THE British government currently slaps a 5% Value Added Tax (VAT) on sanitary products. But some view the “tampon tax” as an affront to women, who have little choice but to bear the burden of the levy. The government has been prevented from reducing the rate to zero by European Union rules, which limit how much countries can lower VAT rates on some goods. But on March 17th, George Osborne rummaged around for a rabbit in his post-budget hat, and revealed progress towards a new VAT arrangement with the EU that would give him the freedom to ditch the hated tax. Mr Osborne will be glad to end the political headache; in November last year he compromised by pledging to give the £15m ($22m) raised from the tax to charity. This pleased some, though others pointed out that as some of the funds would go to domestic violence charities, this amounted to women paying to solve problems caused by men. More recently, eurosceptics grumbling about EU power have been threatening to embarass the government by supporting an amendment to a government bill that would scrap the 5% tax. Any new deal with the EU would show that the transfer of power between Britain and Brussels can run both ways. Scrapping the tax makes for more palatable politics, but leaves economic questions. Working out a rationale within the British system of VAT is a fool’s errand; products that enjoy the reduced rates are meant to be necessities, but the definition of a necessity is loose. Tampons would join things like ostrich meat and helicopters in the zero rate category, whereas toothpaste and toilet paper will face a rate of 20%. Normally economists worry about applying different rates of tax to similar products, for fear of distorting behaviour. Why should the government nudge customers towards jaffa cakes and away from chocolate-covered digestive biscuits by applying a lower rate of VAT to the former? It also wastes resources as companies battle for their product to meet the zero-rated category criteria. The justification is normally made on distributional grounds: the poor spend more of their income on zero-rated goods, so moving towards a uniform rate would hurt them more. A VAT on tampons is paid for by women rather than men, so any move to get rid of it would redistribute towards women. (Men’s razors attract the full 20% VAT rate, not 0% as some campaigners have claimed in the past.) The bigger question is whether VAT is the best way to redistribute. One vision of an ideal tax system applies a uniform rate of VAT on all final consumption, and then uses the direct tax and benefit system to do the heavy lifting when it comes to redistribution. This would minimise ugly distortions, remove any government meddling over which types of consumption are favoured over others, and focus different bits of the tax and benefit system on what they do best. But even a purist economist can see that this would be difficult politics. 廢除棉條稅政治上討喜，但經濟效益如何？ 英國政府目前對衛生用品課徵 5% 的增值稅（VAT）。但有些人認為「棉條稅」是對女性的侮辱，因為她們別無選擇，只能承受這筆稅負。此前，受限於歐盟限制各國調降特定商品增值稅稅率的規定，政府一直無法將稅率降至零。但在 3 月 17 日，喬治·歐斯本（George Osborne，時任英國財政大臣）從他預算案發布後的帽子裡變出了一隻兔子，宣布與歐盟在新的增值稅協議上取得進展，這將讓他得以自由廢除這項深惡痛絕的稅目。 2016 年 3 月 18 日｜閱讀時間 3 分鐘 英國政府目前對衛生用品課徵 5% 的增值稅（VAT）。但有些人認為「棉條稅」是對女性的侮辱，因為她們別無選擇，只能承受這筆稅負。此前，受限於歐盟限制各國調降特定商品增值稅稅率的規定，政府一直無法將稅率降至零。但在 3 月 17 日，喬治·歐斯本從他預算案發布後的帽子裡變出了一隻兔子，宣布與歐盟在新的增值稅協議上取得進展，這將讓他得以自由廢除這項深惡痛絕的稅目。 歐斯本先生會很樂意結束這個政治頭痛問題；去年 11 月，他曾做出妥協，承諾將該稅種籌集到的 1,500 萬英鎊（約 2,200 萬美元）捐給慈善機構。這讓一部分人感到滿意，但也有人指出，由於部分資金將流向防止家庭暴力的慈善機構，這無疑是讓女性付錢來解決由男性產生的問題。近來，對歐盟權力心生不滿的疑歐派人士一直威脅要支持一項政府法案修正案以廢除這項 5% 的稅率，藉此讓政府難堪。與歐盟達成的新協議將能表明，英國與布魯塞爾之間的權力轉移可以是雙向的。 廢除該稅種在政治上比較討喜，但卻留下了經濟問題。試圖在英國增值稅體系內理出合理邏輯根本是徒勞無功；享受優惠稅率的商品本應是生活必需品，但「必需品」的定義卻相當寬鬆。衛生棉條將與鴕鳥肉和直升機一同歸入零稅率類別，而牙膏和捲筒衛生紙則面臨 20% 的標準稅率。 通常情況下，經濟學者會擔心對類似商品套用不同稅率，因為這樣有可能會扭曲消費者行為。政府為什麼要對爪哇蛋糕（Jaffa cakes）課徵較低的增值稅，從而誘導消費者選擇它而非巧克力消化餅乾？當企業竭力爭取讓自家產品符合零稅率標準時，也會浪費資源。給予優惠稅率的理由通常是基於「收入分配」考量：窮人將更多收入花在零稅率商品上，因此轉向統一稅率對他們的傷害更大。衛生棉條的增值稅是由女性而非男性支付，因此任何廢除該稅種的舉動都會將財富重新分配給女性。（男士刮鬍刀適用的是 20% 的全額增值稅率，並非如過去某些倡議者所聲稱的 0%。） 更根本的問題在於，增值稅是否為進行財富重分配的最佳方式。理想稅務體系的其中一種藍圖，是對所有最終消費課徵統一的增值稅，然後利用直接稅和福利體系來承擔財富重分配的重任。這樣可以最大限度地減少扭曲現象，消除政府對特定消費偏好的干預，並讓稅務和福利體系的不同環節各司其職。然而，即便是最純粹主義的經濟學者也能看出，這在政治操作上極具難度。 --Hosting provided by SoundOn