[56th note money publication] Chapter 96: Consumption Tax—The True Nature of Market Pressure

Chapter 96: Consumption Tax—The True Nature of Market Pressure

[She knew everything.]

[A confession from the system side, and a 14-year-long verification]

From this point on, it is no longer just a discussion.
It is a record of an [incident] in the public forum of the National Diet where those operating the system admitted themselves that [in a liberal economy, prices are not cleanly passed on].
Satsuki Katayama left behind a question, Hiroshi Ando took it over, and I want you to see the moment it finally led to a [conclusion] moment.

—The 20% special measure and the 80% deduction were the same 100,000 yen—

Two gentle names

On the screen, Satsuki Katayama was answering questions about the invoice system.

20% special measure.

80% deduction.

A burden reduction measure established to lighten the burden on businesses.

If you only listen to the words, it sounds like a very generous system.

You only have to pay 20%.

You can deduct as much as 80%.

Mio stopped the video there.

Mio: "20% special measure and 80% deduction... It sounds like a very business-friendly system, doesn't it?"

Aoi:
"If you only listen to the names, yes."

Mio:
"Is it not?"

Aoi:
"Let's calculate the same transaction from both the seller's and buyer's sides."

Aoi wrote down three businesses.

A is a taxable business.

B is a tax-exempt business.

C is a taxable business.

All transaction amounts are tax-inclusive.

Sales from A to B are 4 million yen.

Sales from B to C are 5.5 million yen.

C's sales are 6.6 million yen.

The tax-inclusive value added by B is,
5.5 million yen - 4 million yen = 1.5 million yen

The tax-inclusive value added by C is,
6.6 million yen - 5.5 million yen = 1.1 million yen

Mio:
"The usual model, right?"

Aoi:
"Yes. First, let's check C's consumption tax before the introduction of the invoice system."

Before the introduction of the invoice system

The consumption tax amount corresponding to C's sales of 6.6 million yen is,

6.6 million yen × 10/110 = 600,000 yen

The purchase tax credit corresponding to the 5.5 million yen payment to B is,

5.5 million yen × 10/110 = 500,000 yen

Therefore, C's tax payment amount is,

600,000 yen - 500,000 yen = 100,000 yen

Mio:
"C's tax-inclusive value added is 1.1 million yen. Since it's 10/110 of that, it's 100,000 yen."

Aoi:
"Correct. As long as all deductions are allowed, it can be calculated as a value-added tax."

So, what happens after the introduction of the invoice system?

B has two paths.

The path of becoming a taxable business and issuing invoices.

The path of remaining a tax-exempt business and not issuing invoices.

The business paying the tax changes depending on which one is chosen.

However, the amount of increased revenue entering the national treasury did not change.

B becomes a taxable business

Suppose B registers for an invoice and becomes a taxable business.

When using the 20% special provision, B's payment amount is calculated as 20% of the sales tax amount.

B's sales tax amount is,

5.5 million yen × 10/110 = 500,000 yen

20% of that is,

500,000 yen × 20% = 100,000 yen

B pays 100,000 yen to the national government.

Because B issues an invoice, C can deduct the full 500,000 yen corresponding to the payment to B.

C's payment amount is, as before,

600,000 yen - 500,000 yen = 100,000 yen

When the payment amounts of B and C are totaled,

100,000 yen + 100,000 yen = 200,000 yen

Before the introduction of the invoice, the amount that entered the national treasury was C's 100,000 yen.

After the introduction, B's 100,000 yen is newly added.

The government's increase in revenue is 100,000 yen.

Mio:
"Since B became a taxable business, B paid 100,000 yen newly, right?"

Aoi:
"That's right."

Mio:
"Then, what if B didn't become a taxable business?"

If B remains a tax-exempt business

B does not issue an invoice.

In this case, the transitional measure of an 80% deduction is applied.

What C can deduct is 80% of the 500,000 yen corresponding to the payment to B.

500,000 yen x 80% = 400,000 yen

C's tax payment amount is,

600,000 yen - 400,000 yen = 200,000 yen

Before the invoice introduction, it was 100,000 yen.

That increases to 200,000 yen.

The tax increase is 100,000 yen.

Mio: "This time, C paid 100,000 yen more."

Aoi:
"Let's line up the two routes."

If B becomes a taxable business, B pays 100,000 yen.

If B remains a tax-exempt business, C pays 100,000 yen more.

Whichever is chosen, the government's increase in revenue is 100,000 yen.

Mio compared the formulas.

The 20% special provision.

The 80% deduction.

They look like completely different systems.

However, the calculation formula was the same.

5.5 million yen × 10/110 × 20% = 100,000 yen

Mio:
"Isn't it the same 100,000 yen!"

Letting the market decide who pays

The 20% special provision and the 80% deduction were not systems to eliminate the burden.

It was the difference between whether to record the same 100,000 yen on B's books or on C's books.

That was the difference.

Of course, in real-world transactions, the burden does not necessarily fall entirely on one side.

C may bear a portion, and B may agree to a price reduction.

C may also pass on a portion to the sales price.

They may also reduce the order volume.

They may also prioritize invoice-registered businesses for new transactions.

Within the market, the location of the burden shifts.

However, the added tax cost itself does not disappear.

If the price does not change, it is paid from the value-added of either B or C.

Mio:
"The management isn't deciding who pays, are they?"

Aoi:
"Yeah. They are leaving it to the market to decide whose books the tax increase is recorded on."

Mio:
"But the government has decided on the 100,000 yen it receives."

Aoi:
"That is how it works."

This was the market pressure created by the invoice system.

First, it reduces the purchase tax credit of the taxable business entity C, who is the buyer.

C incurs additional tax costs.

C must either bear that burden itself, demand a price reduction from B, demand that B register, or find another business partner.

The government does not need to order B to register directly.

If tax increase pressure is applied to C, the pressure to register is transmitted to B through the market.

Refusing a price reduction does not make the tax increase disappear.

I was asked by a business partner to lower my prices because I could not issue an invoice.

I refused that.

I maintained the existing transaction price.

From the seller's perspective, it might look like a victory.

Refusing a price reduction itself is not a mistake.

It is not the tax-exempt business that caused the additional tax cost.

However, even if you refuse a price reduction, the 100,000 yen does not disappear.

That 100,000 yen remains on C's books.

Mio:
"If I refuse a price reduction, didn't I just deflect the tax increase?"

Aoi:
"The buyer is bearing it where you deflected it to. The tax cost hasn't disappeared."

In existing transactions, C might be the one bearing it.

However, what will happen at the next contract renewal?

What will happen with the next order?

When looking for a new business partner, who will C choose?

It is not immediately apparent right after refusing a price reduction request.

However, the tax increase remaining on the books will quietly influence subsequent transaction decisions.

The cognitive barrier of the 20% special provision

Mio:
"Even so, isn't the burden light with the 20% special provision?"

Aoi:
"When you heard the word '20%', what did you think it was 20% of?"

Mio:
"20% of the tax amount calculated using the general tax rules...?"

When people hear '20% special provision,' they tend to think that way unconsciously.

Calculate B's general tax amount.

(5.5 million yen - 4 million yen) x 10/110 = approximately 136,400 yen

If it were 20% of this,

approximately 136,400 yen x 20% = approximately 27,300 yen

However, the 20% special provision is not 20% of the general tax amount.

It is 20% of B's sales tax amount of 500,000 yen.

500,000 yen x 20% = 100,000 yen

Mio:
"Even though it's 20%, it's 100,000 yen, not about 27,000 yen!"

Aoi:
"That's because it's 20% of the sales tax amount, not 20% of the general tax amount."

The 20% special provision is a system calculated by deducting 80% from the sales tax amount.

In other words, it has the same rate structure as the simplified tax system with a deemed purchase rate of 80%.

Calculating B's actual purchase rate in this model,

4 million yen ÷ 5.5 million yen = approximately 72.7%

Under the 20% special provision, this is deemed to be 80%.

Since it allows for about 7.3 percentage points more in purchases than the actual amount, it is lighter than the standard method.

However, it is not a system that reduces the tax payment amount by 80%.

The standard method is approximately 136,400 yen.

The 20% special provision is 100,000 yen.

The reduction is approximately 36,400 yen.

The reduction rate compared to the standard method was approximately 26.7%.

Mio:
"The 20% special provision isn't 20% of the standard method, nor is it an 80% discount!"

The cognitive barrier of the 80% deduction

The 80% deduction also sounds like it would lighten the burden just by hearing the name.

However, the 80% deduction is not a system that reduces C's own tax amount by 80%.

It is a system that allows for the deduction of only 80%, or 400,000 yen, out of the 500,000 yen equivalent to the purchase tax amount corresponding to the payment to B.

In other words,

500,000 yen × 20% = 100,000 yen

must not be deducted.

As a result, C's tax payment amount increases,

from 100,000 yen to 200,000 yen.

Mio:
"It's not that you can deduct 80 percent."

Aoi:
"It also means that 20 percent cannot be deducted."

Mio:
"C's consumption tax has doubled, hasn't it!"

If you only look at the percentage of sales, it looks small.

However, the tax-included value added created by C remains at 1.1 million yen.

The amount C pays increases from 100,000 yen to 200,000 yen.

It is difficult to imagine this weight from the name '80 percent deduction'.

80 percent of what?

20 percent of what denominator?

The moment the denominator disappears from the name, human cognition gets lost.

30 percent special provision and 70 percent deduction

And, at the next stage, the percentage changes.

The 30 percent special provision established for those who meet certain requirements, such as sole proprietors.

The 70 percent deduction allowed for purchases from tax-exempt businesses and the like.

The formula is the same here as well.

If B registers and uses the 30 percent special provision,

5.5 million yen × 10/110 × 30% = 150,000 yen

If B is not registered and C uses the 70 percent deduction, the non-deductible percentage becomes 30 percent.

5.5 million yen × 10/110 × 30% = 150,000 yen

If B registers, B pays 150,000 yen.

If B is unregistered, C pays 150,000 yen more.

Whichever is chosen, the government's increase in revenue is 150,000 yen.

Mio:
"Isn't it the same thing again!"

The 30% special provision is a system where 30% of the sales tax amount is paid.

In other words, the deemed purchase rate is 70%.

It has the same rate structure as Type 3 businesses under simplified taxation.

In this model, B's standard tax amount was approximately 136,400 yen.

The 30% special provision is 150,000 yen.

150,000 yen ÷ approximately 136,400 yen = 1.1

In this 5.5 million yen / 4 million yen model, the 30% special provision is exactly 10% heavier than standard taxation.

Mio:
"Even though it's a 30% special provision, isn't it 10% higher than the standard!"

Aoi:
"In this model, yes."

Mio:
"How is that a special provision!"

Market pressure that has already begun

This is not just a matter on paper.

In a 2026 survey conducted by the National Federation of Construction Workers' Unions targeting sole proprietors who were tax-exempt businesses before the introduction of the invoice system, 82.0% of sole proprietors who switched to taxable status responded that they were unable to add the consumption tax portion to their order prices.

75.6% of tax-exempt businesses responded that their order prices did not change.

Furthermore, 22.0% answered that their work had decreased.

If you register, a new tax liability arises.

If you do not register, your business partner's deductions are reduced.

If the price still does not change, the tax cost sinks into the added value of B or C.

20% special provision.

80% deduction.

Burden reduction measures.

Under these gentle-sounding names, market pressure was already at work.

The city

The video ended.

Mio's pale face was reflected on the darkened screen.

Mio stood up and looked out the window.

The city at dusk.

A writer continuing to write a manuscript in a room in an old multi-tenant building.

A sole proprietor finishing work and returning to a car loaded with tools.

A small business owner checking invoices received from clients one by one.

If you register for the invoice system, the seller pays.

If you do not register, the buyer's tax payment amount increases.

If the seller agrees to a price reduction, the seller's revenue decreases.

If the buyer bears the burden, the money remaining in the buyer's business decreases.

If the transaction is terminated, the seller's work disappears.

If the price is raised, the buyer further down the line bears the burden.

Tax costs do not disappear.

Sinking somewhere into the market.

Mio:
“So, the 20% special measure and the 80% deduction weren't systems to eliminate the burden after all.”

Aoi:
“Right. They just divided up whose books the tax increase would be recorded on.”

Mio:
“Whether B pays it, or C pays it.”

Aoi:
“But the 100,000 yen that goes to the government is the same.”

At a small shop in town, the register beeped.

Beep.

20% special measure.

80% deduction.

The names were different.

But the 100,000 yen heading to the government was the same.

Only the question of who bears the burden was cast out into the market.

Beep.

That sound, again today, was the sound of whittling away someone's business.

Reference Materials

・National Tax Agency: "FY2026 Tax Reform Special Feature—30% Special Measure / 7-5-3% Deduction"
https://www.nta.go.jp/taxes/shiraberu/zeimokubetsu/shohi/keigenzeiritsu/invoice-review/index.htm

・National Federation of Construction Workers' Unions: "Survey on the Impact of the Invoice System on Sole Proprietors (5th Survey)"
https://www.zenkensoren.org/インボイス制度の一人親方に対する影響アンケー-2/

*Calculations are based on a simplified model where all transactions are taxable at the standard 10% rate and amounts are tax-inclusive. Actual tax payments vary depending on the taxation method, rounding, reduced tax rates, non-taxable/tax-exempt transactions, application requirements for special measures, and the taxable period.

*The 30% special measure is established for certain sole proprietors who became taxable businesses from tax-exempt status due to invoice registration, covering tax returns for 2027 and 2028. It does not apply to corporations.

“The management is cheating.”

SSR [Anomaly 017 | Official Cheat]

Rarity: SSR Attribute:
System/Darkness/Management Race:
System-Implemented AnomalyDanger Level:
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★Unique Abilities:
《Rule Alteration》
《Deduction Chain Severing》
《Tax Base Expansion》
《Reporting Destination Internalization》

Flavor Text

When the officials who are supposed to protect the system rewrite the rules themselves, the anomaly reaches its final form.

The tax rate does not rise. However, what can be deducted decreases.

As a result, the tax base expands, and the burden on businesses quietly multiplies.
Moreover, the officials call this "optimization."

Effect Description

When this card enters the field, partially negate the "deductions" on the opponent's field.

The negated deductions are added directly to the
tax base.Furthermore, as long as this card exists, it becomes difficult for the opponent to perceive this effect as a "tax increase."

True Name

An anomaly where the officials rewrote the rules and implemented specifications that only allow them to win.

Weaknesses

Visualization of the structure
Formulation of the tax base
The question of "what can no longer be deducted"

The reporting destination is the management

Who determines that this system is unfair?
Who corrects the cumulative taxation caused by the severance of deductions?
Who overturns the explanation that 'it is not a tax increase'?
The ones who made the rules are the operators.
The ones who receive the tax revenue are the operators.
The ones who explain the system are the operators.
The ones who handle complaints are the operators.
And the final arbiter is also the operator.
Mio:
"Where is the reporting window?"

Aoi:
"It's the operators."

Mio:
"Who makes the ruling?"

Aoi:
"The operators."

Mio:
"Who receives the tax revenue?"

Aoi:
"The operators."

Mio fell silent for a while.
Then, she asked timidly.

Mio:
"What is the final answer?"
Aoi read the characters displayed on the screen.

It is a specification.

That was the final ruling in a world where the operators cheat.

Mio:
"Aoi.
What should we do from now on?"

Aoi:
"We must know."

Mio:
"And if we don't know?"
Aoi looked toward the city for a moment.

Aoi:
"The same as always."

Before you know it, a bill passes through the Diet.
Without you noticing, a system is created.
Your livelihood is whittled away.
Your business is whittled away.
Even so, you don't know what is happening.
Because you don't know, you cannot ask questions.
Because you cannot ask questions, you cannot oppose it, nor can you change it.
And even if you realize you are being whittled away—
You have no words to explain it.
Aoi said briefly.

"If you don't know, you won't even realize you've been robbed."

Mio looked at the street in silence.
At some shop, the sound of a cash register rang out.
Beep.
Today again, a tax assessment is placed on someone's sales.
Someone's deduction is cut off.
Someone's profit is whittled away.
But if you don't know the mechanism, it just sounds like the noise of shopping.
The sound rang out once more.
Beep.
That sound was—

The sound of someone being whittled away again today.

[14 years later, checking the answers] Hiroshi Ando took over the question left behind by Satsuki Katayama

Reference video:

[She knew everything.]

[Confession from the system side, and checking the answers 14 years later]

From here on, I will intentionally repeat myself.
Because this is not merely a Diet interpellation.
The "smooth and appropriate price pass-through" that the consumption tax system has assumed, and what is actually happening in the real market.
This is a record of an "incident" where those two things collided head-on in the public arena of the Diet.
In a liberal economy, prices do not move as the system intends.
Just because costs have risen does not mean you can pass the full amount on to the price.
Just because the consumption tax rate has risen does not mean you can raise the selling price by that amount.
Even if you cannot pass on the price, the burden of consumption tax does not disappear.
It shifts to the business operator's profits, wages, bonuses, investments, and cash flow.

At that moment, the issue of consumption tax changes from a problem of "price pass-through" to a problem of who will bear the tax cost.

2012.
A politician pointed out its danger in the National Diet.
It was Satsuki Katayama.
And 14 years later.
Hiroshi Ando took over the question that Satsuki Katayama had left behind.
Sitting on the side receiving the question was Satsuki Katayama, who had become the Minister of Finance.
This is also a record of how someone who criticized the system from the outside changes their words when they stand at the pinnacle of that system.

In 2012, she knew everything

"It will become something that can no longer be handled."
2012.
As a member of the opposition party, Satsuki Katayama strongly warned about the impact that a consumption tax hike would have on the economy.
Housing.
Regional economies.
Small and medium-sized enterprises.
The local soba shop.
The ordinary barbershop.
Small business owners who cannot raise prices even if they want to.

Representative Katayama pointed out with concrete examples that the consumption tax does not end as a mere "burden on the consumer."

For example, the local soba shop.

This is not just a question.

It is an answer presented in the form of a question by someone who knows the consumption tax system and the reality of the market.

Large chains with uniform prices nationwide might find it easier to raise prices.
But what about small shops supported by local customers?
What about the local soba shop?
What about the ordinary barbershop?
Can you easily tell a shop that might lose customers by raising prices, 'Since the tax rate has gone up, you should just pass that on to the price'?

At the time, Representative Katayama stated that there was a survey showing that 50 to 70 percent of small and medium-sized enterprises with annual sales of 30 million yen or less were unable to pass on the tax to their prices.

Furthermore, she pointed out that 340 billion yen, which is about half of the total tax arrears, was consumption tax.

In other words, she knew.

The consumption tax is explained as being 'intended to be passed on to the price.'

However, in the real market, the weaker the business, the less they can pass it on as intended.

The consumption tax was a tax that could not function unless the system's intentions and the market's reality matched.
Satsuki Katayama in 2012 knew that contradiction.

14 years later, the question returned

14 years later.
This time, Hiroshi Ando, who returned to national politics as a member of the Sanseito party, began to ask the same question in the National Diet.

Sitting in the seat for government responses was Satsuki Katayama, who had become the Minister of Finance.

The first thing Representative Ando confirmed was who is liable for paying the consumption tax.
Legally, who bears the obligation to pay the consumption tax?
Is it the consumer?
Is it the business operator?
The answer was clear.
Under the Consumption Tax Act, the person liable for tax payment is the business operator.
The government explains that regarding consumption tax, it is intended that the consumer ultimately bears the burden through price pass-through.
However, that is an expectation regarding the economic burden.
It is a separate matter from the tax liability under tax law.
Under tax law, the consumer is not the person liable for consumption tax payment.
It is the business operator who files and pays the consumption tax.
At this point, Representative Ando pushed the questioning further.
Does the so-called 'tax gain'—where it is claimed that business operators keep the consumption tax received from consumers as their own profit instead of paying it to the tax office—exist within the system?
In response, Finance Minister Katayama replied that legally, such a relationship does not exist.
Consumers are not the persons liable for tax payment under the Consumption Tax Act.
Therefore, there is no legal structure where business operators hold onto taxes that consumers should be paying and keep them as profit without paying them to the state.
Legally, tax gain does not exist.
Here, the long-told story of the consumption tax begins to waver.

The illusion of complete pass-through

Many people understand the consumption tax as follows:
First, there is the cost.
Then, a reasonable profit is added to it.
And on top of that, a 10% consumption tax is added.
The consumer pays that 10%, the business operator holds it temporarily, and later pays it to the tax office.
In this model, the business operator's profit is not reduced by the consumption tax.
Labor costs are not reduced either.
This is because the consumption tax is completely added to the outside of the selling price, and the final consumer bears it all.
However, for this model to hold, strong prerequisites are required.
All business operators must be able to fully add the consumption tax equivalent to the price after securing costs and necessary profits.
In other words, it is a market with a 100% price pass-through rate.
If all transactions were truly conducted this way, there would be almost no companies in the red.
There would be no low-wage workers.
There would be no price squeezing.
Since they can add the consumption tax portion to the price after securing profits, there should be no business operators who cannot pay the consumption tax and end up in financial distress.
But reality is different.
There are companies in the red.
There are low-wage workers.
There is price squeezing.
There are business operators with weak price negotiation power.
There are shops that would lose customers if they raised prices.
There are business operators who cannot sufficiently pass on costs to selling prices even if raw material costs rise.

The beautiful model of 'cost + reasonable profit + consumption tax' does not represent the real market.

It is an expectation set in place to make the system work.

The reason consumption tax occurs even when in the red

The amount of consumption tax paid is roughly calculated by the following formula:

Consumption tax
＝
Tax amount on sales - Tax amount on purchases

In a simple model with a standard tax rate of 10% and all amounts including tax, it can be expressed as follows:

Consumption tax
≒
(Taxable sales - Taxable purchases) × 10/110

What is important here is that, unlike corporate tax, profit is not calculated by deducting all expenses from sales.
Even expenses necessary for business, such as salaries, social insurance premiums, and interest payments, are not subject to tax credit for purchases.
Therefore, even if there is a loss in terms of corporate tax,

Taxable Sales − Taxable Purchases > 0

then consumption tax will be incurred.
Whether a business is in the red or in the black does not stop the calculation of consumption tax.
This is because consumption tax looks at the difference between taxable sales and taxable purchases, not profit.
Generally, businesses add some kind of value to the goods they purchase before selling them.
A business that keeps selling goods purchased for 100 yen for 50 yen cannot survive.
A manufacturing business that keeps using 100 yen worth of raw materials and selling the product for 50 yen cannot survive either.
Therefore, as long as the business continues, generally,

Taxable Sales − Taxable Purchases > 0

will be the result.
Even if the company as a whole is in the red, this difference can remain.

That is why consumption tax is incurred even for businesses in the red.

It is not that "consumption tax may be incurred" even when in the red.
As long as the business is generating added value, the structure is such that consumption tax is incurred even if there is a loss.

Pre-empting Added Value

Taxable sales minus taxable purchases generally corresponds to the added value newly created by that business.

To simplify,

Added Value
≒
Taxable Sales − Taxable Purchases

Furthermore, that added value can generally be viewed as,

Added Value
≒
Profit + Personnel Expenses

Therefore, the structure of consumption tax can generally be expressed by the following formula.

Consumption Tax ≒ Added Value × 10/110

To simplify further,

Consumption Tax ≒ (Profit + Personnel Expenses) × 10/110

is the result.
What is happening here?

There is a single pie called the added value created by the business.

Originally, that added value is distributed to workers' wages and corporate profits, etc.
However, in a world with consumption tax, the government's share is determined before that distribution.

The government takes the consumption tax first.

Corporations and workers divide the remaining value-added.
If it can be fully passed on to the price, the burden might be pushed outside the business.

However, if it cannot be passed on to the price, the consumption tax remains within the value-added.

It cuts into profits.
It cuts into the source of wage increases.
It cuts into bonuses.
It suppresses hiring.
It delays capital investment.
It puts pressure on cash flow.
The tax burden does not disappear.
It only changes where the burden is borne.

The words of Diet member Ando, 'We are told to pay the consumption tax before we have the funds to raise wages,' represent this structure.

Consumption tax is a tax where the government secures its share first from the single wallet of value-added.

Corporations and workers divide what remains.
This is the 'pre-emption of value-added.'

The 'Consumption Tax Included' written on the receipt

Diet member Ando also delved into the display on receipts.
For example, suppose you buy a product for 1,100 yen.
The receipt says,
'Consumption tax included 100 yen'
So, what is this 100 yen legally?
The government's response was as follows:
It is an amount equivalent to the consumption tax that should be levied on that transaction, and it is part of the consideration for the sale of taxable assets, etc.

In other words, even if 'consumption tax' is written on the receipt, it is not the tax itself that the consumer paid to the tax office.
It is also not the tax itself that the business held on behalf of the consumer.
It is also not the amount that the business pays directly to the tax office.

It only indicates the fact that the transaction was concluded at that price and the breakdown of that tax-inclusive price.

From the receipt display, you cannot tell how much of the price was actually passed on.
You also cannot tell how much the business will pay.
You also cannot tell how much profit the business has left from that transaction.

Even so, many people see the display 'Consumption tax included 100 yen' and recognize that they have paid 100 yen in tax.

And they think that the business is just holding onto that 100 yen.

From this, the story of 'tax gain' is born, claiming that 'tax-exempt businesses that do not pay the tax they held are cunning.'

However, the legal structure is different.
The consumer is not the taxpayer.
The 100 yen written on the receipt is part of the consideration for the sale.
The amount paid by the business is determined by the difference between the sales tax amount and the purchase tax amount, not the amount displayed on the receipt.
The receipt is not proof that the price was successfully passed on.
It is not proof that a deposit exists.
What is recorded there is,

'A single transaction was concluded at that price'

is the fact.

Words from 2012 and words from 2026

In 2012, Diet member Satsuki Katayama spoke about the reality of the market.
Can the local soba shop raise its price from 630 yen to 660 yen?
Are small and medium-sized enterprises really able to pass the consumption tax on to the price?
What does the consumption tax bring to businesses that cannot raise prices?
She was looking at what was happening on the ground, not the plan of the system.
Fourteen years later.
Satsuki Katayama, who became Minister of Finance, speaks the words of those who defend the system.
The consumption tax is intended to be ultimately borne by the consumer through being passed on to the price.
The consumption tax equivalent amount is appropriately passed on to the price.

Two sets of words exist within the same person.

Words that look at the reality of the market.
Words that uphold the plans of the system.
Why did Satsuki Katayama change her words?
Perhaps her way of thinking really did change.
Perhaps as Finance Minister, she must protect the tax system as a whole.
Perhaps the dynamics within the party or her relationship with the Ministry of Finance had an influence.

Or perhaps, while her essential understanding remains unchanged, only the words she uses have changed depending on her position.

The answer to that is known only to her.
But one thing is certain.

The problem pointed out in 2012 remains unsolved 14 years later.

There are businesses that cannot pass on price increases.
Consumption tax is incurred even when operating at a loss.
Arrears in consumption tax continue.
While calling for wage increases, the structure of taking consumption tax from the source of wage increases first is maintained.

And even now, the government explains the consumption tax as a "stable source of revenue that is not easily affected by the economy."

But the fact that it is not easily affected by the economy means, conversely, that they will continue to collect it even when the economy is bad.

Even if people's lives are difficult.
Even if corporate management is difficult.
Even if there is a deficit.
Even if cash flow is at its limit.
As long as added value remains, consumption tax is incurred.

Can we really call that "stable"?

This is a record of the incident

14 years ago, Satsuki Katayama left a question behind.
And now, Hiroshi Ando has taken over that question.
Sitting on the side receiving the question was Satsuki Katayama, who had become Finance Minister.
The Satsuki Katayama of 2012 spoke of the reality of the market.
The Finance Minister Katayama of 2026 spoke of the plans of the system.
It was not the market that changed.

It was the chair she sat in.

If you look at the market from outside the system, you can see businesses that cannot pass on price increases.
If you look at the tax system from the top of the system, the explanation becomes that it is "planned to be passed on smoothly and appropriately."
It is not that the facts have changed.
The words used changed depending on the position of observation.

Those who sit at the top of the monstrosity that is the system are redefined as parts to protect its structure.

The more correct her words from 14 years ago were, the more the current response serves as proof that this country's politics chose the maintenance of the system over the reality of the market.

This is not a story that blames the change of heart of Satsuki Katayama alone.

If anyone who sits in that chair is forced to say the same words, then the problem lies in the structure, not the individual.
Therefore, she is not the only one who must face the question.

It is us ourselves, who accept that change of heart as a "specification" of the system and continue to let the sound of the cash register pass us by today.

Who exactly brought about the lost 30 years?

This is not just a problem for business operators

Beyond the 30% special measure, not all businesses will face a tax increase.
However, businesses moving to Type 4, 5, or 6 simplified tax systems, or those under the standard tax system with an input tax deduction rate below 70%, will face a higher tax burden than under the 30% special measure.
According to the Ministry of Finance model, that burden moves like this.
100,000 yen.
150,000 yen.
And, depending on the industry,
200,000 yen. 250,000 yen. 300,000 yen.
If they can pass on the price, the burden on business partners and consumers increases.
If they cannot pass on the price, the business owner's income, savings, capital investment, and living expenses are cut.

Whichever way it goes, it is not newly created added value.

Added value does not increase.
Only the tax burden increases.

Businesses that can no longer bear that burden will eventually disappear from the market.

What disappears is not the 'tax-exempt business' on the books.
It is the shops in town.
It is the local artisans.
It is the people who transport goods.
It is the writers, designers, engineers, photographers, cleaners, and outsourced staff who support corporate work from behind the scenes.
If suppliers disappear from the market, products, services, technology, employment, and consumer choices are also lost.

This is not just a story about who pays the consumption tax.

It is a story about who will be erased from the Japanese market.

Mio looked at the street.
Beyond the noren curtain, the shop owner was operating the payment terminal.
Unable to raise the price of 630 yen (tax included) soba to 660 yen.
Before long, a small electronic sound rang out.
Beep.
Mio:
"Will taxes be raised even further once the relief ends?"
Aoi:
"The more a business creates added value through the owner's own labor, the more likely that is."

Mio:
"That's not relief."

"They're just showing us the tax hike little by little!"

The 30% special measure is not the final destination.
Beyond it, the next stage for transitioning to normal taxation awaits.

Many small businesses still do not know this fact.

If there are any sole proprietors or people running small companies around you who have registered for the invoice system, please share this article with them.

Before deciding whether to support or oppose it, I want you to first know how your own tax burden will change from here on.

The timer is already running.
Beep.

That sound was, again today, the sound of someone's livelihood being cut and someone's business being erased from the market.

[Popular Articles]

<Consumption Tax—Supply Chain Collapse>

*Please refer here for [63rd note Money Publication] Chapter 103: Consumption Tax—Supply Chain Collapse

<Consumption Tax—Quiet Market Exclusion>

* Please refer here for [62nd note money publication] Chapter 102: Consumption Tax - Silent Market Exclusion -

<Consumption Tax - The Devil's Dilemma>

* Please refer here for [61st note money publication] Chapter 101: Consumption Tax - The Devil's Dilemma -

<Consumption Tax - She Knew Everything>

* Please refer here for [60th note money publication] Chapter 100: Consumption Tax - She Knew Everything -

<Consumption Tax - And Only the Management Was Saved ->

* Please refer here for [59th note money publication] Chapter 99: Consumption Tax - And Only the Management Was Saved -

<Consumption Tax - The Official Cheat Called Relief Measures>

* Please refer here for [58th note money publication] Chapter 98: Consumption Tax - The Official Cheat Called Relief Measures

<Consumption Tax - Two Pains, One Tax Revenue>

* Please refer here for [57th note money publication] Chapter 97: Consumption Tax - Two Pains, One Tax Revenue

<Consumption Tax - The True Nature of Market Pressure>

* Please refer here for [56th note money publication] Chapter 96: Consumption Tax - The True Nature of Market Pressure

<Consumption Tax - Tax Hike Timer>

* Please refer here for [55th note money publication] Chapter 95: Consumption Tax - Tax Hike Timer

<Consumption Tax - Invoice - Mirror Tax Hike>

* Please refer here for [54th note money publication] Chapter 94: Consumption Tax - Invoice - Mirror Tax Hike

<Consumption Tax - The Register That Rings Twice>

* Please refer here for [53rd note money publication] Chapter 93: Consumption Tax - The Register That Rings Twice

<Consumption Tax - Grand Unified Theory>

* [52nd note money publication] Chapter 92: Consumption Tax - Grand Unified Theory, please refer here

<Pre-empting Value Added - The Two Katayamas>

* [Mio and Aoi] Chapter 91: Consumption Tax - Pre-empting Value Added - The Two Katayamas, please refer here

<The Calculation Formula Without Tax Gain - It Was Just a Tax Hike>

* [Mio and Aoi] Chapter 90: Consumption Tax - The Calculation Formula Without Tax Gain - It Was Just a Tax Hike, please refer here

<Consumption Tax - The Second Seal - Self-Negation of Consumption Tax>

* [51st note money publication] Chapter 89: Consumption Tax - The Second Seal - Self-Negation of Consumption Tax -, please refer here

<<Popular Magazines>>

[Mio and Aoi] Consumption Tax Strange Tales

* What is consumption tax? Receipts, deposits, price shifting, export refunds, invoices--. Based on parliamentary replies and institutional structures, Mio and Aoi observe the mysteries of consumption tax and unravel its true name in this series.

[The Real Reason Japan Became Poor]

* Japan did not become poor due to a lack of effort. It is the accumulation of systems that have cut household take-home pay and consumption, and thinned out corporate sales and investment. Consumption tax, social insurance premiums, austerity, primary balance surplus, invoices. This is a magazine that deciphers them as a single economic structure.

[Nurturing the Soil.]

* This series is a story that connects everything from home gardening to national land regeneration from the single perspective of [Nurturing the Soil]. Weeds, fallen leaves, water, organic matter, abandoned land, forestry, regions--. Using stories of familiar gardens as an entrance, I write about the mechanisms by which soil supports people and regions in a way that can actually be used.

#CreativeAward2026
#EntertainmentOriginalWorkCategory
#StartedWithAI
#Gemini