Hypothecated tax

Part of a series on
Taxation
An aspect of fiscal policy
Policies Government revenue Property tax equalization Tax revenue Non-tax revenue Tax law Tax bracket Flat tax Tax threshold Exemption Credit Deduction Tax shift Tax cut Tax holiday Tax amnesty Tax advantage Tax incentive Tax reform Tax harmonization Tax competition Tax withholding Double taxation Representation Unions Medical savings account
Economics General Theory Price effect Excess burden Tax incidence Laffer curve Optimal tax Theories Optimal capital income taxation Distribution of Tax Tax rate Flat Progressive Regressive Proportional
Collection Revenue service Revenue stamp Tax assessment Taxable income Tax lien Tax refund Tax shield Tax residence Tax preparation Tax investigation Tax shelter Tax collector Private tax collection Tax farming
Noncompliance General Tax avoidance Repatriation tax avoidance Tax evasion Tax resistance Tax shelter Debtors' prison Smuggling Black market Unreported employment Corporate Tax inversion Transfer mispricing Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) Double Irish Dutch Sandwich Single Malt CAIA Locations Tax havens Corporate havens Offshore financial centres (OFCs) Offshore magic circle Conduit and sink OFCs Financial centres Financial Secrecy Index Major examples Ireland as a tax haven Ireland v. Commission Leprechaun economics Liechtenstein tax affair Luxembourg Leaks Offshore Leaks Paradise Papers Panama Papers Swiss Leaks United States as a tax haven Panama as a tax haven
Types Direct Indirect Per unit Ad valorem Aviation Airport improvement Landing Solidarity Capital gains Expatriation Consumption Departure Hotel Sales Stamp Television Tourist Value-added Dividend Environmental tax Carbon Eco-tariff Landfill Natural resources consumption Severance Steering Stumpage Excise Alcohol Cigarette Fat Meat Sin Sugary drink Tobacco General Georgist Gift Gross receipts Hypothecated Income Inheritance (estate) Land value Luxury Payroll Pigouvian Property Resource rent Single Surtax Turnover Use User charge/fee Congestion Fuel Road/GNSS Toll Vehicle miles traveled Corporate profit Excess profits Windfall Negative (income) Wealth
International Financial transaction tax ATTAC Currency transaction tax European Union Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) Global minimum corporate tax rate Robin Hood tax Tobin tax Spahn tax Tax equalization Tax treaty Exchange of Information Permanent establishment Transfer pricing European Union FTT Foreign revenue rule
Trade Custom Duty Tariff Import Export Tariff war Free trade Free-trade zone Trade agreement ATA Carnet
Research Academic Mihir A. Desai Dhammika Dharmapala James R. Hines Jr. Ronen Palan Joel Slemrod Gabriel Zucman Advocacy groups Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) Oxfam (UK) Tax Foundation (US) Tax Justice Network (TJN) Tax Policy Center (US)
Religious Church tax Eight per thousand Teind Tithe Fiscus Judaicus Leibzoll Temple tax Tolerance tax Jizya Kharaj Khums Nisab Zakat
By country All Countries List of countries by tax rates Tax revenue to GDP ratio Tax rates in Europe Individual Countries Albania Algeria Argentina Armenia Australia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Bhutan Brazil Bulgaria BVI Canada China Colombia Croatia Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Iceland India Indonesia Iran Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kazakhstan Lithuania Malta Morocco Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Palestine Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Russia South Africa Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Tanzania United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay
Business portal Money portal
v t e

The hypothecation of a tax (also known as the ring-fencing or earmarking of a tax) is the dedication of the revenue from a specific tax for a particular expenditure purpose.^[1] This approach differs from the classical method according to which all government spending is done from a consolidated fund.

Hypothecated taxes have a long history. One of the first examples of earmarking was ship money, the tax paid by English seaports used to finance the Royal Navy.^[1] Later, in the 20th century, the hypothecated tax began to be discussed by politicians in the United Kingdom. For example, the Vehicle Excise Duty from 1920 when earned revenues were used for the construction and maintenance of the roads,^[1] assigning 1p on the income tax directly to education in 1992,^[2] or giving £300 million per year from the revenues from taxes on the tobacco industry to help the fight against smoking-related diseases since 1999.^[3]

The hypothecated tax can be divided into three groups based on the main characteristics. The emphasis can be put on the final use of the revenues, on the vastness of the area financed from the money earned or on the type of the tax. Each group then has two subsections. In the first case, we distinguish between strong and weak hypothecation. Strong hypothecation means that the revenues from the tax go only to financing the particular service and the service is financed only through the revenues from this tax. Strong hypothecation is thought to be appropriate for pure public goods where voters must reveal their consumption preferences. If at least one of the two conditions is not met, we say that the hypothecation is weak.^[2] This distinction is the most common as many of the arguments for and against hypothecated tax are based on it.^[4]

Secondly, differentiation is made between wide and narrow hypothecation. When the tax revenues finance the entire public service such as the health care, it is described as wide hypothecation. Narrow hypothecation means that only a specific area such as nursery education is funded.

The third level of splitting is based on the type of, and the reason for imposing, the tax that is hypothecated.

The most supported type is a combination of strong and narrow hypothecation. In this case, the hypothecation can serve as a beneficial link between demand and supply. An example can be financing the roads in the U.S. by the gasoline tax.

There are three main ideas of which benefits hypothecation can bring: believing that people will be willing to pay more for better services; demonstrating the real cost of services to people; and supporting democracy.^[2] These can be broken down into four main hypothecation-supporting points.

• Transparency – Hypothecated taxation makes the link between revenues from taxes and government spending more visible and consumers may be better able to decide how much they are willing to pay.
• Accountability and trust – Hypothecated taxes may help when the government is not trusted. With hypothecation, it will have to follow a plan made in advance and will have no flexibility.
• Public support – The knowledge that the money paid on taxes will go directly to some needed service (e.g. health care) can help to reduce the dissatisfaction of the population with an increase in taxes.
• Protecting resources – Earmarking can protect resources for financing services (such as health care) from being spent in other areas.^[4]

The arguments against earmarking come mostly from the traditional way of viewing the taxes where they were confined to compulsory, unrequited payments to the general government as defined by the OECD in 1988. Firstly, public spending should be determined by policies and not by the amount of the revenue raised. With earmarking, inappropriate funding levels may occur as the strong hypothecated tax implies the dependence of spending on the tax revenues and thus on the macroeconomic performance of the country. Secondly, the flexibility of fiscal policy and thus the ability to influence the economic situation is reduced when hypothecation is used.^[2]

In 2012, the Mercatus Center pointed out^[5] the negative effects that dedicating tax revenues to specific expenditures can have on the policymakers. In their report they stated that hypothecation can be used to mask the increases in total government spending.

The problem of ambiguity of hypothecation occurs in many countries all over the world. As mentioned before, revenues of hypothecated taxes are often used to finance health care or education because in these sectors the aggregate preference can be easily revealed.

One of the most known cases of hypothecation in Europe is the National Insurance contribution in the United Kingdom. Money that is raised goes directly to the National Insurance Fund from which the benefits are paid. This is also an example of the combination of wide and weak earmarking.^[2] (In practice, National Insurance today funds general government expenditures, for after accounting for health spending there is a large surplus which is loaned to the Consolidated Fund.)

The health care system is also often supported by taxes on tobacco, as smoking is considered a serious threat. For example, in Egypt, the revenue earned from these taxes is used to help to cover health insurance and provide prevention and rehabilitation for students. Besides the United Kingdom and Egypt, hypothecation helps to finance health care in many countries including Finland, the Republic of Korea, Portugal, Thailand and Belgium.^[6] (Hypothecation of tax revenue for health Ole Doetinchem, World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 51)

An example from a different sector is television licences. People who use television sets to receive broadcast transmissions can be obliged to pay an annual fee (depending on local laws) and the revenues can be used to fund public broadcasting. In the United Kingdom, the funds raised are dedicated to the BBC, but this type of hypothecation is also applied in many European countries.^[4]

• Earmark (politics)
• Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy
• Benefit principle
• Bundling (public choice)
• Consumer sovereignty
• Hypothec
• Tax choice
• The Other Invisible Hand
• User charge
• Fungibility

• Buchanan, James M. – The Economics of Earmarked Taxes 1963
• Le Grand, Julian - Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens 2003