Air Arabia launches new daily Sharjah-Germany flights from December 16

Air New Zealand plunges to $242 million loss as fuel and engine costs bite

The result reflected the significant external pressures the business had faced over the year, the company's chair says.

2h ago ·rnz.co.nz

Why is a consumption tax cut supported? The distrust at the root of the "painful tax" feeling 政府・与党は、物価高対策として、消費税を10％から5％に引き下げる検討に入った。麻生太郎副首相兼財務相は「消費税を5％に下げると、経済対策として10兆円の効果がある」と発言し、与党の一部からは消費税率を3％に下げる案も出ている。 The government and the ruling party are considering reducing the consumption tax from 10% to 5% as a measure against rising prices. Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Taro Aso stated that reducing the consumption tax to 5% would have an effect of 10 trillion yen as an economic measure, and some members of the ruling party are proposing reducing the consumption tax rate to 3%. 消費税は1989年に導入され、導入当初は3％だった。その後、段階的に引き上げられ、2014年には8％、2019年には10％に上がった。10％に引き上げられた際には、政府は「消費税10％への増税は、将来の社会保障を安定させるための、必要にして重要な政策」と説明していた。 The consumption tax was introduced in 1989 and was initially set at 3%. It was then gradually increased, to 8% in 2014 and to 10% in 2019. When it was raised to 10%, the government explained that the increase to 10% was a necessary and important policy to stabilize future social security. それなのに、今回、わずか3年で、消費税を5％に引き下げる検討が持ち上がっている。消費税は、社会保障の財源として使われるだけに、今回の引き下げは、将来の社会保障への影響が懸念される。 Despite this, just three years later, there is discussion of reducing the consumption tax to 5%. Since the consumption tax is used as a source of funding for social security, this reduction is a concern for the future of social security. そもそも、なぜ消費税の引き下げが支持されるのだろうか。消費税は、所得や資産の多寡にかかわらず、物を買うたび、サービスを受けるたびに課税される。そのため、負担感が大きいと指摘される。消費税は、給料などの収入から税金を納める所得税などに比べ、税金を払っている実感が薄い。 The question is, why is a consumption tax cut supported in the first place? The consumption tax is levied every time something is purchased or a service is used, regardless of income or assets. As a result, it is pointed out that there is a large sense of burden. Unlike income tax, which is paid from income such as salary, there is little sense of actually paying consumption tax. 例えば、1万円の商品を購入した場合、消費税は1,000円となる。この場合、消費税10％の内訳は、商品を購入した際に支払った1,000円と、商品を仕入れた事業者が納めた1,000円の2重の税金がかかる。このため、消費税は「痛税感」があると批判される。 For example, when purchasing a 10,000-yen product, the consumption tax is 1,000 yen. In this case, the breakdown of the 10% consumption tax is a double tax of 1,000 yen paid when purchasing the product and 1,000 yen paid by the business that supplied the product. For this reason, the consumption tax is criticized for having a "painful tax" feeling. さらに、消費税は、生活必需品の購入時も課税される。生活費の負担が重くなるため、家計への影響が大きい。 Furthermore, the consumption tax is levied when purchasing daily necessities. This increases the burden of living expenses and has a large impact on household finances. こうした消費税の特徴が、今回の引き下げ支持につながっている面がある。ただ、消費税の引き下げは、景気対策として効果があるのか、という疑問もある。 There is some aspect of these characteristics of the consumption tax that is connected to support for a reduction this time. However, there is also a question of whether a consumption tax cut would be effective as a measure to counter the economic downturn. 消費税を5％に引き下げると、約7.8兆円の税収減になる。消費税率1％は、約3.6兆円の税収がある。単純計算すると、消費税を3％に引き下げると、約21.6兆円の税収減になる。 Reducing the consumption tax to 5% would result in a reduction in tax revenue of about 7.8 trillion yen. A 1% consumption tax rate generates about 3.6 trillion yen in tax revenue. In simple terms, reducing the consumption tax to 3% would result in a reduction in tax revenue of about 21.6 trillion yen. この税収減は、すべて国と都道府県、市町村が負担することになる。消費税は、地方交付税の財源としても使われているからだ。 This reduction in tax revenue would all be borne by the national government, prefectures, and municipalities. This is because the consumption tax is also used as a source of funding for local allocation taxes. 政府は、消費税率を5％に引き下げた場合、経済効果は10兆円と試算している。しかし、税収減の7.8兆円を上回る効果を出すことは、簡単ではない。 The government calculates that reducing the consumption tax rate to 5% would have an economic effect of 10 trillion yen. However, it is not easy to achieve an effect that exceeds the 7.8 trillion yen reduction in tax revenue. 消費税の引き下げは、選挙対策や、与党内の支持取りまとめに効果的かもしれないが、将来の社会保障への影響や、地方財政への影響を考えると、簡単に決めていいことではない。 Reducing the consumption tax might be effective for election measures or for gathering support within the ruling party, but considering the impact on future social security and on local finances, it is not something that can be easily decided.

2h ago ·asahi.com

Moving money into or out of SA? Here’s an easier, more cost-effective alternative to your bank

Future Forex combines competitive exchange rates with white-glove service, making international transfers easier, faster, and more transparent.

2h ago ·moneyweb.co.za