0

Andrew Yang claims the following in his platform for the 2020 US Democratic presidential primary race:

A VAT makes it impossible for them to benefit from the American people, automation, and infrastructure without paying their fair share. (...) They’re difficult to dodge and easy to implement. By taking a slice at each point that value switches hands in the supply chain, big corporations will pay into the system to bring their products to market. If you want to do business in America, you have to pay into America. That’s it. This system doesn’t privilege foreign goods because a VAT is equally applied to imported goods.

From my rudimentary understanding of a VAT, it seems that the only difference between a VAT and a sales tax is the point of collection of the tax. A sales tax is only collected at the point of sale to the end customer, whereas a VAT is collected even in purchases between companies, and then offset at the end of the fiscal year.

Therefore, wouldn't the same strategies used by companies today to dodge paying sales tax still apply if a VAT was in place instead of a sales tax?

  • 3
    This sounds like it would be much more successful on Economics.SE. – Oddthinking Aug 8 at 0:54
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
    Chris, this question just has no connection whatsoever to the Skeptics site. Ask it on politics or economics. What you're asking about is purely a political issue - a matter of political debate. It's like asking "Does trickle down work" or "Is it true that welfare payments encourage laziness". It's just a political question, there's no "correct" answer, only a political debate. – Fattie Aug 8 at 11:50
  • 2
    @IMSoP The basic claim is "make it harder to avoid paying taxes" which sounds clear to me. As does "difficult to dodge and easy to implement". Those sound empirical to me. – matt_black Aug 8 at 21:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .