minqidev 发表于 2025-04-08 15:24 如果 Dealer A, Store B A, B，分别要报税，其中都有利润的环节。 最后一个环节还要有消费税。
What is the method of collection of VAT? How would a VAT be collected? Most countries with a value-added tax use the credit-invoice method. Under this method, businesses are taxed on their sales at each stage of production but obtain credits for the taxes they paid on inputs.
懒得打字，给你个Grok的答复： Yes, from an international trade perspective, not having a VAT can put a country at a competitive disadvantage compared to nations that use VAT, particularly in how it affects export pricing and import protection. Let’s break down why this happens and why it matters, focusing purely on trade dynamics. ### VAT’s Trade Advantage VAT’s border-adjustable nature gives countries a structural edge in global markets: - Exports: VAT countries zero-rate exports, meaning producers reclaim VAT paid on inputs (materials, labor, etc.). A German firm pays 19% VAT on steel but gets it back when exporting a car, lowering the price for foreign buyers—say, from €30,000 to €25,000. - Imports: VAT is slapped on imports at the border (e.g., 19% in Germany), raising their price domestically. A U.S. car entering Germany at €25,000 becomes €29,750, making it less competitive against local options. This “tax export subsidy” and “import penalty” combo tilts trade in favor of VAT countries. ### No VAT: The U.S. Case The U.S., lacking a federal VAT, doesn’t mirror this: - Exports: U.S. firms bear embedded costs—corporate taxes (21%), state sales taxes on inputs (6-7% average), payroll taxes—with no rebate on export. A $30,000 U.S. machine stays $30,000 abroad, while a VAT-country rival drops to $25,000 after rebates. This price gap hurts competitiveness. - Imports: Imports face tariffs (e.g., 2.5% on cars, $625 on a $25,000 car), but no federal consumption tax until retail (state sales taxes apply later). That $25,625 landed price is cheaper than a VAT country’s $29,750 equivalent, undercutting U.S. producers at home. #### Competitive Position - Export Weakness: U.S. goods are pricier abroad. In 2023, exports were $2.5 trillion (10% of GDP), lagging VAT-heavy peers like Germany (50% of GDP) or South Korea (40%). Studies (e.g., Tax Foundation, 2017) estimate a U.S. VAT could cut export prices 5-10%, boosting volumes 10-15%—$250-$375 billion more annually. - Import Vulnerability: Cheap imports flood the U.S. market ($3.3 trillion in 2023), fueling a $805 billion deficit. A VAT (e.g., 10%, adding $2,500 to a $25,000 import) could deter 10-15% of imports ($330-$495 billion less), per trade elasticity models. - Net Effect: No VAT widens the trade gap. VAT countries like China ($600 billion surplus) or the EU (surpluses in Germany, Netherlands) leverage this; the U.S. doesn’t. ### Why It’s a Bad Position - Price Disadvantage: Non-VAT exporters compete with one hand tied. A U.S. farmer pays taxes on fertilizer and equipment with no export refund, while a Canadian farmer (13% HST) gets rebates, selling wheat cheaper globally. - Market Share Loss: Industries like manufacturing (20% of U.S. exports) lose ground to VAT-subsidized rivals. Japan’s 10% VAT helps Toyota; the U.S.’s lack hurts Ford abroad. - Domestic Pressure: Cheap imports erode local firms. U.S. steelmakers face VAT-taxed imports from Europe at a disadvantage, relying on tariffs (25% on steel) that spark trade wars instead of systemic fixes. ### Counterpoints - U.S. Strengths: The U.S. offsets this with scale ($26.5 trillion GDP), innovation (tech exports), and dollar dominance, keeping deficits manageable. Exports aren’t its lifeblood like Germany’s. - Tariffs: Duties (e.g., 25% on trucks) protect some sectors, but they’re narrower and less flexible than VAT’s broad coverage. - Elasticity Limits: Not all goods respond to price shifts—oil or iPhones sell regardless—so VAT’s edge isn’t universal. ### Global Context Most trading nations (EU, China, Japan) use VAT to sharpen their edge. The U.S.’s no-VAT stance leaves it exposed: - OECD Data: VAT countries average trade surpluses or smaller deficits as a share of GDP (e.g., Japan: +1%, EU: +0.5%) vs. the U.S. (-3%). - WTO Rules: VAT’s border adjustment is legal; U.S. proposals like a “border-adjusted corporate tax” (2017) mimic it but falter politically. ### Conclusion From a pure trade lens, no VAT puts a country in a weaker competitive position. Exports cost more, imports cost less, and rivals with VAT exploit the gap. The U.S. mitigates thisSy survives this through sheer economic might, but for most nations—smaller, trade-reliant—it’s a real handicap. No VAT isn’t “good” or “bad” universally; it’s a choice. For the U.S., it’s a tolerable trade-off; for others, it’d be a crippling blow to global standing. Want a deeper look at a specific industry or rival country?
这个Grok的回答也是胡说八道，被你们川粉给污染了。 ”Exports: U.S. firms bear embedded costs—corporate taxes (21%), state sales taxes on inputs (6-7% average), payroll taxes—with no rebate on export.“ 说美国企业成本的时候就加上企业税，工资税，难道欧洲国家的企业就不交税了？ 你还是自己来说一下吧，到底为什么增值税是贸易壁垒？是怎么让美国企业吃亏了？
gokgs 发表于 2025-04-08 15:29 What is the method of collection of VAT? How would a VAT be collected? Most countries with a value-added tax use the credit-invoice method. Under this method, businesses are taxed on their sales at each stage of production but obtain credits for the taxes they paid on inputs.
由于美国是少数没有增值税的国家，这必然让美国在国际贸易时处于天然劣势。但美国现在的政治环境是不可能让美国改变现在的税收体系，变成征收增值税的国家。他唯一能做的就是对进口商品收取10%的关税来对冲其它国家的增值税，并将之常态话。
所以其它国家所谓的双边零关税根本就是漠视这个增值税的议题，肯定是行不通的。
可能有人会问为什么美国当初不采用增值税？其实增值税就是所有生产环节都收消费税。这将大大伤害底层低收入人群。也是这版上很多人反对的。
消费税应该是只在最后消费收一次吧。增值税是不是每个环节都收？
纯消费税就挺好的。
好像挺复杂的， 应该是最后一步收， 然后返还给上一个厂家， 要不然， 下一个厂家要提前垫付 vat。
比如你花 10 块钱买了块木头， 做了把椅子， 30 块钱卖给 零售商， 零售商 卖 50 块钱，两个增值税， 显然最好是货物真正卖了之后再交。
这个确实很坑， 复杂， 层层缠绕。
每个环节征也是增值的部分征，没啥区别。
再说美国也可以搞出口退税呀？
川粉能学习一下吗？
楼主来说说怎么让美国处于天然劣势了？德国生产的汽车，和美国生产的汽车，在德国销售的时候，缴纳同样的增值税，怎么就损害你们川粉的利益了？
如果 Dealer A, Store B
A, B，分别要报税，其中都有利润的环节。 最后一个环节还要有消费税。
What is the method of collection of VAT?
How would a VAT be collected? Most countries with a value-added tax use the credit-invoice method. Under this method, businesses are taxed on their sales at each stage of production but obtain credits for the taxes they paid on inputs.
懒得打字，给你个Grok的答复：
Yes, from an international trade perspective, not having a VAT can put a country at a competitive disadvantage compared to nations that use VAT, particularly in how it affects export pricing and import protection. Let’s break down why this happens and why it matters, focusing purely on trade dynamics.
### VAT’s Trade Advantage VAT’s border-adjustable nature gives countries a structural edge in global markets: - Exports: VAT countries zero-rate exports, meaning producers reclaim VAT paid on inputs (materials, labor, etc.). A German firm pays 19% VAT on steel but gets it back when exporting a car, lowering the price for foreign buyers—say, from €30,000 to €25,000. - Imports: VAT is slapped on imports at the border (e.g., 19% in Germany), raising their price domestically. A U.S. car entering Germany at €25,000 becomes €29,750, making it less competitive against local options.
This “tax export subsidy” and “import penalty” combo tilts trade in favor of VAT countries.
### No VAT: The U.S. Case The U.S., lacking a federal VAT, doesn’t mirror this: - Exports: U.S. firms bear embedded costs—corporate taxes (21%), state sales taxes on inputs (6-7% average), payroll taxes—with no rebate on export. A $30,000 U.S. machine stays $30,000 abroad, while a VAT-country rival drops to $25,000 after rebates. This price gap hurts competitiveness. - Imports: Imports face tariffs (e.g., 2.5% on cars, $625 on a $25,000 car), but no federal consumption tax until retail (state sales taxes apply later). That $25,625 landed price is cheaper than a VAT country’s $29,750 equivalent, undercutting U.S. producers at home.
#### Competitive Position - Export Weakness: U.S. goods are pricier abroad. In 2023, exports were $2.5 trillion (10% of GDP), lagging VAT-heavy peers like Germany (50% of GDP) or South Korea (40%). Studies (e.g., Tax Foundation, 2017) estimate a U.S. VAT could cut export prices 5-10%, boosting volumes 10-15%—$250-$375 billion more annually. - Import Vulnerability: Cheap imports flood the U.S. market ($3.3 trillion in 2023), fueling a $805 billion deficit. A VAT (e.g., 10%, adding $2,500 to a $25,000 import) could deter 10-15% of imports ($330-$495 billion less), per trade elasticity models. - Net Effect: No VAT widens the trade gap. VAT countries like China ($600 billion surplus) or the EU (surpluses in Germany, Netherlands) leverage this; the U.S. doesn’t.
### Why It’s a Bad Position - Price Disadvantage: Non-VAT exporters compete with one hand tied. A U.S. farmer pays taxes on fertilizer and equipment with no export refund, while a Canadian farmer (13% HST) gets rebates, selling wheat cheaper globally. - Market Share Loss: Industries like manufacturing (20% of U.S. exports) lose ground to VAT-subsidized rivals. Japan’s 10% VAT helps Toyota; the U.S.’s lack hurts Ford abroad. - Domestic Pressure: Cheap imports erode local firms. U.S. steelmakers face VAT-taxed imports from Europe at a disadvantage, relying on tariffs (25% on steel) that spark trade wars instead of systemic fixes.
### Counterpoints - U.S. Strengths: The U.S. offsets this with scale ($26.5 trillion GDP), innovation (tech exports), and dollar dominance, keeping deficits manageable. Exports aren’t its lifeblood like Germany’s. - Tariffs: Duties (e.g., 25% on trucks) protect some sectors, but they’re narrower and less flexible than VAT’s broad coverage. - Elasticity Limits: Not all goods respond to price shifts—oil or iPhones sell regardless—so VAT’s edge isn’t universal.
### Global Context Most trading nations (EU, China, Japan) use VAT to sharpen their edge. The U.S.’s no-VAT stance leaves it exposed: - OECD Data: VAT countries average trade surpluses or smaller deficits as a share of GDP (e.g., Japan: +1%, EU: +0.5%) vs. the U.S. (-3%). - WTO Rules: VAT’s border adjustment is legal; U.S. proposals like a “border-adjusted corporate tax” (2017) mimic it but falter politically.
### Conclusion From a pure trade lens, no VAT puts a country in a weaker competitive position. Exports cost more, imports cost less, and rivals with VAT exploit the gap. The U.S. mitigates thisSy survives this through sheer economic might, but for most nations—smaller, trade-reliant—it’s a real handicap. No VAT isn’t “good” or “bad” universally; it’s a choice. For the U.S., it’s a tolerable trade-off; for others, it’d be a crippling blow to global standing. Want a deeper look at a specific industry or rival country?
”Exports: U.S. firms bear embedded costs—corporate taxes (21%), state sales taxes on inputs (6-7% average), payroll taxes—with no rebate on export.“
说美国企业成本的时候就加上企业税，工资税，难道欧洲国家的企业就不交税了？
你还是自己来说一下吧，到底为什么增值税是贸易壁垒？是怎么让美国企业吃亏了？
好复杂