Spero che le persone leggano l’articolo prima di commentare o votare, manteniamo la discussione su fatti e rispondiamo con studi scientifici (so che posso avere i miei sogni).
Un’altra fonte è da OCSE Pagina 27 (pagina 28 del PDF) per Che (Svizzera): https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/08/reassessing-the-regressity-of-the-vat_39f90653/b76ced82-en.pdf Dimostrando che per la Svizzera (nel 2011) si potrebbe vedere che l’IVA come un rapporto per la spesa, l’imposta è effettivamente progressiva attraverso il quantile di reddito.
Il motivo principale per cui riteniamo che l’IVA sia ingiusta è che facciamo il rapporto IVA rispetto al reddito, confondendo i componenti di risparmio, mentre l’IVA oltre il budget di spesa rimuove questo componente.
Se non sei d’accordo, collega la fonte in modo da poter leggere e fare la nostra opinione.
https://kof.ethz.ch/en/publications/kof-insights/articles/2025/09/how-unfair-is-value-added-tax.html
di neo2551
9 commenti
The question really is/should be: you tax the income or you tax the outcome (or both. Outcome is spending and possessing. For some reason, wages are taxed, in some places even heavily, and other sources of income not so much or not at all.
So Dr. Martinez only sees VAT and wage taxes. There are taxes (actually there are not) on capital gains, property taxes and similar, so things what rich people have and poor don’t and contribute to the income.
It’s good to have a tax targetting consumerism. I would like to see basic healthy food items (basically things like vegetables – but not fruits) without VAT and everything else with VAT.
>VAT is an inefficient means of combating poverty
Bold claim. That’s just not showing the entire picture and only focus on the things that fall under the VAT while excluding the ones that don’t (which are usually what rich people buy)
>Everyone pays VAT
Not true at all. House buyers don’t pay VAT. If you buy a private jet via an offshore company you don’t pay VAT. If you are a company you can deduct/get VAT back. All those things are transactions with high value but not something you pay VAT.
Just close the loopholes and make the VAT the only tax. It’s less bureaucracy, you can’t trick your way around it and everyone would pay a more proportionate share then what it is today where billionaires can just work around taxes while poor people don’t have that luxury.
Food should get an exemption ie the grocery store. but honestly VAT is pay to play the basics (healtcare, education and insurance) are 0% food is at 2.6% (should be zero).
You pay for what you want extra in life its that simple.
OK, here’s the truth: if you’re a low income family in CH, e.g. 2 adults, 2 kids, 100’000 total gross income, in reality your taxable income is like 20k, so you pay mayve 2000 in taxes and get 7000 just in “allocations familiales”.
So *in effect*, lower income people have a *negative* tax rate before we start accounting for stuff like roads, police, firefighters, hospitals, etc.
So I don’t really care that some people think VAT is “unfair”. In practice even if they spend their entire disposable income, it will at most be about 5k which means they’re paying a 0% tax rate while still having access to all these services.
>showing that for Switzerland (in 2011) you could see that VAT as a ratio to expenditure, the tax is actually progressive across quantile of income.
No it doesn’t. The data shows that it’s regressive, just as everybody always says. Exactly on page 27 like you quoted:
CHE 5.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.0
Did you read the statistic wrong? Am I reading it wrong?
Edit: I read a bit more in that OECD paper. It’s called “Reassessing the regressivity of the VAT”. The author clearly agrees VAT is regressive and discusses measures to reduce the regressive impact of the tax and how we can push fewer households into poverty by modifying it.
It really, really doesn’t support your thesis that VAT isn’t that regressive.
The vast majority of economists agree that VAT is a regressive tax.
What exactly are you trying to pass here?
VAT is literately the textbook definition of a regressive tax that weighs higher on lower income then on higher income, it’s not that hard to understand why, you don’t even need to look at statistics to get to the same conclusion.
Thanks for sharing this was and interesting read that sparked many discussions
I think it’s a weird take.
> By contrast, households on the highest incomes (top 20 per cent) pay the full VAT rate of 8.1 per cent on around 70 per cent of their spending.
Yeah, because they have more money to buy more non-essential goods and services.
It’s regressive if you look at two people with different incomes buying the same stuff.