GST used to be 10%, is it going to rise again?
GST 도입 40년… 다시 인상될 가능성은?
뉴질랜드 국민이라면 매일같이 GST를 지불하고 있다. 우유 한 병을 사면 약 70센트, 항공권에는 150달러가 더해진다.
하지만 우리가 거의 모든 물건을 살 때마다 내는 이 세금이 올해 40주년을 맞았다는 사실을 아는 사람은 많지 않다.
올해 12월은 뉴질랜드에서 물품·용역세(GST)를 도입할 수 있도록 법이 개정된 지 40년이 되는 시점이며, 실제 시행은 이듬해 10월부터였다.
딜로이트(Deloitte)의 GST 전문가 앨런 불롯(Alan Bullot)은 뉴질랜드 GST 제도는 국제적으로도 우수한 사례로 평가받고 있다고 말했다.
그는 “뉴질랜드가 처음 도입한 국가는 아니었지만, 우리가 구축한 GST 법 체계는 세제 설계 측면에서 최고의 모범 사례로 여겨진다”며 “예외가 매우 적은 넓은 과세 기반을 갖추고 있어 본래 목적대로 정부 재원을 안정적으로 확보하는 기능을 하고 있다”고 설명했다.
앨런 불롯(Alan Bullot)에 따르면 GST가 처음 도입될 당시 세계에서 비슷한 세제를 운영하는 국가는 30~40개에 불과했다.
“지금은 미국을 제외한 대부분의 국가가 GST 또는 VAT 제도를 운영하고 있다. 정부가 이 세금을 선호하는 이유는 경제 전반에 걸쳐 작동해 예측 가능성이 높고, 경제 상황을 반영하기 때문이다.”
그는 기업세나 소득세의 경우 이익 변동에 따라 세수 예측이 어려운 반면, GST는 훨씬 안정적인 세목이라고 덧붙였다.
GST, 향후 변화 가능성은?
뉴질랜드의 GST는 도입 당시 10%에서 12.5%, 현재 15%까지 인상되어 왔다.
앨런 불롯(Alan Bullot)은 GST 제도가 지난 수십 년 동안 기술 변화에 적응해 왔다고 평가했다.
현재 뉴질랜드는 대부분의 해외 온라인 구매에도 GST를 부과하고 있다.
그는 “1985년에는 음악을 들을 수 있는 매체가 CD였고 다운로드라는 개념도 없었다”며 “지금처럼 해외에서 손쉽게 물건을 주문하거나 디지털 콘텐츠를 구매하는 환경은 상상할 수 없었다”고 설명했다.
다만 기본적인 GST 구조는 그대로 유지되었지만, 경제 구조 변화에 맞춰 계속 조정이 이뤄졌다고 말했다.
식료품이나 대중교통 등 일부 품목에서 GST를 면제해야 한다는 주장이 반복적으로 제기되지만, 앨런 불롯(Alan Bullot)은 이는 실질적인 비용과 복잡성을 야기한다고 지적했다.
“특정 품목을 면제할 때마다 기업과 정부에 추가 행정 부담이 생기며, 한 곳에서 세수를 줄이면 다른 곳에서 보전해야 한다.”
호주는 뉴질랜드보다 더 많은 GST 면제 품목을 두고 있지만, 오히려 이를 줄이는 방향을 논의하고 있다고 전했다.
뉴질랜드 재무부는 최근 인구 고령화로 인한 재정 부담을 감안했을 때 다른 조건이 그대로라면 GST가 32%까지 올라야 한다는 분석을 내놓기도 했다.
앨런 불롯(Alan Bullot)은 소득세를 없애고 그만큼 GST를 대폭 인상하는 방안도 가능하지만, “국민이 GST 두 배 인상을 받아들일 수 있을지는 의문”이라고 말했다.
그는 정치적 현실을 고려하면 현행 GST 15%를 인상할 가능성은 낮고, 대신 현 제도를 시대 변화에 맞게 최적화하는 것이 중요하다고 강조했다.
또한 최근 GST 체납액 증가 문제도 정부가 더 적극적으로 대응해야 한다고 지적했다.
GST는 역진적 세금인가?
GST는 저소득층일수록 지출 비중이 높아 상대적으로 부담이 크다는 이유로 ‘역진성’ 논란이 따른다. 즉, GST는 소득이 적은 가구일수록 상대적으로 부담이 더 크다는 지적이 꾸준히 제기된다.
앨런 불롯(Alan Bullot)은 도입 당시 정부가 복지급여를 인상해 부담을 완화했다고 설명하며, 실제로는 생각보다 역진성이 크지 않을 수 있다고 말했다.
“저소득층 지출에서 큰 비중을 차지하는 주거 임대료에는 GST가 부과되지 않는다. 반면 재정 여력이 충분해 신규주택을 구매하는 경우, 예를 들어 50만 달러 주택을 개발사로부터 구매하면 GST 7만5,000달러를 지불해야 한다.”
금융서비스와 임대료는 여전히 GST 면세 대상이다.
만약 지금 GST를 새로 도입한다면 가능할까?
새로운 세금을 도입하는 것은 항상 정치적으로 민감하다. 앨런 불롯(Alan Bullot)은 1985년은 경제·정책 환경이 크게 달랐다고 말했다.
“당시에는 뉴질랜드 달러 자유변동제 도입, 규제 완화, 임금·물가 동결, 차량 무연료 제한 등 다양한 제도 변화가 이어지던 시기였다. GST는 그 큰 변화의 일부로 받아들여졌고, 최고 소득세율도 크게 인하되었다.”
당시 ‘세일즈 전략’이 성공적이었다
정보기관 인포메트릭스의 가레스 키어넌 경제전문가는 GST가 기존의 복잡한 판매세를 대체했고 소득세 인하와 병행되었기 때문에 국민이 수용할 수 있었다고 분석했다.
1986년 3월 당시 소득세는 전체 세수의 약 75%를 차지했지만, 올해 6월에는 69%로 낮아졌고 GST 비중은 24.4%까지 증가했다.
또한 최고 소득세율도 도입 2년 후 66%에서 크게 하락했다.
그는 “선거제도가 MMP로 바뀌기 전에는 대규모 정책 변경이 비교적 쉬웠지만, 현재는 연립정부 구성 정당 간의 절충이 필수적이라 정책 추진이 훨씬 복잡하다”고 말했다.
이어 “1967년과 1982년에도 간접세 확대 필요성이 거론된 바 있어 GST 도입은 갑작스러운 변화가 아니었다”고 설명했다.
키어넌은 현재 장기간 논의되고 있는 ‘부동산 자본이득 과세(CGT)’가 GST 도입 당시와 비교될 수 있다고 말했다.
“경제학 관점에서 자산 이익에 대한 과세 강화는 소득·자산이 많은 사람이 더 공정하게 세금을 부담하게 한다는 점에서 긍정적이다. 하지만 ‘새로운 세금’이라는 부정적 인식만 강조되면서 정책 홍보 자체가 성공적이지 못했다.” 라고 언급했다.
“정치적 압력에 따라 결국 새로운 자본 과세도 도입될 것”
경제학자 샤무빌 이아쿱(Shamubeel Eaqub)은 장기적 재정 부담과 미래 세대의 위험을 고려할 때, 정부가 결국 자본 관련 새로운 세제를 도입할 가능성이 충분하다고 전망했다.
GST used to be 10%, is it going to rise again?
Happy birthday, GST. You probably pay it every day – 70c or so on a bottle of milk, $150 on an airfare.
But did you know the tax, which is applied to almost everything you buy, has turned 40?
This December marks 40 years since the law changed to allow Goods and Services Tax (GST) to be introduced in New Zealand. It took effect the following October.
Alan Bullot, a GST expert at Deloitte, said there was a lot to celebrate about the tax.
“New Zealand certainly wasn’t a trailblazer, but the GST legislation we brought in in New Zealand is seen universally as almost being best practice from a tax design point of view.
“It has a broad base that has very few exceptions and it just gets on with the business of what the tax is supposed to do, which is collect some money for the government to go off and do what the government needs to.”
He said when GST was first introduced in New Zealand, about 30 or 40 countries had a similar tax.
“Now, it’s the vast majority of countries other than America that have a national GST or VAT regime.
“Governments just love GST or VATs because they can forecast its collection a lot better because it functions over the whole economy. It’s a test of what the economy is doing.
“If you think about company tax, if I make a profit Inland Revenue can say ‘you made a $100 profit in the company and 28c is coming in’. That’s great, but if I’ve made a loss for two or three years, even if I made a profit of $100 this year the government might not get anything because I’ve got to go through my loss that’s in there.
“It’s much harder for the government to forecast exactly how much money will be coming in from income tax.”
More change coming?
Over the years, the rate has lifted from 10 percent to 12.5 percent to the 15 percent we now pay.
Bullot said it had also had to keep up with technology.
GST now applied to almost all international purchases imported into New Zealand.
“If you think about 1985, you might have heard of a CD. You may have seen a CD, that would be the pinnacle of music. You would have had a Walkman, you certainly weren’t able to download endless amounts of songs from overseas, you couldn’t download any movies.
“If you wanted to order anything online you couldn’t. If you wanted to order something from overseas that would have been pretty difficult… it was just so different in terms of the way that things would operate.
“The fundamentals of GST haven’t changed, but it has had to keep adapting to the economy it operates in.”
Every so often, there are calls for GST to be taken off things like public transport or food. Bullot said that was possible, but there would be drawbacks.
“Every time you do that, you add a bit of additional complications for businesses that are having to deal with it. And more to the point, if you’re not collecting it here, where are you collecting it?”
Bullot said Australia had more exemptions than New Zealand, but had been discussing whether to increase its coverage.
Treasury recently calculated that if nothing else were to change, GST might have to increase to 32 percent to cover the cost of an ageing population.
Bullot said another option would be not to have income tax but to charge a much higher rate of GST.
“Would people accept the doubling of GST?”
He said he could not see a future where GST was not a very significant part of the tax take.
“I think that it will stay that way. I think it is unlikely for it to increase from this rate from a practical political perspective. I think it is much more a case of we just need to keep making sure that it’s fit for purpose.”
He said Inland Revenue should change the rules if GST was not working as intended over time.
“I think Inland Revenue needs to be able to use that power perhaps a little more frequently sometimes rather than us going into sort of long technical debates… Sometimes we should just say what’s best for ‘New Zealand Inc’ and let’s move on.”
He said it was notable the level of GST tax debt had also increased recently and the government would need to continue to take action on it.
“I think it really needs to be a focus, because GST isn’t working if we’re getting information on returns but no cash. GST’s job is to collect large amounts of money in a consistent manner for the government, for the government to do the government’s programmes with the least amount of economic damage to the country in terms of compliance costs, uncertainty…
“Businesses can work around odd rules as long as they can see that they’re going to be there and they’re not going to flip and change.”
Is the tax regressive?
A major criticism of GST is that it is regressive because lower-earning households tend to spend more of their money, and spend more of it on things that attract GST.
Bullot said when the tax was introduced, benefits were increased to help cover the cost. He said the tax might not be as regressive as some people worried.
“When you look at what people in the lower incomes are spending their money on, a lot of it is residential rent, which is one of the big aspects that doesn’t have GST charged on it.
“Whereas if you are going out and you’re lucky enough to be in the financial position to buy a new house, for instance, when you’re buying that new house off the developer and say that was $500,000, you’re paying them $75,000 GST on top of that.”
Financial services and rent were some of the few things exempt from GST.
Could we introduce a tax like this now?
New taxes tend to be politically difficult. Bullot said the environment was different in 1985.
“It was coming in as part of a range of things… the floating of the New Zealand dollar, deregulation, we had a wage price freeze not many years before that, we’d had carless days and the GST coming through was just another one of those things.
“There was some pushback ,but not massive amounts, and there were significant cuts in the top rate of income tax.”
Good sales pitch
Infometrics chief forecaster Gareth Kiernan said it helped that the tax replaced other complicated sales taxes, and happened alongside income tax cuts.
He said income tax was almost 75 percent of the tax take in March 1986, and that had dropped to 69 percent in June this year as the share of GST lifted to 24.4 percent.
The top income tax rate dropped from 66 percent two years later.
“The pre-MMP political environment was such that large changes could be made relatively easily, whereas political policy now is often very much about compromise between the various parties in the governing coalition.
“Interestingly, the yearbook also notes reviews in 1967 and 1982, both of which recommended greater reliance on indirect taxes, with mention also being made of the need to reform existing indirect taxes – so it wasn’t like GST was something that came completely out of the blue.
“I can’t comment on the sales job that Labour did around introducing GST in the 1980s, but it must have been reasonably good, given that the party was re-elected in 1987.
“Perhaps an analogy can be drawn with the current (longstanding) debate about capital gains tax. From an economist’s point of view, a move to tax profits on property more fully is a positive, because it means that person who has lots of money and assets would then be taxed more fully than currently, compared to the low-asset wage-earner who doesn’t have the ability to tap into these tax-free gains.
“It seems to me that the problem is in the sales pitch, which for the last six years has been ‘here’s a new tax’, rather than ‘this tax change will enable us to reduce income tax for the 80 percent of the population who aren’t property investors’.
“But even with its recent announcement, Labour was finding new ways to spend money from the additional tax, rather than just looking to make the tax system fairer.”
Economist Shamubeel Eaqub said he thought it would be possible for a government to do something similar with a tax on capital.
“It will happen with the political calculus of bankrupting our grandchildren forces us to.”
