Gerhard Badenhorst argues in the Mail & Guardian (“A complete misreading”) that the demand for the abolition of value-added tax (VAT) on books will not promote literacy in South Africa. I beg to differ. The demand is consistent with the strategies of social and educational NGOs. Under the VAT Act, the vendor, business person or professional is an implied agent of government revenue, obliged to charge VAT on any supplies made (with exceptions). If he or she does not charge, he or she has to pay VAT out of his or her own pocket.
Those pleading for the abolition of VAT on books are looking at the end result of the VAT-collecting process. It is the end-users, who appear at the final point of the collection process, who pay the 14% VAT on books purchased. They include primary and high-school children, tertiary students, educationalists, members of artistic and cultural groups and professional readers, including lawyers.
Members of professional bodies and other business people can deduct the 14% input tax against the same output tax, and therefore need not worry about the consequences of collecting and paying the tax. In addition, vendors can claim depreciation. The layperson, whose education the state is committed to advancing, cannot reclaim VAT. It is he or she who must pay the 14% to the state.
The issue of zero-rating and exemption, which Badenhorst dwells on, is a technical matter — the central issue is the obligation to pay VAT on books.
If VAT on books is abolished, there will be no tax on the items from the point of origin to the end-user. VAT collection will not apply in that case. A line can be drawn between educational and non-educational literature — there is a compelling reason to do so, given that education depends on written material.
The impact on the book industry of the abolition of VAT on books will be nil. The only implication is that the state, in the interests of promoting literacy, will sacrifice VAT revenue.