[cwillu]

I think you misunderstood: VAT is applied to (approximately) everything a citizen of a country buys: imports and domestically produced products. Exports from a country are entirely irrelevant to whether applying VAT to imports is unfair to US imports to that country, as compared to the US charging a “VAT” on _only_ its imports.

[mk89]

VAT is applied to services too, at least here in Europe.

Now, if we were to split VAT in two: 1. tax on imports, 2. tax on whatever goods/services people in that country pay/buy, you could keep just the 2 and have free trade with other countries with zero tax. Or the opposite, do tax on imports and free trade inside your country.

The fact that VAT has always been like that (1 and 2 together), it doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

Not sure why we should care about how a country decides to apply taxation in their own country, especially if that country sets a more or less equal tax for everyone - that's understandable.

[cwillu]

   > 1. tax on imports, 2. tax on whatever goods/services people in that
   > country pay/buy, you could keep just the 2 and have free trade with
   > other countries with zero tax.

That is completely ridiculous. Why would there a VAT on, say, domestically produced pasta on the grocery shelf, while the Italian import pasta right next to it has none?

[mk89]

It's how the EU today works BTW. In german shops you can buy locally produced pasta or imported Italian pasta (no import tax), both with 7% vat on it. Now you can claim "but this is EU...".

Why can't this free trade be done with individual countries for specific products then?

[gspr]

You and the parent poster are talking past each other. They asked:

> Why would there a VAT on, say, domestically produced pasta on the grocery shelf, while the Italian import pasta right next to it has none?

You answer (correctly) that that isn't the case, both boxes of pasta have the same VAT applied to it.

In light of this, I think people are really struggling to understand what you're arguing for or against here. The whole subthread started by someone pointing out that the 10%-for-everyone version of trump's tarrifs is very different from European VAT, since European VAT applies to all products sold to consumers, regardless of whether they are imported or not. That is, indeed, a vital difference. You seem to argue that it's not the case, while giving examples of how it is the case, leaving everyone confused.

[mk89]

To allow free trade of certain goods which your country needs more.

This is why tariffs are much more flexible, because they allow you to, let's say, trade oil at a cheaper price, while pasta (widely produced in europe) at a higher price.

[wqaatwt]

So what you are suggesting is a reverse tariff? Punish local producers for manufacturing goods that we’d rather import.

Well.. that’s an idea.. I suppose..

[cwillu]

Then you would just not tax those goods. We already do this with basic foodstuffs; this has nothing to do with tariffs.

[Zanfa]

VAT doesn't affect free trade in any way though. You're mixing up unrelated concepts.

[the_gipsy]

VAT is never universal, different products already get different rates.

[the_gipsy]

You cannot possibly make imports VAT excempt, that's just instantly destroying your domestic market for no gain anywhere.