<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tax simplification</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/07/14/tax-simplification/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/07/14/tax-simplification/</link>
	<description>Richard Murphy on tax and corporate accountability</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:43:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Graeme Pietersz</title>
		<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/07/14/tax-simplification/#comment-464357</link>
		<dc:creator>Graeme Pietersz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:09:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/07/14/tax-simplification/#comment-464357</guid>
		<description>Surely there are some simplifications that would eliminate opportunities to avoid tax. Treating capital gains as income (as you have suggested in the past) or abolishing tax breaks such as R &#38; D credits would be simplifying.

I am not sure that you have wide agreement to those  objectives. Right wing (e.g. US neo-con) thought seems to be increasingly opposed to 3. The argument is that people are rich because they deserve to be (through hard work etc.) and the poor should "get on their bikes". This leads to their opposition to progressive taxes.

Personally I agree with you, with some reservations about 2.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely there are some simplifications that would eliminate opportunities to avoid tax. Treating capital gains as income (as you have suggested in the past) or abolishing tax breaks such as R &amp; D credits would be simplifying.</p>
<p>I am not sure that you have wide agreement to those  objectives. Right wing (e.g. US neo-con) thought seems to be increasingly opposed to 3. The argument is that people are rich because they deserve to be (through hard work etc.) and the poor should &#8220;get on their bikes&#8221;. This leads to their opposition to progressive taxes.</p>
<p>Personally I agree with you, with some reservations about 2.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
