Adam Smith said that taxes should be efficient, certain, convenient and fair. Against that standard, today’s tax policies are unforgivably cack-handed. Politicians rarely consider the purpose and scope of taxation. When they do change tax codes, they clumsily bolt on new levies and snap off old ones, all in a rush for good headlines.

The Economist is simply one of the finest newspapers in existence, and also is one of the last bastions of Fine Writing in the English language.

Now they take a look at the entire model of taxation; what is being taxed, why, and how. And propose alternatives.

Fascinating stuff.


So the economist proposes taxing:

- housing

- inheritance

- investments

because they are fucking dumb. "The way we tax" is not the question; "why we tax" is what's relevant here. The reason there are so many protests against housing and inheritance is they're what we are. They're what we pass on to the next generation. They're what build legacy, they're what builds immortality. Investments? You mean "retirement?" Also not gonna happen. What does The Economist think we should tax?

    To stop companies shifting profits, governments should switch their focus from firms to investors. Profits ultimately flow to shareholders as dividends and buy-backs.

sure they do.

posted by goobster: 159 days ago