3 ms·

The OECD suggest that one measure of good taxation is it's efficiency. Progressively taxing profits seems to meet that goal. 'Cost to the government' sounds tri

The OECD suggest that one measure of good taxation is it's efficiency. Progressively taxing profits seems to meet that goal. 'Cost to the government' sounds tricky to measure however

Pokepokalypse 9y ago
>The OECD suggest that one measure of good taxation is it's efficiency. This suggests we should not tax at all. This suggests we should simply invent money as-needed. Destroy it when not-needed. Some call that "Marxism".
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  I think you may have misunderstood. When the OECD talk of efficiency, they mean a tax that is efficient to collect. It is one of the fundamental principles of taxation in the study of economics. "Efficiency: Compliance costs to business and administration costs for governments should be minimised as far as possible." That is a quote from OECD (2014), "Fundamental principles of taxation", in Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, OECD Publishing, Paris. This seems like a fair criticism of the post above where something other than a progressive income/profit tax was being suggested. RE: Marxism I don't really think you have taken the time to find out who the OECD are. The OECD are the "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development". Their role is to spread the market economy, and in particular work on double taxation treaties between countries. The antithesis of Marxism. > This suggests we should simply invent money as-needed. Destroy it when not-needed. This is the kind of misunderstanding you get when you model national finance like a household budget. Money is created and destroyed constantly by governments, and even more so by banks. When banks lend money it comes from nowhere. Governments run deficits for years, where they create money that didn't exist before.Taxation is exactly the destruction of money. This is not Marxism, it is economics.

The OECD suggest that one measure of good taxation is it's efficiency. Progressively taxing profits seems to meet that goal. 'Cost to the government' sounds tricky to measure however

Pokepokalypse 9y ago

>The OECD suggest that one measure of good taxation is it's efficiency. This suggests we should not tax at all. This suggests we should simply invent money as-needed. Destroy it when not-needed. Some call that "Marxism".

jimnotgym 9y ago
I think you may have misunderstood. When the OECD talk of efficiency, they mean a tax that is efficient to collect. It is one of the fundamental principles of taxation in the study of economics. "Efficiency: Compliance costs to business and administration costs for governments should be minimised as far as possible." That is a quote from OECD (2014), "Fundamental principles of taxation", in Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, OECD Publishing, Paris. This seems like a fair criticism of the post above where something other than a progressive income/profit tax was being suggested. RE: Marxism I don't really think you have taken the time to find out who the OECD are. The OECD are the "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development". Their role is to spread the market economy, and in particular work on double taxation treaties between countries. The antithesis of Marxism. > This suggests we should simply invent money as-needed. Destroy it when not-needed. This is the kind of misunderstanding you get when you model national finance like a household budget. Money is created and destroyed constantly by governments, and even more so by banks. When banks lend money it comes from nowhere. Governments run deficits for years, where they create money that didn't exist before.Taxation is exactly the destruction of money. This is not Marxism, it is economics.