A good article, rational and logical. Unlike Andrew's work on firearms laws, which start from a false conclusion and work back.

It seems to be a well researched article, which unlike most economic espoused evocation, seems to be evidence based? It is often said, put ten economists in a room and you'll get thirty different opinions? A twenty year study that followed three hundred economists concluded that their accurate economic predictions, were no better than those of a dart throwing monkey. It makes a refreshing change to see an evidence based epistemology.
Less is more simplification ought also be applied to our ultra-complex tax system; given, a single stand alone unavoidable expenditure tax, set at around 4.5% would collect more tax, [around 100 billion per,] than the current complexity from all three tiers of government. Add on 0.3% making the total imposition 4.8% and you've included a carbon tax everyone pays, each according to their expenditure patterns, the only real record of their personal or corporate carbon footprint; and leaving a govt free to keep the proposed wealth redistribution; and any improvement in domestic economy boosting discretionary spend.
The impost on business would be far less; given there'd be no compliance or associated costs, which currently rips an averaged 7% from the averaged bottom line, not to mention the time component imposed on very small business owners and operators.
The GST would have to go along with fuel excise etc/etc, in the quest for less is more ultimate simplicity. Seriously downsized state govts, would feel no pain, if they and they alone still collected alcohol and tobacco excise; and, the federal govt took complete responsibility for public health and education outcomes. Rhrosty.

What an interesting article Andrew. Interesting in what it says, but even more so, in what in what it says without meaning too.

It completely explains why governments, depending on advice from experts, experts who are usually academics, get so many things so wrong.

Here we find academics spending so much of their life & brain power on examining basically useless but interesting tidbits of rubbish, that there is no capacity left for major thought. This is what leads to the advice to put all your cognitive ability into choosing a $2 vegetable peeler, but when you go to buy a $40,000 car leave your brain at home, & do it emotionally, because it's all to hard to understand value for money.

So we find our economist/PhD/lawyer/policy adviser can not understand facts & figures, but gets all emotional when real decisions must be made. Even worse, almost every 14 year old boy, in my country town, can not only understand those cars, but can quote from their head, the specifications, performance figures, the reliability factor & service costs, of all but the "girly" little things their mothers probably drives.

Then worse again these kids will never get an OP that would get them into uni, because our feminised education system doesn't want them, & has, probably intentionally, succeeded in turning them right off.

Perhaps rather than arresting those kids doing burnouts in the back streets late at night, we should take them to Canberra, burnt rubber smell & all, & pay them enormous consulting fees to advise government on things practical. Obviously we are doing this with the wrong people at present.

Sorry Andrew, I would have added a few smiley faces in there, if I knew how.

Other compelling reasons to completely jettison our current ultra complex tax regime in favour of ultimate less is more simplicity, or a stand alone entirely unavoidable expenditure tax. Includes the fact that inflation or stagnation can be much more rapidly addressed, by tiny adjustments of the tax rate alone. Region by region as and where necessary, in a so called 3 speed economy, or in particular post codes, where generational poverty is both endemic and self sustaining?
This new inflation addressing methodology, would then allow interest rates to be progressively eased, and our dollar to find its true value, rather than the current comparative high interest rate inflated one!
If number crunching economists can agree that one third of one percent garnered as an unavoidable transaction or expenditure tax, would completely replace PAYE, [currently around 50 billion plus,] then how much would 4.5% raise? 700 billion plus! or around 300 billion more than the current raft of mind-numbing complexity or more than that currently garnered as net revenue by all 3 tiers of govt. [These comparative numbers inform us; that the very costly avoidance industry, is very much alive and well.] Add in 0.3% as the included carbon tax component, and that amount increases to around 750 billion.
Moreover, even as corporations and business pay more tax; the resulting elimination of all compliance costs actually improves the bottom line. As does the elimination of virtually all other taxes, which add an impost of up to 30%! Or the cost of carrying vast corporations, who due to the vagaries of the so-called global economy are able to actually avoid what any reasonable person would see as their fair share of a common responsibility; and indeed, the principle reason along with welfare for the rich, why we have fallen so far behind in our infrastructure needs?
Also, this single stand alone taxing methodology will save billions in compliance outlays; it will also increase with any increase in sustainably stimulated inflation free high tech economic activity, even as income earning taxpayers become a diminishing demographic! Rhrosty.