Are voters to blame for being taken in by election pledges ?
Today we’re looking at the consumption tax reduction on groceries, a measure that many political parties pledged during the election campaign but are now strangely opposed to.
First, let us state our perspective that the consumption tax reduction should be implemented, even if only for a limited period and even if it applies solely to groceries.
This is because, in the previous House of Councillors and House of Representatives elections, many political parties campaigned on the policy of “reducing or abolishing the consumption tax”.
Also, since the Liberal Democratic Party(hereinafter called LDP) of Japan also pledged this policy, the “consumption tax reduction” has become expected policy for many citizens.
However, looking at the current situation, it is completely different from the election campaign period, with many opposition parties and some LDP members now opposing it.
We don’t know who’s setting this up.
However, whenever we switch on the television, we hear expert opinions opposing a consumption tax reduction. Not only the old media, but even specialist economic magazines are adopting an opposing stance.
Of course, this trend is by no means a recent phenomenon.
The problem is that they focus solely on the government’s liabilities for some reason, without explaining the balance sheet as a whole
(Conversely, if they were to focus only on assets, arguments in favor of abolishing the consumption tax would likely emerge…)
When it comes to the economy, even among experts there are diametrically opposed opinions.
Therefore, there are aspects of the real problem that cannot be fully understood until the policy is actually implemented.
And if there truly is a problem as the experts, the Ministry of Finance, and their supporters suggest, we should identify that problem and make the necessary adjustments now, whilst tax revenue is exceeding expected levels.
On that basis, we believe that any excess revenue that can be returned to the citizens should be returned.
Many political parties had been pledging a “reduction in consumption tax”
The Takaichi administration decided to dissolve the House of Representatives to ask for a vote of confidence in the Takaichi Cabinet, in order to resolve the negative legacy left by the previous Ishiba administration (a loss of majority in both the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors) and to implement its proposed policies.
Prime Minister Takaichi also demonstrated resolve diametrically opposed to that of her predecessor by stating that she will resign if she loses the election.
Below are the pledges of each political party regarding the consumption tax. Many opposition parties also advocated for a reduction or abolition of the consumption tax.
| The Liberal Democratic Party Will accelerate discussions in the National Council to set the consumption tax on groceries to zero for two years |
| The Japan Innovation Party Will accelerate discussions in the National Council to set the consumption tax on groceries to zero for two years |
| The Centrist Reform Alliance Will implement a permanent zero consumption tax on groceries starting this fall (2026) |
| The Democratic Party For the People Cut consumption tax to 5% until the wage growth rate stabilizes at inflation plus 2% |
| The Sanseito Abolish the consumption tax and the invoice system |
| Japanese Communist Party Aim to abolish the consumption tax; cut it to 5% |
| Reiwa Shinsengumi Abolish the consumption tax and the invoice system |
| Team Mirai To prioritize reducing social insurance contributions over reducing the consumption tax |
In fact, some opposition parties were even more proactive than the LDP in calling for tax reductions or abolition.
For example, the Centrist Reform Alliance (hereinafter called Chudo) has clearly stated that it will permanently set the consumption tax on groceries to zero from autumn 2026. (The financial resource for this is reportedly the “Japan Fund”, which overlaps with the “hidden treasure” from the Democratic Party of Japan’s time in government.)
Also, in the recent House of Councillors election, the Constitutional Democratic Party(hereinafter called CDP) of Japan also campaigned on a pledge to “set the consumption tax on groceries to zero for one year in principle, and for up to two years”.
Why are they opposing the Takaichi administration’s attempts to fulfill its election pledges ?
The Takaichi administration has established the National Council, just as it promised in its election pledges.
Based on the election pledges of the various parties, we had believed that the “zero consumption tax on groceries” would become a realistic prospect relatively soon, even if there was strong resistance from the Ministry of Finance and other quarters.
However, it seems unforeseen issues have arisen within the National Council.
Consequently, in order to prioritize early implementation, the proposal to set the consumption tax on groceries at zero was abandoned, and discussions are now proceeding centered on a plan to reduce the tax to 1%.
For this reason, we shall refer to this here as the “reduction in the consumption tax on groceries”.
However, when the Takashi administration clearly stated its policy of implementing a consumption tax reduction on foodstuffs, some LDP members including former Prime Minister Ishiba, Yuko Obuchi, Tomomi Inada and Taro Kono expressed their opposition and began to criticize the Takaichi administration.
What was even more surprising was that even the opposition parties, which had advocated for a reduction or abolition of the consumption tax in every election, took a stance opposing the consumption tax reduction.
The reasons stated for this opposition include the following:
・There is no financial resource
・Cash handouts have an immediate effect
Many of Diet members opposing share similar arguments.
This makes one suspect that there may be some source behind the scenes pushing towards “forcing the Takashi administration to step down”.
Of course, this is only our speculation.
However, the opposition parties had been advocate for a “reduction in the consumption tax on groceries” and an “overall reduction or abolition of the consumption tax” from an earlier stage than the LDP.
If they truly value their election pledges, why do they not cooperate by indicating their own proposed financial resources, now that there is a real possibility the consumption tax could be reduced ?
It seems there can only be two possible reasons.
The first is that ‘they are prioritizing the resignation of the Takaichi administration over improving people’s livelihoods’.
The second is that ‘they never had any genuine intention of implementing a consumption tax reduction or abolition in the first place’. (Since they claim there are no financial resources, this possibility seems more likely…)
If this is not the case, we would very much like them to explain their true intentions.
Is the statement that “there are no financial resources” really true?
What is even more questionable is the claim that ‘there are no financial resources for a reduction in the consumption tax’.
So, are there financial resources for the cash handouts?
The Takaichi administration lists ‘tax revenue windfall’ and ‘non-tax revenue’ as the financial resources for the consumption tax reduction.
If they deny this by claiming ‘there are no financial resources’, it would mean that the Diet members advocating for the cash handouts believe there are alternative financial resources.
In that case, they should explain this financial resource to the citizens.
Could it be that they are suggesting cash will simply ‘spring up’ for the cash handouts without any need to consider where the funding comes from ?
If so, they should hand out 100 million yen to every Japanese citizen.
If they were to provide that level of cash, they would surely gain public understanding even if they refused to reduce the consumption tax.
What we have learnt from this case
There is one positive outcome from this case.
That is, even if individuals or political parties who are currently opposing the ‘reduction in the consumption tax on groceries’ were to pledge ‘tax cuts or abolition’ in future elections, we are now in a position to doubt whether such pledges would actually be realized.
In other words, we must discern whether the talk of ‘tax reductions or abolition’ during election campaigns is simply an empty promise limited to the campaign period, or whether it is backed by a viable financial resource that has the endorsement of the Ministry of Finance.
I heard that one LDP member made a statement along the lines of “Japan’s debt stands at 1,300 trillion yen, which cannot be repaid in my lifetime. Are they not concerned that this will become a burden on future generations ?”
However, this is the government’s debt, not the debt of each individual citizen.
Despite this, if the government is simply emphasizing the phrase “burden on future generations” to the citizens, it should first fundamentally review its own expenditure.
In the private enterprise sector, when business performance deteriorates, painful cost-cutting measures are implemented, such as the sale of fixed assets and reductions in salaries and bonuses.
However, despite constantly claiming that the nation’s financial situation is worst, why have sufficient measures not been taken until now ?
Also, why are tax revenues being diverted to people overseas ?
Urgent implementation of the following measures is required:
・Reduction in the number of Diet members
・Reduction in Diet members’ remuneration
・Reducing personnel costs in government agencies
・Thoroughly reducing government expenditure
Why did it change from “0%” to “1%” ?
Another point of concern is the reason why the consumption tax on groceries was set to change from “0%” to “1%”.
According to media reports, one of the reasons was that discussions at the National Council revealed it would take at least a year to upgrade the cash register systems.
The following reasons have also been listed:
・Current cash register systems are not compatible with a 0% tax rate.
・There is a shortage of systems engineers
If this suggestion came from a leading Japanese company, it would make one wonder, “Has Japan’s technical and business management capability really declined to this extent ?”
Should we not consider placing orders with overseas companies for POS and cash register systems in future ?
We do not want to say any more on this matter, but we also feel a strong discomfort that the name of the companies that suggested these reasons has not been disclosed.
Are Japanese companies also opposed to a reduction in the consumption tax ?
Reports suggest that it is not only the old media but also many Japanese companies that are opposed to a reduction in the consumption tax on groceries.
According to one article, there are many voices expressing concern about fiscal sustainability. For instance, Atsushi Katsuki, President of Asahi Group Holdings (HD), reportedly questioned whether fiscal discipline could be maintained while stating, “There would likely be a temporary positive impact on consumption, but can we maintain fiscal discipline ?”
If it is truly the case that the vast majority of Japanese companies are concerned about the nation’s finances, surely they would have no objection to a substantial increase in corporation tax.
In other words, this means that alternative financial resources to replace the consumption tax have been secured.
This is a great help.
What about the reduced tax rate for newspapers ?
Many of you are probably aware that a reduced tax rate applies to newspapers.
If newspaper publishers are concerned about Japan’s financial situation and oppose the reduction in the consumption tax on groceries, then naturally we believe they would also oppose the reduced tax rate currently applied to newspapers.
Surely they cannot be thinking, “We want the reduced tax rate to apply only to us”.
If they are genuinely concerned about Japan’s finances, they should first propose abolishing the reduced tax rate on newspapers.On that basis, I would like them to state their opinion on the reduction in the consumption tax on groceries to the citizens.
Are election pledges just “words to win an election” ?
Looking at today’s Diet members, it seems they believe that “election pledges are nothing more than tools to win an election, and there is no need for discussion”.
Observing the behavior of these Diet members this time around, we find ourselves once again wondering “What exactly is an election pledge ?”.
Before the election, they campaign by promising “We will reduce taxes” and “We will reduce consumption tax” in an attempt to gain public support.
However, when it comes to actually implementing tax reductions, they oppose them, claiming “There are no financial resources” or “It will place a burden on future generations”.
Under these circumstances, what are the citizens supposed to believe ?
Fundamentally, an election pledges is not just a set of words intended only to win an election.
It should be committed to in order to realise the policies promised to the citizens.
Therefore, we are viewing the current discussion surrounding the “consumption tax reduction on groceries” not only as a simple tax issue, but as fundamentally questioning what Diet members promise the citizens during an election campaign and to what extent they take responsibility for those promises.
If election pledges are simply “words limited to the election campaign” that do not need to be fulfilled, then it is the citizens who are blamed for being deceived.
Or is the responsibility with the Diet members who failed to keep their pledges ?
We believe it is the latter.
And in the next election, every citizen must confirm not only ‘what’ political parties and candidates have said’, but also what pledges they made in the past and what they have actually achieved.
Concerns remain regarding rice policy
Finally, there is one more point we should mention.
This concerns the rice policy of the former Ishiba administration and LPD members such as Yutaka Moriyama.
When rice prices increased significantly against a background of rice shortages, the government released the government stockpiled rice as an emergency measure.
The release of the government stockpiled rice took the form of a tender process open to companies and organizations that met the specified criteria.
As a result, most of the rice was awarded to the JA Agricultural Cooperatives.
There are many intermediaries involved in the supply chain from the JA Agricultural Cooperatives to the supermarket.
Under this system, there is no way the price reaching consumers could fall significantly.
And, the JA Agricultural Cooperatives chairman has stated, “I do not believe rice prices are high at all.”
The JA Agricultural Cooperatives did not ship the government stockpiled rice it had won in the bidding quickly, claiming that packaging took time.
The result was that the situation continued where it could not be said that rice prices had fallen sufficiently.
Looking at this example, we cannot believe that the former administration ‘put the people’s livelihoods first”.
Also, the former administration was proactive in accepting foreign nationals.
Of course, we cannot definitively conclude that these policies were deliberately implemented to destroy Japanese culture.
If this rice policy were indeed orchestrated to destroy Japanese culture by encouraging people to turn away from rice, it would be a truly terrifying prospect.
Reference; JIJI.COM (2026/08/16)
https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2026080500931&g=pol
Reference: SANKEI SHINBUN (2026/08/16)
https://www.sankei.com/article/20260809-RX6XBEYVAJMAVNUJZULQDD6JAM/?outputType=theme_weekly-fuji
https://www.sankei.com/article/20260705-R7H5XJNOARCRZGWDCZTXBJ74UM/?outputType=theme_weekly-fuji
Reference: ASAHI SHINBUN (2026/08/16)
https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASV7Z2FSBV7ZUTFK010M.html
Reference: JCAST NEWS (2026/08/16)
https://www.j-cast.com/2026/08/03516851.html?p=all#goog_rewarded
Reference: TOYO KEIZAI (2026/08/16)
https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/954604
Reference: YOMIURHI SHINBUN (2026/08/09)
https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/20260602-GYT1T00278
https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/election/shugiin/20260127-GYT1T00317
https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/20260801-GYT1T00059
Reference: SANKEI SHINBUN (2026/08/09)
https://www.sankei.com/article/20250514-AWEO3UF2HFCI3OZI5XV6NN2QDE
https://www.sankei.com/article/20260408-GNIXZDI7RNJ4NCC4HD3IY2LYF4
https://www.nikkei.com/special/election/manifesto
Reference: ASAHI SHINBUN (2026/08/09)
https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASV7X1JNMV7XULFA00ZM.html
Reference: PRESIDENT Online (2026/08/10)
https://president.jp/articles/-/117551?page=1
Reference: NIKKEI (2026/08/11)
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOCD048P60U6A800C2000000
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUA06D550W5A600C2000000
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUA09AGE0Z00C25A6000000
Reference: DIAMONDC online (2026/08/10)
ttps://diamond.jp/articles/-/396685
Thanks.
2026/08/18