Appendix December 2011 Ministry of Finance
International Comparison of General Government Gross Debt According to the projection by OECD, Japan s general government gross debt to GDP ratio is more than 200%, reaches the worst level among major advanced countries and exceed the ratio of GIIPS countries considerably. 250 (%) 200 150 100 50 Japan Greece Italy Portugal Ireland U.S. Germany Spain (as percentage of GDP) CY 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Japan 86.2 93.8 100.5 113.2 127.0 135.4 143.7 152.3 158.0 United States 70.7 69.9 67.4 64.2 60.5 54.5 54.4 56.8 60.2 Germany 55.7 58.8 60.4 62.3 61.8 60.8 60.1 62.5 65.9 Portugal 66.8 66.5 65.3 63.3 60.5 60.2 61.7 65.0 66.8 Ireland...... 62.6 51.7 40.0 37.4 35.7 34.5 Italy 122.0 128.1 129.6 131.7 125.5 121.0 120.1 118.7 116.3 Greece 102.0 104.1 100.9 98.6 102.4 116.4 119.2 118.6 113.3 Spain 69.3 76.0 75.0 75.3 69.4 66.5 61.9 60.3 55.3 CY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Japan 165.5 175.3 172.1 167.0 174.1 194.1 200.0 211.7 219.1 United States 61.3 61.5 60.9 62.1 71.4 85.0 94.2 97.6 103.6 Germany 69.3 71.8 69.8 65.6 69.7 77.4 87.1 86.9 87.3 Portugal 69.3 72.8 77.6 75.4 80.7 93.3 103.6 111.9 121.9 Ireland 33.1 32.9 29.2 28.7 49.6 71.1 98.5 112.6 118.8 Italy 116.7 119.4 116.9 112.1 114.7 127.1 126.1 127.7 128.1 Greece 115.8 113.3 116.9 115.0 118.1 133.5 149.1 165.1 181.2 Spain 53.3 50.7 46.2 42.3 47.7 62.9 67.1 74.1 77.2 0 (CY) (Source) OECD "Economic Outlook 90" (Note) Figures are general government based data (including the central/local governments and the social security funds). 1
Factor Analysis of Increase in Government Bonds Outstanding with Reference to FY1990 The factors of increase in government bond outstanding are summarized as follows: Expenditure side Increase in public works expenditure in 1990s and growth of social security expenditure of recent years associated with the progress of population aging Revenue side Tax revenue decline which results from economic downturn and tax cut measures for economic stimulus Increase in Government Bonds Outstanding from FY1990 to FY2011: 510 trillion Contribution of Expenditures : 228 trillion Effect of receipt decline: 176 trillion Impact from balance gap in FY1990: 60 trillion 3 trillion (Deficit in FY1990) 21 fiscal years (FY1990 FY2001) = 60 Other factors (long term debt transferred from Japan National Railway, etc.): 46 trillion (Note 1) FY1990 FY2010: Settlement, FY2011: 4th Revised Budget. (Note 2) 11.6 trillion yen of Increase in government bonds outstanding from FY1990 to FY2011 is Reconstruction Bond issuance for financial resources of measures for reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake. The resources for redemption of Reconstruction Bonds is secured by the revenues including the special tax for reconstruction. 2
Comparison of General Account Budget between FY1990 and FY2011 When you compares Japan s General Account Budget between FY1990 and FY2011, you can see most of the growth in expenditures is due to the increase in social security expenditure. The increase in government bond issuance results from the growth of social security related expenditure as well as falling tax revenues. (Note) Figures are initial budget basis. 3
Transition of Government Expenditure (1991 2008) In Japan, government social security expenditure is increasing along with the progress of population aging, while government non social security expenditure is reduced to the lowest level among OECD countries. Government Social Security Expenditure (as percentage of GDP) Government Non Social Security Expenditure (as percentage of GDP) 1991 2008 1991 2008 0 10 20 30 40 50 34.7 30.1 29.3 28.9 27.2 25.7 24.9 24.9 24.2 24.0 22.7 22.5 21.2 19.9 19.6 19.5 1 Sweden 2 Finland 3 Denmark 4 Austria 5 France 6 Norway 7 New Zealand 8 Netherlands 9 Belgium 10 Germany 11 Italy 12 Hungary 13 United Kingdom 14 Spain 15 Luxembourg 16 Ireland 18.4 16.6 17 Canada 18 Iceland +8.3 14.9 13.3 12.9 12.2 10.8 19 Switzerland 20 United States 21 Australia 22 Japan 23 Greece 2.4 24 Korea 0 10 20 30 40 30.2 29.7 27.9 27.7 27.4 26.0 25.9 25.8 25.3 23.4 22.5 22.4 22.1 21.9 21.5 20.6 20.5 20.1 20.0 19.9 17.0 16.9 16.6 16.5 15.5 14.8 1 Denmark 2 France 3 Sweden 4 Austria 5 Finland 6 Germany 7 Italy 8 Greece 9 Belgium 10 United Kingdom 11 Hungary 12 Norway 13 Netherlands 14 Portugal 15 Ireland 16 Poland 17 Japan 18 Czech Republic 19 Spein 20 Luxembourg 21 Slovak Republic 22 Iceland 23 New Zealand 24 Canada 25 United States 26 Switzerland 7.7 27 Korea 0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 35.9 1 Greece 40.91 Iceland 34.2 33.8 31.3 30.8 29.9 29.4 28.8 27.1 27.0 26.8 25.4 25.0 25.0 24.9 24.6 24.3 23.4 22.2 2 Hungary 3 Canada 4 Italy 5 Sweden 6 Netherlands 7 Belgium 8 Norway 9 Iceland 10 Finland 11 Denmark 12 United States 13 Australia 14 Spein 15 Ireland 16 New Zealand 17 France 18 Austria 19 Germany 26.3 24.9 24.0 24.0 23.8 23.4 23.3 23.1 22.9 22.8 22.7 22.7 22.5 22.5 21.9 21.7 21.7 21.2 21.1 21.1 2 Hungary 3 Belgium 4 United Kingdo 5 Netherlands 6 Sweden 7 United States 8 Greece 9 France 10 Italy 11 Czech Repub 12 Canada 13 Korea 14 Poland 15 New Zealand 16 Finland 17 Denmark 18 Portugal 19 Spein 20 Austria 21 Ireland 22.0 20 United Kingdom 18.3 22 Norway 17.9 23 Slovak Repu 19.4 18.8 18.2 16.9 21 Japan 22 Luxembourg 23 Korea 24 Switzerland -2.7 17.7 17.4 16.9 16.7 24 Germany 25 Switzerland 26 Luxembourg 27 Japan (Source) IMF "Government Finance Statistics Yearbook 2002", OECD "Economic Outlook 76", "National Accounts 2010 vol.ii", "Stat Extracts National Accounts" (Note1) Figures represent the general governmant based data (including the central and local governments and the social security funds) (Note2) The figures of 2008 represents data of 2005 for New Zealand and data of 2006 for Canada. 4
Transition of Government Expenditure (1991 2008) (cont.) Government Total Expenditure (as percentage of GDP) 1991 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2008 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 57.1 56.7 56.1 54.8 54.5 54.0 53.6 52.3 52.3 51.5 65.5 1 Sweden 2 Finland 3 Hungary 4 Denmark 5 Netherlands 6 Norway 7 Italy 8 Belgium 9 Austria 10 Canada 11 France 57.8 52.8 51.9 51.7 50.2 49.3 49.0 48.8 48.8 48.8 47.4 46.0 1 Iceland 2 France 3 Denmark 4 Sweden 5 Belgium 6 Finland 7 Greece 8 Italy 9 Hungary 10 Austria 11 United Kingdom 12 Netherlands 49.5 12 New Zealand 43.8 13 Germany 46.7 13 Greece 43.6 14 Portugal 46.3 14 Germany 43.2 15 Poland 20.6 45.1 44.9 44.4 43.7 43.2 38.7 38.4 37.9 31.8 31.7 15 Portugal 16 Spain 17 Ireland 18 Iceland 19 United Kingdom 20 United States 21 Luxembourg 22 Australia 23 Switzerland 24 Japan 25 Korea +5.4 42.9 42.6 41.3 40.6 39.1 39.2 38.9 37.1 36.9 35.0 32.2 30.4 16 Czech Republic 17 Ireland 18 Spain 19 Norway 20 New Zealand 21 Canada 22 United States 23 Japan 24 Luxembourg 25 Slovak Republic 26 Switzerland 27 Korea (Source) OECD "Economic Outlook 76", "National Accounts 2010 vol.ii", "Stat Extracts National Accounts" (Note1) Figures represent the general governmant based data (including the central and local governments and the social security funds) (Note2) The figures of 2008 represents data of 2005 for New Zealand and data of 2006 for Canada. 5
Transi on of Government Revenue and Balance (1991 2008) While government total expenditure is increasing, the level of tax burdens ratio is declined. This result in significant reduction of government fiscal balance. Tax burdens ratio (as percentage of GDP) Government Fiscal Balance (as percentage of GDP) 1991 2008 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 45.2 1 Denmark 47.4 1 Denmark 35.6 35.3 32.8 2 New Zealand 3 Sweden 4 Finland 34.8 34.0 33.7 2 Sweden 3 Iceland 4 Norway 33.7 5 New Zealand 31.8 5 Canada 31.1 6 Finland 30.4 6 Norway 30.3 7 Belgium 29.1 29.0 28.6 28.307 28.284 27.7 27.0 26.2 25.6 23.8 23.8 23.3 22.3 21.1 21.0 20.8 20.1 7 Iceland 8 Hungary 9 Ireland 10 Netherlands 11 United Kingdom 12 Belgium 13 Austria 14 Australia 15 Italy 16 Luxembourg 17 France 18 Poland 19 Germ any 20 Spain 21 Portugal 22 Japan 23 United States 29.8 28.9 28.6 27.3 27.2 27.1 27.1 25.5 24.6 24.5 23.7 22.9 22.9 22.2 21.5 21.1 20.7 20.3 8 Italy 9 United Kingdom 10 Austria 11 Canada 12 France 13 Hungary 14 Australia 15 Luxembourg 16 Netherlands 17 Portugal 18 Ireland 19 Poland 20 Germ any 21 Switzerland 22 Spain 23 Chile 24 Korea 25 Gr eece 19.3 24 Switzerland 20.0 26 Czech Republic 19.4 27 United States 18.6 25 Gr eece 18.3 28 Mexico 17.1 26 Korea -3.4 18.2 29 Turkey 13.5 12.5 27 Mexico 28 Turk ey 17.4 17.4 30 Slovak Republic 31 Japan 1990 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 5.5 4.8 3.8 3.2 2.2 0.6 1 Finland 2 Luxembourg 3 Sweden 4 Korea 5 Noeway 6 Switzerland 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.8 3.3 3.9 4.3 5.3 7 Denmark 8 Japan 9 United Kingdom 10 Australia 11 Germ any 12 Austria 13 France 14 Ireland 15 Iceland 16 Spain 17 New Zealand 18 United States -7.3 5.3 5.8 6.6 6.8 19 Netherlands 20 Canada 21 Portugal 22 Belgium 11.8 15.7 23 Italy 24 Gr eece 2011 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 2.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 12.5 1 Norway 2 Hungary 3 Switzerland 4 Korea 5 Sweden 0.5 0.9 1.4 2.1 2.7 2.8 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.9 5.1 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.9 6.3 7.5 8.5 8.7 8.7 10.1 10.8 6 Estonia 7 Luxembourg 8 Finland 9 Germany 10 Iceland 11 Australia 12 Turkey 13 Belgium 14 Netherlands 15 Israel 16 Austria 17 Denmark 18 Czech Republic 19 Italy 20 Canada 21 Slovak Republic 22 France 23 Slovenia 24 Poland 25 Portugal 26 Spain 27 Gr eece 28 New Zealand 29 United Kingdom 30 Japan 32 Ireland 31 United States (Source) OECD "Revenue Statistics", "National Accounts 2010 vol.ii", "Economic Outlook 76", "Economic Outlook 89", CAO "National Accounts" etc. (Note1) The Figures are the general government based data (including the central and local governments and the social security funds), except for government fiscal balance of Japan and the United States where the figures of the social security funds are excluded. (Note2) The figures of tax burden ratio of 1991 are based on 68 SNA for Sweden. (Note3) The figures of tax burden ratio of 2008 are the FY2008 data for Japan, the CY2007 for Switzerland. 6
Transitional Analysis of Social Security related Expenditure and National Burden Ratio in Major Advanced Countries In advanced countries, Especially in Japan, social security expenditure is increasing due to aging. As a consequence, burden is generally rising in these economies, though it has declined in Japan. National Burden Ratio = Total Taxes as a percentage of National Income (NI) + Social Security Contribution as a percentage of NI Government Social Security-related Expenditures to GDP 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 (Benefit > Burden) (2008) United States Japan (1991) (2010) (2008) (1990) United Kingdom 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 (2008) (1991) Germany (2008) (1991) While social security expenditure is significantly increasing, national burden ratio is declining. France (1991) (2008) Both social security expenditure and national burden ratio is increasing. (Benefit < Burden) National Burden to GDP (Source) Social Security-related Expenditures: IMF Government Finance Statistics Yearbook 2002, OECD Economic Outlook 76, National Accounts 2010 vol.ii and Stat Extracts National Accounts National Burden Ratio: OECD National Account 2010 vol.ii and Revenue Statistics, CAO National Accounts etc. (Note 1) Figures represent the general government-based data (including the central/local governments and the social security funds). (Note 2) National Burden Ratio: For Japan, FY1990 and FY2008 are actual, FY2010 shows the estimate. For the other countries, 1991 and 2008 are actual. (Note 3) Government Social Security-related Expenditures: For Japan, FY1990 and FY2008 are actual, FY 2010 shows the rough estimate by MOF. For the other countries, 1991 and 2008 are actual (CY basis). 7
Social Security Expenditure and National Burden Ratio in OECD countries (FY2008) Japan ranks in the middle with respect to social security expenditure but remains low in national burden ratio. (%) 8
Status of the Achievement of Fiscal Consolidation Targets (Projection by CAO) Given the severe fiscal situation, the government decided Fiscal Management Strategy which set the fiscal consolidation targets. The government aims to achieve fiscal consolidation steadily, through efforts on both revenue and expenditure side including the comprehensive reform of social security and tax. The projection by Cabinet Office shows Japan s fiscal trajectory in case consumption tax rate is raised gradually in accordance with Definite Plan for the Comprehensive Reform of Social Security and Tax. According to this projection, Status of achievement of fiscal consolidation targets is as follows. 1) Primary balance of central and local governments (ratio to nominal GDP) will be 3.0%, so the target of FY2015 (halve primary deficit from that in FY2010) will be achieved. Primary balance of central government will be destined for achievement of target. 2) To achieve the target of FY2020 (achieve primary surplus), additional 3.3% improvement of primary balance will be required. 3) This projection shows that public debt outstanding of central and local governments will increase progressively even after FY2021, stock target (start stable reduction of public debt outstanding from FY2021) will not be achieved. Projection Results (%) 0 <Primary Balance of Central and Local Governments (ratio to Nominal GDP)> 慎重シナリオ Prudent scenario Raising consumption tax rate to 10% FY2020 Target (achieve PB surplus) -2 Primary Deficit - 15.5 trillion yen 3.0 3.2-4 -6 6.0 6.0 4.7 3.3 FY2015 Target Primary Deficit -3.2% (halve Primary Deficit from that in FY2010 (-6.4%)) Primary Deficit - 18.3 trillion yen -8 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 (FY) (Note 1) According to Definite Plan for the Comprehensive Reform of Social Security and Tax, raising the consumption tax rate to 10% gradually from the latter half of FY2013 to FY2015 is mechanically assumed. (Note 2) Based on Basic Guideline for Reconstruction in response to the Great East Japan Earthquake, reconstruction expenditures of approx. 19 trillion yen and the corresponding temporary fiscal resources (for 10 years) are assumed. (Note 3) Figures do not include the expenses and resources of recovery and reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake. (Source) Cabinet Office Economic and Fiscal Projection for Medium to Long Term Analysis (2011.8) 9
Ratio of General government debt / Household financial assets in major advanced countries (2009) As for ratios of general government debt to household financial assets in major advanced countries, 91.1% in Japan is on a higher level than the ratios in other countries. For Japan, this means that the domestic market s capacity to absorb new government bond issuance is diminishing while general government debt will increase further in years to come. 120% 100% 91.1% General Government Gross Debt Household net Financial Assets Japan United States United Kingdom Germany France 1024.2 trillion $ 12.5 trillion 1.1 trillion 1.8 trillion 1.8 trillion 1123.9 trillion $ 30.3 trillion 2.6 trillion 3.1 trillion 2.5 trillion 80% 73.5% 60% 58.8% 41.2% 43.0% 40% 20% 0% Japan United States United Kingdom Germany France (Source) OECD "National Accounts" 10
Trends of Savings ratio and ratio of General government debt / Household financial assets While general government debt continues to increase, saving rate tends to decline due to the progress of population aging. The ratio of general government debt to household financial assets is going up year by year. 100 90 80 13.5 15.1 14.7 14.2 13.3 12.6 73.1 76.7 81.6 80.3 83.7 81.7 80.0 86.9 90.4 91.1 16 14 12 70 60 50 43.1 46.6 48.3 48.5 51.8 54.1 10.5 58.4 63.7 10.3 66.4 66.7 11.4 10.0 8.7 Savings ratio (Right Scale) 10 8 40 5.1 5.0 5.0 6 30 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.8 4 20 10 General government gross debt / Household financial Asset (Left Scale) 2.4 2.2 2 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 0 (Note) Household net financial assets are difference calculated by subtracting household gross debt from household gross financial assets. (Source) OECD National Accounts, Cabinet office National Accounts 11
Japan s Flow of Funds (1990 2010) While financial liabilities of general government are significantly increasing due to accumulation of fiscal deficit, financial liabilities of nonfinancial corporations are reduced. In the trend of low saving rate, further increase in general government liabilities (e.g. increase in financial needs of general government) may weigh on financing of corporate sector, lead to reduction of investment, or harm economic growth. Financial Assets Total : 2,361 3,133 (1990 2010) (trillion yen) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 484 +214 2010 1990 General Government (net: 24 563) Financial Liabilities Total: 2,389 3,178 (1990 2010) 1990 +754 1,048 1,481 +464 2010 1990 Household s (net: 675 1,115) +24 1990 2010 366 By FY2020, liability of the general government is projected to increase by about 400 trillion yen. 27 1990 2010 822 Nonfinancial Corporations (net: 628 333) 1,160 316 2010 1990 346 +121 Overseas (net: 52 259) +328 2010 1990 1990 2010 605 (Source) Bank of Japan, Flow of Funds 12
Rating Company s View about Fiscal Situation of Japan In 2011, the major rating companies downgrade of Japan s sovereign credit rating or change its outlook to negative one after the other. The main rationale of these rating action is deterioration of Japan s fiscal situation. S&P (2011.4.27) The negative outlook signals that a downgrade is possible if Japan s public finances weaken further over the next two years in the absence of fiscal consolidation to offset them. Moody s (2011.8.24) Moody's lowered the Government of Japan's rating to Aa3 from Aa2. The rating downgrade is prompted by large budget deficits and the build up in Japanese government debt since the 2009 global recession. Credit Triggers For a Future Rating Action Credit Positive Factors 1. Well established progress in achieving fiscal consolidation targets 2. A robust and sustainable recovery from the recession Credit Negative Factors 1. A delay in implementing the comprehensive tax and social security reform plan 2. The economy's inability to recover from the lingering effects of the global recession and the ongoing consequences of the March earthquake, tsunami and nuclear power plant disaster 3. A diminished home bias in the government bond market or substantial erosion in Japan's external strengths, which at some point would cause the market to price in a risk premium to government debt, making sizable annual refinancing requirements significantly more costly R&I (2011.12.21) R&I can no longer consider the government's ability to adjust fiscal conditions on its own to be at a level required for the highest rating, and therefore has downgraded both the Foreign and Domestic Currency Issuer Ratings for Japan to AA+. While R&I positively views the firm resolve of the Noda administration to increase the consumption tax rate, critical measures of social security reform have yet to be decided, as seen in the postponement of having the public take on more of a financial burden. Prospects for economic revitalization are also uncertain. In light of such circumstances, outstanding government debt would inevitably rise for an extensive period of time even if the consumption tax rate is successfully raised. Should a consumption tax rise be postponed, the rating could come under downward pressure again. 13
Reference: Sovereign Credit Rating by Major Rating Company Aaa/AAA Moody s S&P Fitch R&I JCR United States( ) United Kingdom United States( ) United States Japan United Kingdom Germany( ) United Kingdom United Kingdom United States Germany France( ) Germany Germany United Kingdom France France( ) France( ) Germany France Spain Aa1/AA+ United States( ) Japan Aa2/AA Spain( ) Italy Aa3/AA- Japan Japan ( ) Japan ( ) China Portugal( ) China( ) China China( ) Spain( ) Spain( ) A1/A+ Spain( ) Italy( ) Italy( ) A2/A Italy( ) Italy( ) A3/A- Baa1/BBB+ Ireland( ) Ireland( ) Ireland( ) Baa2/BBB Baa3/BBB- Portugal( ) Portugal( ) Ba1/BB+ Ireland( ) Portugal( ) Potugal( ) Ba2/BB Ba3/BB- B1/B+ B2/B B3/B- Caa1/CCC+ Caa2/CCC Caa3/CCC- (Note 1) Local currency long term debt rating. (Note 2) means positive outlook. means negative outlook. Greece Ca/CC Greece Greece( ) Greece Recent movement of Japans sovereign credit rating 2011.4.27 S&P Change the Outlook to Negative (Rating was affirmed at AA-). 2011.5.27 Fitch Change the Outlook to Negative (Rating was affirmed at AA-) 2011.5.31 Moody s Watch Negative 2011.8.24 Moody s Downgrade from Aa2 to Aa3 (Outlook: Stable) 2011.11.30 R&I Watch Negative 2011.12.21 R&I Downgrade from AAA to AA+ (Outlook: Stable) 14
Opinions of International Organizations about Japan s Fiscal Situation To Japan, international organizations point out the necessity of fiscal consolidation repeatedly. OECD and IMF present the idea that measures on both revenue and expenditure sides are required. In particular, their idea include social security reform and consumption tax hike. OECD Economic Survey of Japan 2011 (April 21, 2011) The Fiscal Management Strategy should aim at a primary budget surplus large enough to stabilise the debt ratio by FY 2020, which may require as much as a 10% of GDP improvement in the primary budget balance. A detailed fiscal plan should be accompanied by social security reform to limit spending pressures due to rapid population ageing. Much of the deficit reduction will have to be on the revenue side, mainly through hikes in the consumption tax. Achieving the fiscal target may require that consumption tax rate be increased to as high as 20%, even if spending (excluding social security and interest payments) is held constant in real terms. IMF Japan Sustainability Report (Nov. 23, 2011) Should JGB yields rise from current levels, Japanese debt could quickly become unsustainable. Market concerns about fiscal sustainability could result in a sudden spike in the risk premium on JGBs. An increase in yields could be triggered by delayed fiscal reforms; a decline in private savings; a protracted slump in growth; or unexpected shifts in the portfolio preferences of Japanese investors. Once confidence in sustainability erodes, authorities could face an adverse feedback loop between rising yields, falling market confidence, a more vulnerable financial system, diminishing fiscal policy space and contracting real economy. Addressing Imbalances (*) Given limited scope for cutting expenditure, fiscal adjustment would need to rely mainly on new revenue sources and limits on spending growth. Among various revenue measures, raising the consumption tax (VAT) is the most appealing. The consumption tax rate in Japan, at 5 percent, is the lowest among the advanced G 20. Staff s analysis indicates that a gradual increase in the consumption tax from 5 percent to 15 percent over several years could provide roughly half of the fiscal adjustment needed. (*) IMF shows the similar ideas in the 2011 Article IV Consultation Staff Report. 15