VAT? A Look Inside Canada's Experience with the Goods and Services Tax
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumption taxes have been and continue to be utilized as a staple revenue producer within systems of taxation. The value-added tax (VAT) is one form of consumption tax that has grown in popularity among nations over the last several decades. In fact, after the passage of a goods and services tax (one type of VAT) in Australia in 2000, the United States now stands alone as the only remaining OECD nation, among its 30 members, without some form of a value-added tax on consumption. As the massive topic of tax reform continually appears at the forefront of the political landscape, having potentially far-reaching effects of a political, social and economic nature, this comment seeks to provide insight into one country's recent experience with a value-added tax. Section II of this paper includes a brief history of the value-added tax, an explanation of the basic structure of a VAT and its foundational principles, distinguished from alternative forms of taxation and concludes with a list of generally accepted economic effects resulting from the institution of a value-added tax. Section III delves into Canada's value-added tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST), exploring the origins of GST, public opinion surrounding GST and its subsequent passage, purposes for its adoption, implementation, administration and enforcement, and a detailed look into the structure of the tax itself. Section IV investigates whether the economic effects from the Canadian GST have emulated those understood by the tax community to result from instituting a VAT and what Canada has done to address the effects brought about by the GST. Section V provides an overall conclusion about Canada's experience with the GST, what lessons, both good and bad, can be extrapolated and whether the Canadian experience encourages or cautions nations exploring the possibility of instituting a VAT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".