determined in the same way that valuation occurs for property tax purposes) and would not tax the increase in the value of the asset (the home). Andrews proposes to ignore this method of taxing imputed rental values because of its complexity. In the United States, home ownership is subsidized by the federal government by permitting a deduction for mortgage interest expense, and by exempting a significant increase in value from the capital gains tax. Therefore, treating renters and homeowners identically under a consumption tax may not be feasible in the United States.

{22 Sep 2010] If someone buys a house for cash they would be pay a large tax. If they take out a mortgage they would pay tax on the down payment and monthly payments so I [who?] don't see the home owner/renter problem. An area not mentioned is the effect on imports and exports. Imported goods would be taxed when purchased. There would be no tax on a product made here and exported, thus increasing exports. Note the manufacturer pays tax on purchased supplies but not on his income. If the federal and state income taxes are replaced with the consumption tax the cost of complying with the income tax rules is eliminated. This is a far from trivial expense.

Lastly, a consumption tax could utilize progressive rates in order to maintain "fairness." The more someone spends on consumption, the more they will be taxed. The rate structure could look like the current bracket system, or a new bracket system could be implemented.

Economic impact

Former senior editor of Fortune Magazine Al Ehrbar notes that proponents of a consumption tax argue its superiority to the income tax based on an economic principle called "temporal neutrality".[9] He observes that a tax is "neutral" if it does not "alter spending habits or behavior patterns and thus does not distort the allocation of resources." In other words, taxing apples but not oranges will cause apple consumption to decrease and orange consumption to increase. The temporal neutrality of a consumption tax, however, is that consumption itself is taxed, so it is irrelevant what good or service is being consumed in terms of allocation of resources. The only possible effect on neutrality is between consumption and savings. Taxing only consumption should, in theory, cause an increase in savings.[3] William Gale, Co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, offers a simplified way to understand a consumption tax: Assume that our current tax system remains the same, but remove limitations to contributing to and removing funds from a traditional Individual Retirement Account (IRA). Thus, a person would essentially have a bank account where they could place tax-free earnings at any time, but unsaved (or consumed) withdrawals would be subject to taxation. Having an unrestricted IRA under the current system would approximate a consumption tax at the federal level.

Many economists and tax experts favor consumption taxes over income taxes for economic growth.[10][11][12] Consumption taxes are neutral with respect to investment.[3][11] Depending on implementation (such as treatment of depreciation) and circumstances, income taxes either favor or disfavor investment. (On the whole, the US system is thought to disfavor investment.[3]) By not disfavoring investment, a consumption tax might increase the capital stock, productivity, and therefore increase the size of the economy.[3][4] Consumption more closely tracks long run average income.[4] An individual or family's income often varies dramatically from year to year. The sale of a home, a one time job bonus, and various other events can lead to temporary high income that will push a low or middle income person into a high tax bracket. On the other hand, a wealthy individual may be temporarily unemployed and will pay no taxes.

See also


  1. The Flat Tax, By Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rabushka, Hoover Institution
  2. Encyclopedia Britannica: Taxation
  3. a b c d e f g Andrews, Edmund L. (2005-03-04). . The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-02-05. 
  4. a b c d Auerbach, Alan J (2005-08-25). . The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-05. 
  5. Bartlett, Bruce (2002-04-05). . Retrieved 2007-08-09. 
  6. Federalist Paper No. 21
  7. Andrews, William D. A Consumption-Type or Cash Flow Personal Income Tax, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 1113 (1974)
  8. Gilbert E. Metcalf. "The National Sales Tax: Who Bears the Burden?"
  9. Ehrbar, Al. Consumption Tax, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
  10. Regnier, Pat (2005-09-07). . Money Magazine. Retrieved 2006-07-20. 
  11. a b . Fox News. 2005-03-03.,2933,149298,00.html. Retrieved 2008-08-09. 
  12. . Wall Street Journal. 2008-08-15. Retrieved 2008-09-03.