Talk:Value-added tax

message: I don't understand the point of two banners.  Nothing has been added to the talk to clarify the addition of either banner. Morphh  (talk) 1:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I'm just stopping by and probably won't be back to check this.  But someone needs to alter the table showing the different prices of chevrolets and opels in the US and Germany.  It says that both a chevy and an opel is produced for $25,000.  It says that the US has a 10% sales tax.  Therefore I would expect the price in the US would be $27,500 (=25,000 + 2,500).  Instead, the price is 27,778.  OK, so maybe that's profit.  But Germany has a VAT of 20%, and the Opel in Germany sells for $30,000 (= 25,000 + 20%).  So no profit is added.  Thus the comparison is not apples to apples.  Suggest that no profit be included (that just confuses the example), and that the cost of a chevrolet be listed as $27,500.  I just looked this over quickly, so someone check my understanding - perhaps I'm wrong.  But if I'm wrong, additional explanation is needed because if I don't understand it, lots of others don't as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commandkirk (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected the numbers. However, the section is still too confusing for readers to understand. If someone can simplify the section, then it will be easier to understand. Great50 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

text: It seems to me the final example is flawed, there would still be VAT being payed in Germany on the Opel. Whoever wrote this section seems to think that VAT acts like an import tariff, which it does not. Sammatthews99 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad numbers in chevy vs opel example. 

message: See this discussed here
KVDP (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increased VAT to include carbon tax 

message: Recently created articles Value Added Tax in Bangladesh and Value added taxation in Bangladesh bring to three the number of articles that cover the topic. I propose they be merged into the Bangladesh section of Value-added tax, unless the result of doing so would be a section longer than five or six paragraphs. 
* Value Added Tax in Bangladesh started as a copy of the target section. It was then expanded, but with undesirable content - a few unsourced sentences and a repository of links to primary sources.
* Value added taxation in Bangladesh is sourced, which neither of the other two are, but it covers much the same ground as the target, and at no greater length.
I think that the content in the two new articles can be explained in the context of Value-added tax, and that if tightly written it would not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. (If it can't be kept to five or six paragraphs, or later grows beyond that size, I would have no objection to it being spun off into one new article, although for consistency the best title would use a parenthetical disambiguation: Value added tax (Bangladesh)) --Worldbruce (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merger. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Support the merger, with the proviso that the Bangladesh section doesn't grow too large as per Worldbruce above. JezGrove (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Klbrain (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: It seems dubious at best that China’s total VAT revenue for 2007 was just 15.47 billion yuan, supposedly “33.9 percent of China's total tax revenue for the year”. This page from the State Administration of Taxation reports a total tax revenue of 4945.2 billion yuan for the same year.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.141.184 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  China’s VAT revenue 

message: Quote from article "166 of the world's approximately 193 countries employ a VAT,..." - I just wonder how 193 can be approximateted (the numbers of countries has to be an integer). Guess I understand the reason for this formulation, but still strongly suggest a rephrasing.  Boeing720 (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no universally agreed list of countries. However, 193 seems to be the number of members of the UN rather than some general approximation. I think it's better to just say that in the article. Sakkura (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Approximately 193 countries..." ?? 

message: has twice added the old Swedish OMS (omsättningsskatt) to the table of EU VAT rates, in addition to the current MOMS (meromsättningsskatt). However, OMS was not a value-added tax. "Meromsättning" (added revenue) means essentially the same as value-added, but OMS omits the "added" part - it was a plain sales tax.
Many other countries had a similar progression from sales tax to VAT; Denmark even used practically the same words, and exactly the same contractions, apart from not capitalizing "oms" and "moms." I don't think these non-VAT taxes should be listed in the table of European VATs. Sakkura (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are Danish, I'm certain you could read the source I added. There was a OMS during World War II, I don't refer to that - but the OMS that was introduced in 1959. The only difference compared to MOMS is so little that one very well can state OMS was the very first VAT in Sweden and OMS predates MOMS. To the final consumer of no difference whatsoever. The abbreviation MOMS (as of imposing 1969) = mervärdes och omsättningsskatt. (litteral translation of the first part "more value's" (genitive) whilst the last part means "revenue tax", or "revenue taxation". Such abbreviations are next to always capitalized. In Denmark too (Og hvad med SKAT ?) - no one writes or spells Scandinavian Airlines (Scandinavian Airline System) as anything else than SAS , pronounced "sass". Although I'm very familiar with the Greater Copenhagen Area - and more, I would say Copenhagen is my Capital City, but I've never thought of oms/moms there, and haven't comment on that. I just think it is somewhat interesting trivia. Boeing720 (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And just by the way, during a few years in the early 70's (halvfjerdserne) I remember the MOMS was higher on Sundays (!). Boeing720 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The only difference compared to MOMS is that OMS was not a value-added tax, it was a sales tax.https://www.ekonomifakta.se/Fakta/Skatter/Skatt-pa-konsumtion-och-produktion/Moms/ That's specifically why it should not be in this article, except perhaps for mention as a non-VAT forerunner to the present VAT (the problem with that approach is you'd have to make such mentions for lots of other countries). It would be more at home in the articles on sales tax and consumption tax. As for your source, it's paywalled. As for the spelling in Danish, moms is lower-caps according to SKAT (tax agency) and Dansk Sprognævn (the Danish language council). Sakkura (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If only Wikimedia coukd be more flexible, I could have shown you "Pris 6:85 inkl. OMS" or "Pris 4:95 inkl. MOMS". It was capitalized for many decades. Whats the actual difference, both OMS and MOMS is only paid by the end-user, in the end. It's not wrong to say MOMS is OMS with more bureaucracy within each step of selling & developing. Boeing720 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Please also read this  In Swedish, with forgotten capitalization, but still. Boeing720 (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual difference is that with a VAT, the value added in each stage of production etc. is taxed. With a sales tax, only the final price at one stage is taxed. This has a different economic and administrative impact. The available sources clearly establish that OMS was a sales tax. Sakkura (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish OMS 

message: in the map it says that Saudi Arabia has no VAT which is incorrect. Saudi Arabia has had a 5 percent VAT for a couple of years and now it has a 15 percent VAT. Map needs updating. Unfortunately I don't know how to do that. Source: https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2020/06/29/Saudi-Arabia-VAT-triples-to-15-percent-on-July-1-Here-s-everything-you-need-to-know Rayansb (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi Arabia VAT  

message: recommendable usage by purpose of value added tax.
2003:E0:8F04:481:683C:CB8F:F31D:A81 (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  value added tax — purpose 

message: Hi, quick note on the EU VAT list, why is it separated from the rest of the world especially when an article about EU VAT already exists, European Union value added tax. I think we should at least have a single table on this article, or possibly an article with a list of VAT, GST and sales tax that would be more organised and easy to understand. Also, I'm thinking of proposing a request to split List of countries by tax rates to seperate lists that discuss each tax on its own as I don't see a point in having a table that is very messy and difficult to read. Notes on any point are more than welcome :). Vyvagaba (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU VAT list 

message: Since 1st July 2017, the VAT in India has been called GST (Goods and services tax), and the rates vary from 5 to 28% with the majority of products at 18%.
In the document, the local name of the tax is still mentioned as VAT.
https://gstcouncil.gov.in/about-us
https://cbic-gst.gov.in/gst-goods-services-rates.html Ramtin.abadi (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  India VAT to GST and Estonia VAT increase to 22% 

message: In the ‘Examples’ sections under the subheading ‘With a value-added tax’, the following clause needs to be deleted in its entirety: “but only by successfully selling the value-added product to the buyer or consumer in the next stage. In the previously shown examples, if the retailer fails to sell some of its inventory, it suffers a greater financial loss in the VAT scheme, in comparison to the sales tax regulatory system, by having paid a higher wholesale price on the product it wants to sell.” 
The above is factually inaccurate in basically all jurisdictions with a VAT or GST tax. A business is able to claim a purchase/input tax credit on its VAT return regardless of whether it is successful in selling the inventory created from whatever input it was charged tax on in the previous production stage. There is no way of even knowing what exact inputs relate to what exact outputs and a valid tax invoice is generally sufficient for a business to substantiate its claim, and request for refund of, if applicable, a purchase/input tax credit on its VAT return. 2601:681:8A01:2E40:393B:C20:205B:F437 (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2024 

message: This article appears to have some serious subjectivist/marginalist POV, which is poorly cited to boot. For example it simply presents supply/demand curves as if these were actually existing things. It presupposes a general equilibrium. It suggests there exists such a thing as "consumer surplus". I would at the very least expect this POV to be clearly marked ("The neoclassical school of economics argues that ..."). Within classical political economy none of these things exist. KetchupSalt (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjectivist POV 

message: products excluded from VAT Esonasiphiwo (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Products excluded from VAT