2026年初，日本政治舞台出現重大變動：現任首相高市早苗（Sanae Takaichi） 在2025年10月 正式上任，不僅成為日本史上第一位女性首相，也承擔起領導日本面對多重內外挑戰的重責大任。近期她宣布解散眾議院，並將於2026年2月召開大選。在這次選舉中，消費稅減免，尤其是將食品消費稅降至零，成為朝野政黨攻防的核心議題與競選承諾，也引發社會熱烈討論。

日本現行的標準消費稅稅率為10%，而根據現行稅制，食品及部分民生用品適用8%的減輕稅率。首相高市早苗提出的減稅主張並非全面取消 8% 的所有商品稅，而是集中在將食品消費稅直接降為0% 的階段性政策方向，並以此作為拉抬選情與改善民眾生活負擔的政見之一。這項主張還需經由國會審議通過才能實施，並可能隨著後續立法程序與財政評估而調整。要理解這項政策的潛在利弊，需要從經濟、社會與財政三個層面來全面分析。

在正面影響方面，降低消費稅可以直接減輕民眾的日常支出壓力。由於消費稅是一種間接稅，無論收入高低都會在消費時被徵收，因此對低收入者而言其負擔比例更高，被稱為一種「累退性稅制」。若食品消費稅率降至0%，等於變相提高弱勢家庭的可支配所得，有助於改善民生與基本生活品質。從經濟刺激角度來看，稅率下降可立即提高消費需求，有助於活絡內需市場、促進商品與服務的銷售，進一步帶動經濟活動與成長，尤其在面對可能的通縮壓力或經濟停滯時，短期刺激消費被視為一種有效的貨幣與財政政策配套。

在政治操作層面，推出減稅政策在選舉期間通常能夠迅速獲得選民支持。減輕稅負是最直接的惠民措施之一，尤其對於中低收入選民而言，稅負降低能夠提升其對執政團隊的好感度與投票支持率，在競爭激烈的選戰中具有實質的動員效果。

然而，這項承諾也伴隨著相當大的風險與負面影響。最直接的影響便是政府財政收入的減少。消費稅在日本一直被視為重要的稅收來源之一，尤其在面對高社會福利支出與人口老化帶來的龐大醫療、養老等支出時，消費稅收入是支撐這些公共服務與社會保障體系的重要基礎。大幅減稅或取消部分消費稅將直接縮減財政收入，對日本本就負債累累的公共財政帶來更大的壓力。

面對收入大幅減少的情況，政府可能被迫增加舉債以填補預算缺口，這一舉措則有可能進一步惡化日本已經十分嚴峻的國債問題。外界市場與信用評級機構或因此對日本財政穩健性產生疑慮，進一步推高借貸成本或引發長期信心減弱。

此外，減稅承諾若僅是為了選舉而提出，而缺乏長期財政規劃與配套措施，可能造成 政策持續性不足。如果減稅措施在選舉後幾年內又被恢復或調整，這樣的反覆將使企業與消費者面臨不確定性，甚至可能在政策逆轉時引發市場波動或民眾不滿。

另一方面，現行的稅制已經存在食品8%、其他商品10%的區分，而這種分類本身就具有一定的複雜性與執行成本。若進一步調整或臨時免除特定稅項，企業在結帳系統、稅務申報與價格標示上都可能需要做出相當大的調整，這對中小企業而言尤其是一種負擔。

最後，消費稅自從提高以來，其中一項重要目的就是為了支付因人口老化導致的社會保障成本，如養老金、醫療保健、長照等支出。若在尚未建立其他穩健替代收入來源的情況下大幅減稅，可能會危及現有社會保障體系的運行穩定性，進一步影響中長期的福祉供給與財政永續。

總而言之，為了選舉而提出的消費稅部分減免或取消的政策是一把雙刃劍。它在短期內確實有助於降低民眾負擔、刺激經濟、增加選民支持，但從長期財政穩健、社會保障供給與稅制效率的角度來看，這樣的政策也可能埋下重大的風險與不確定性。日本未來的政策走向如何平衡刺激與永續，將是這場大選之後各方關注的焦點。

As of early 2026, Japan’s political landscape has undergone a major shift. Sanae Takaichi assumed office in October 2025, becoming the first female prime minister in Japan’s history. Recently, Prime Minister Takaichi announced the dissolution of the House of Representatives and scheduled a general election for February 2026. In this election, cuts to the consumption tax—especially the proposal to reduce the food consumption tax to zero—have emerged as the central battleground and a key campaign promise among both ruling and opposition parties, sparking widespread public debate.

Japan’s current standard consumption tax rate stands at 10%, while food and certain daily necessities are subject to a reduced rate of 8%. Prime Minister Takaichi’s proposal does not seek to abolish the entire reduced 8% tax category, but instead focuses specifically on lowering the consumption tax on food to 0% as a targeted, phased policy measure. This initiative is positioned as both an electoral strategy and a way to ease household financial pressure. However, implementation would require approval by the National Diet and could be adjusted depending on legislative deliberations and fiscal assessments.

To understand the implications of this policy, it is necessary to examine its potential advantages and disadvantages from economic, social, and fiscal perspectives.

On the positive side, lowering the consumption tax would directly reduce everyday living costs for households. As a form of indirect taxation, the consumption tax applies uniformly regardless of income, meaning it disproportionately burdens low-income groups and is often described as a regressive tax. Reducing the food tax rate to zero would effectively increase disposable income for lower-income households, helping to improve basic living conditions and social equity. From a macroeconomic standpoint, tax cuts can immediately stimulate consumption, boosting demand for goods and services and supporting broader economic growth. In a context where Japan faces risks of deflation or economic stagnation, such tax reductions are often viewed as a short-term but effective tool to encourage spending and push prices closer to target levels.

Politically, tax cuts are among the most direct and popular pro-voter measures, particularly during periods of economic strain. For many voters, especially those in lower- and middle-income brackets, a lighter tax burden translates into tangible benefits, potentially strengthening public support for the ruling party and improving electoral prospects in a closely contested election.

However, the policy also carries significant risks and downsides. The most immediate concern is a reduction in government revenue. Consumption tax revenue has long been a crucial pillar of Japan’s public finances, especially as the country grapples with rising social welfare costs driven by rapid population aging. Medical care, pensions, and long-term care systems all rely heavily on stable tax income. A substantial tax cut or exemption could significantly weaken the government’s revenue base, placing additional strain on an already fragile fiscal structure.

If revenues fall sharply, the government may be forced to increase the issuance of government bonds to cover budget shortfalls, potentially exacerbating Japan’s already severe public debt problem. This could raise concerns among financial markets and credit rating agencies regarding Japan’s fiscal sustainability, possibly leading to higher borrowing costs or diminished long-term confidence.

Another concern lies in policy sustainability. Tax cuts proposed primarily for electoral gain may lack a long-term fiscal framework. If such measures are reversed or adjusted a few years after the election, businesses and consumers could face uncertainty, and sudden policy shifts might trigger economic volatility or public dissatisfaction.

Moreover, Japan’s current system—already divided between an 8% reduced rate for food and a 10% standard rate for other goods—is administratively complex. Introducing further exemptions or temporary zero-tax categories could increase compliance burdens for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, which would need to update pricing systems, accounting practices, and tax reporting processes.

Finally, it is important to note that one of the original justifications for raising the consumption tax was to secure funding for Japan’s social security system, including pensions and healthcare. Without establishing alternative and sustainable revenue sources, a major tax reduction could undermine the long-term stability of social welfare programs, threatening the country’s ability to support an aging population.

In conclusion, consumption tax reductions proposed in the context of an election represent a double-edged sword. While they may offer short-term economic stimulus, ease household burdens, and generate political support, they also pose substantial long-term risks to fiscal stability, tax system efficiency, and the sustainability of Japan’s social security framework. How Japan balances short-term relief with long-term fiscal responsibility will remain a central issue in the aftermath of the upcoming election.