durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
Baja VAT to increase by 5%?
The state’s business leaders have sprung into action since President Enrique Peña Nieto submitted the proposed changes to Congress this month. They
are calling meetings, staging news conferences, issuing protest statements, forging alliances with opponents in other parts of the border and flying
to Mexico City to meet with legislators and members of the president’s administration.
Critics said the envisioned tax hike is the latest evidence that Mexico’s federal government doesn’t understand the distinctive dynamics of the
country’s northern border. The measure is fueling worries that prices will rise in Baja California, which would likely prompt more people to shop in
California and impose a greater financial burden on those without crossing documents who can least afford to pay more.
If the tax overhaul goes into effect, “it will be fatal,” said Ernesto Ruffo, a senator from Baja California who led a formal protest in the senate.
“It will do away with our way of life.”
The proposal is part of a sweeping tax-reform package that Peña Nieto hopes will boost government revenues and fund efforts to reduce economic
inequality by establishing “universal social security” and investing in strategic sectors such as education and infrastructure.
His administration argues that residents in border regions, where the average income is 27 percent higher than the national average, shouldn’t be
granted special privileges. The plan, submitted to to Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies on Sept. 8, would set a uniform sales tax of 16 percent nationwide
and end the 11 percent rate currently in place in Baja California and other border areas.
“Our country is the only one with a tax differential in its border communities,” reads a statement from the president’s office. The lower tax rate not
only leads to lower revenues, but also causes administrative problems, “opening opportunities for tax evasion and elusion,” it said.
Border zones have had a lower sales tax — technically known as a value-added tax — for more than three decades. The affected areas include a 12.5-mile
zone that run along Mexico’s entire U.S. border, a section of Sonora outside of the strip, the state of Baja California, Baja California Sur and parts
of the states of Chiapas and Quintana Roo on the southern border.
The lower tax rate was once justified by the “isolation of border populations from the rest of the country,” according to the president’s proposal.
Now, Peña Nieto said, the exemption should no longer apply because of improvements in communications and infrastructure.
That reasoning is generating little sympathy in Baja California, where residents have vigorously protested earlier federal mandates. In 2010, for
example, members of the state’s business community protested new federal rules limiting U.S. dollar deposits in Mexican banks. They said the
restrictions ignore the realities of border transactions, where many bills are paid in dollars.
As for the newly proposed tax hike, Baja California Gov. José Guadalupe Osuna Millán said in Tijuana last week: “What we need to explain to our
friends from the center of the country is that this difference in the value-added tax is no privilege. It’s because we are competing with the (U.S.)
market.”
He and other critics said the president’s tax-reform push is a double-whammy for Baja California: Besides raising the sales tax, Peña Nieto wants to
eliminate a tax waiver granted for imports temporarily brought into Mexico for assembly in the export-oriented maquiladora manufacturing facilities.
The second measure would affect maquiladoras across Mexico, an industry that employs close to 2.3 million people, said Federico Serrano Bañuelos,
president of Tijuana’s maquiladora association. The sector directly employs more than 248,000 people in Baja California.
The idea behind canceling the maquiladora waiver is to crack down on tax evasion, not to collect more revenue. Legitimate maquiladora owners would be
able to seek reimbursement once their finished goods leave Mexico.
But critics including Serrano said the rule would hurt the sector’s cash flow, lead to new administrative expenses and discourage foreign investment
that has been so critical to maquiladoras.
“They’re going to lose competitiveness,” said Ruffo, the senator from Baja California. And if that happens, “businesses overall are going to lose
customers.”
Opponents of the border sales-tax hike have been citing a study released in February by Colegio de la Frontera Norte, a border-wide think tank based
in Tijuana. The study found increasing the sales tax would have an inflationary effect on prices and prompt consumer flight to the United States.
People without the option of crossing the border would bear the brunt of the higher prices, said Noé Arón Fuentes, an economist and the study’s
author.
Though the border has escaped previous efforts to raise its sales tax to the national level, “for the first time, we’re at great risk that the reforms
will pass,” Fuentes said. “We have to offer alternatives.”
Among those knocking on doors in Mexico City last week was Karim Chalita, president of the Tijuana Chamber of Commerce. In an interview from the
capital, he said he hoped to meet with legislators from other parts of the country “so that those who are taking decisions can know the realities of
the border.”
Chalita said a wide range of businesses — from restaurants to doctor’s offices to tourist operators — could be harmed if the tax package passes.
Foes of the sales-tax hike have won support from the central leadership of Mexico’s National Action Party, better known as the PAN, and powerful
national business groups such as COPARMEX. But leaders of the president’s Institutional Revolutionary Party — also called the PRI — and its chief
ally, the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico, remain staunchly behind the proposal.
“The first people who have to be persuaded are authorities in the Treasury Secretariat,” said David Pérez Tejada, a freshman legislator from Baja
California and a member of the treasury committee in the Chamber of Deputies. Though he is a member of the Green Ecologist Party, he openly opposes
the border tax-increase proposal, as have some PRI lawmakers from border areas.
Starting this week, opponents of the two border-related tax measures — and those with other criticisms of the tax-reform package — will have a chance
to speak out in Mexico City during hearings before the treasury committee.
Among those prepared to testify is Juan Manuel Hernández, president of the Tijuana’s Business Coordinating Council, an umbrella organization.
“They say that all of Mexico has to be equal and there is no difference between regions,” Hernández said. “We’re saying just the opposite. What’s good
for Oaxaca is not good for Baja California.”
sandra.dibble@utsandiego.com (619) 293-1716 Twitter: @sandradibble
© Copyright 2013 The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC. An MLIM LLC Company. All rights reserved.
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
bajagrouper
Senior Nomad
Posts: 964
Registered: 8-28-2003
Location: Rincon de Guayabitos, Nayarit, Mexico
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy and retired
|
|
I have noticed on some of the mainland Mexico boards that ex-pats are more worried about the provision concerning the 16% IVA added to the buying,
selling or renting of homes and property.......
[Edited on 9-24-2013 by bajagrouper]
I hear the whales song
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
It seems like a stupid thing to do to raise the VAT, take the money, and then redistribute to reduce income inequality as the nature of a sales
tax/VAT is "regressive" and taxes the lower income people more than the higher income people...that's just Economics 101. So, to tax the lower income
people so that the government can give it back to the lower income people doesn't make sense.
Don't know how inflationary it would be since taxing and then spending the tax dollars does not in and of itself increase the money supply in the long
run. Inflation occurs when the money supply is increased. Generally, when a higher tax is imposed on the sale of goods and services, what happens
simultaneously is the prices increase a little and the vendors lose a bit of their profits. The prices generally do not go up by the exact amount of
the tax increase but the tax is covered by some price hike and some squeezing of the profits...and, the market is what determines eventual and final
prices - not tax hikes...Economics 101.
If Mexican legislators and President were smart, they would do something about their banking practices to encourage more people to hold and use
checking accounts which leaves a better "audit trail", audit businesses and taxpayers more to instill and require better accounting and record keeping
practices by businesses and therefore compliance to tax laws and therefore the government would be able to collect more income taxes (especially from
the "underground/under-the-table group) instead of relying so heavily on the blanket regressive sales/VAT tax that penalizes the lower income people
while giving the upper income a pass with a windfall.
Also, if Mexico goes forward with the proposed tax increases, it should start using a gradual "phase-in" of sweeping tax legislation instead of
imposing sweeping and large tax hikes all at once. Sudden changes in tax/financial legislation without a phase in period generally hurts an economy
because it doesn't give business the time it needs to adjust its practices to conform and to plan for such financial inevitabilities. Without
adequate time to plan, business resources (production resources) are wasted and/or lost unnecessarily.
An unbalanced market based capitalist economy results in lopsided distribution of income and wealth which results in lower overall production than its
true potential . Balance the economy with appropriate fiscal, monetary, labor and business regulation and taxation to produce balanced profits,
market prices, and wages is a much better result that will lead to higher overall production and wealth creation than a lopsided economy.
[Edited on 9-24-2013 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
akshadow
Nomad
Posts: 287
Registered: 2-1-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
how regressive is tax?
I do not, and most people do not want to pay a higher VAT but I really wonder about how a higher tax will affect the lower or no income people in
Baja.
If the VAT tax does not apply to food purchased in a store it will exclude a large portion of the expenses of the very poor. The very poor spend a
larger portion of their "income" on food. They are not buying new TVs, computers etc. There is already a subsidy for electric use, water is cheap
around San Felipe, in the Ejido no property tax etc.
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by akshadow
I do not, and most people do not want to pay a higher VAT but I really wonder about how a higher tax will affect the lower or no income people in
Baja.
"........The very poor spend a larger portion of their "income" on food. They are not buying new TVs, computers etc. ......."
|
Interesting you should mention that as I have seen many lower income areas with TV satellite dishes and have caught glimpses of LCD flat screen TV's.
It is also amazing that many have smart phones.......kind of like the US
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by akshadow
... but I really wonder about how a higher tax will affect the lower or no income people in Baja. |
A higher VAT will hurt them more than a lower VAT. It will also hurt the middleclass as well. In short, a higher VAT will hurt the no income, the
low income, and the middleclass more than does the lower VAT.
Because, as mentioned in my post above, a sales-type tax increase will increase the prices a bit and since the bulk of the sales tax money comes from
the poor and the working class, and the bulk of the items subject to the sales tax are purchased more by the working class and poor than by the
wealthy there will be less money in the hands of these majority purchasers to buy things. That is, there will be a resultant decrease in overall
demand in the economy. Not good for the economy.
And, when the economy is hurt, who do you think suffers the most?
[Edited on 9-24-2013 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
It seems like a stupid thing to do to raise the VAT, take the money, and then redistribute to reduce income inequality as the nature of a sales
tax/VAT is "regressive" and taxes the lower income people more than the higher income people...that's just Economics 101. So, to tax the lower income
people so that the government can give it back to the lower income people doesn't make sense.
Don't know how inflationary it would be since taxing and then spending the tax dollars does not in and of itself increase the money supply in the long
run. Inflation occurs when the money supply is increased. Generally, when a higher tax is imposed on the sale of goods and services, what happens
simultaneously is the prices increase a little and the vendors lose a bit of their profits. The prices generally do not go up by the exact amount of
the tax increase but the tax is covered by some price hike and some squeezing of the profits...and, the market is what determines eventual and final
prices - not tax hikes...Economics 101.
If Mexican legislators and President were smart, they would do something about their banking practices to encourage more people to hold and use
checking accounts which leaves a better "audit trail", audit businesses and taxpayers more to instill and require better accounting and record keeping
practices by businesses and therefore compliance to tax laws and therefore the government would be able to collect more income taxes (especially from
the "underground/under-the-table group) instead of relying so heavily on the blanket regressive sales/VAT tax that penalizes the lower income people
while giving the upper income a pass with a windfall.
Also, if Mexico goes forward with the proposed tax increases, it should start using a gradual "phase-in" of sweeping tax legislation instead of
imposing sweeping and large tax hikes all at once. Sudden changes in tax/financial legislation without a phase in period generally hurts an economy
because it doesn't give business the time it needs to adjust its practices to conform and to plan for such financial inevitabilities. Without
adequate time to plan, business resources (production resources) are wasted and/or lost unnecessarily.
An unbalanced market based capitalist economy results in lopsided distribution of income and wealth which results in lower overall production than its
true potential . Balance the economy with appropriate fiscal, monetary, labor and business regulation and taxation to produce balanced profits,
market prices, and wages is a much better result that will lead to higher overall production and wealth creation than a lopsided economy.
[Edited on 9-24-2013 by MitchMan] |
Everyone in mainland Mexico, including the very poor, have been paying
the 16% since 2010 but food and medicines have been exempt so the poor are affected less.
The government is aiming to boost Mexico's weak tax revenues by around 4 percentage points of gross domestic product (GDP), and was seriously
considering widening the application of value added tax (VAT) to include food and medicines but for now the Mexican government has decided against
levying a controversial sales tax on food and medicine as part of a key fiscal reform, according to officials in the ruling Institutional
Revolutionary Party (PRI).
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
