When people spark one of the largest protests in Eastern Europe since the fall of communism, it is obvious that they have stirred up the electorate. That is exactly what the Hungarian government did when it recently proposed an “Internet tax” of 0.50 euros (US$0.62) per gigabyte. More than 100,000 protesters gathered in Budapest, furious at the political symbolism of the tax and its very real economic impact. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government quickly backed down.
Hungary’s proposed tax was absurd — akin to assessing fees on reading books or charging people to have conversations with friends. However, the proposal, even if discarded — though Orban has hinted that he might bring it back in another form — remains worrisome, because it is part of a disturbing trend. A large number of nations have introduced taxes and tariffs that hamper the adoption and use of information and communications technology (ICT). All together, 31 nations — including Turkey, Brazil and Greece — add 5 percent or more to the cost of ICT, on top of standard value-added taxes.
In Hungary, the proposed tax would have been particularly onerous, because it would raise the cost of mobile data by between 5 percent and 15 percent, and have an even bigger impact on fixed broadband subscriptions. For the young and the poor, it would be a significant burden. A cap of 2.30 euros per person, hastily proposed after the initial public outcry, and before the proposal was withdrawn, would have done little to ease that burden on low-income Internet users, while drastically reducing the program’s overall revenue.
As the protesters in Budapest pointed out, the proposed tax is wrong for Hungary. It is wrong for other nations, too. Cash-strapped governments adopt these taxes because ICT goods and services are an easy target for revenue authorities. In addition, they are sometimes mischaracterized as luxury products — as if the Internet has not become central to peoples’ lives.
These policies are ultimately self-defeating. The resulting price hikes impede the adoption and use of ICT, lowering tax revenues from purchases of goods and services. The evidence shows an even larger indirect effect: restricting ICT adoption dampens growth. Ultimately, this has a negative impact on total tax revenues, offsetting any gains from fees on Internet use. One study found that for every US dollar equivalent of tariffs India imposed on imported ICT products it suffered an economic loss of US$1.30 from lower productivity.
Taxes on ICT are the modern-day equivalent of eating the grain you were saving to plant next year. The adoption of ICT drives fundamental technological change, potentially transforming a broad range of industries, as well as people’s everyday lives. For businesses, ICT can improve efficiency and facilitate coordination. For individuals, it can boost incomes and make life more convenient.
The benefits of ICT goods and services grow significantly as more businesses and consumers start to use them. Smart government policies, such as subsidies or tax breaks for ICT purchases, boost adoption by helping users who would not otherwise be able to afford them. Taxing the Internet, like other taxes and tariffs on ICT goods and services, has the opposite effect.
Hungary’s proposed tax was especially pernicious, owing to its poor design. As the tax was a flat 0.50 euros per gigabyte, its share in total ICT spending would rise as the cost of a gigabyte fell — as it is almost guaranteed to do. The cap on such a tax would prevent the rate from spiraling upward, but rising bandwidths would cause most users to max out quickly, affecting not only the poorest consumers, but also new or small businesses. Keeping poor people and entrepreneurs off the Internet is no way to fund a government.
Nations would be better off with policies that promote ICT: elimination of taxes and tariffs on ICT products and services, removal of non-tariff barriers like requiring local data storage, and encouragement of digital innovation and transformation in economic sectors through regulatory and procurement reform. The resulting rise in productivity, competitiveness and economic growth would establish a far more stable and successful foundation for increasing tax revenues.
The EU as a whole has done a good job of keeping ICT taxes and tariffs low, despite substantial fiscal difficulties in many nations. Indeed, the overall non-discriminatory tax regime has been an important boon to ICT adoption, and the EU’s commissioner for the digital agenda spoke out strongly against Hungary’s proposed tax, calling it “a particularly bad idea.” The only EU nation with significant taxes on ICT products and services — about 9 percent — is Greece, something of a special case in Europe.
The recent actions by Hungarian policymakers show that no nation is immune to bad policy ideas. Governments need revenue, but how they raise it shapes their nations’ economies by encouraging some transactions and discouraging others. Policies that encourage ICT adoption are the right choice for long-term and inclusive economic growth.
As the case of Hungary showed, ultimately it is up to citizens to hold governments accountable and ensure that tax and tariff policies work for the benefit of all.
Robert Atkinson is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Ben Miller is a policy analyst at the foundation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with