An efficient taxation system has nine attributes with one over-riding characteristic to which they all contribute.
An efficient tax system is:
1. Comprehensive — in other words, it is broad based;
2. Complete — with as few loopholes as possible;
3. Comprehensible - it is as certain as is reasonably possible;
4. Compassionate — it takes into account the capacity to pay;
5. Compact — it is written as straightforwardly as possible;
6. Compliant with human rights;
7. Compensatory — it is perceived as fair and redistributes income and wealth as necessary to achieve this aim;
8. Complementary to social objectives;
9. Computable - the liability can be calculated with reasonable accuracy;
All of which facilitate the chance that it will be:
10. Competently managed.
In combination these are key attributes of a good tax system.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
only 10? was expecting to see courageous in there somewhere.
lol
Compassionate — it takes into account the capacity to pay”
Just a quibble here.
I have always regarded fixing tax level with a regard to ability to pay as a matter of expediency not compassion.
In a war governments conscript young men into the army.
Consequently young men die in old men’s’ wars.
This has nothing to do with compassion for older men. It’s just that old men don’t make good soldiers.
It’s unfair but then Life isn’t fair (as the Head of the British Bankers’ Association pointed out back in 2007).
Similarly, it’s a waste of time taxing the poor when one can raise so much by going after those with plenty of money.
“
Presumably different aspects of Tax law and practice would be added/subtracted/amended on the basis that they meet one or more of these objectives/criteria.
If so, then I can take:
1) “as few loopholes as possible”
plus
2) “is as certain as is reasonably possible”
plus
3) “written as straightforwardly as possible”
plus
4) “the liability can be calculated with reasonable accuracy”
and have the underlying argument for Tax simplification. I assume this is not what you meant.
The road to hell is paid with god intentions.
I am in favour of some simplification
These points appear to cover only how we should tax but do not deal with what we should tax. It is interesting to compare this alliterative version with Adam Smith’s original four canons of taxation in his Wealth of Nations. The one that appears not to be represented in this new list is the one that is perhaps most relevant to these times of high unemployment when growth is so desperately needed:
“that tax should bear as lightly as possible on production, so as least to check the increase in the general fund from which taxes must be paid and the community maintained.”
but now we know that is wrong
more is not always better
And checking excess for the sale of the environment can be wise
That one is not there for good reason
The problem is that we aren’t going to get unemployment down without a substantial increase in production. This is where the Greens have been found out. For a decade they complained that we produce too much, now we have unemployment following a decline in production they complain that unemployment is too high.
The infamous “Green New Deal” is simply pie in the sky – the long term benefits are not only highly uncertain but highly unlikely and in the short term it would push up production costs and unemployment even further. If we could build an economy based on green technology which provided acceptable returns it would have been done years ago. The fact that it hasn;t says a lot.
Your problem is that there’s no evidence to support a word you say
Aren’t services part of production? The provision of services does not necessarily involve consumption of scarce resources – it can be pure labour.
Carol says “The provision of services does not necessarily involve consumption of scarce resources — it can be pure labour.” OK even if you accept we are over-populated there is still a limit on the number of people – hence labour is a scarce resource. OR am I missing something?
I cannot see how labour can be considered a scarce resource, especially when we have unemployment. And since wages and economic demand are closely related, it is unlikely that the demand for labour could outstrip the demand for goods and services if we had full employment.