{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023255813953488372, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00900225056264066, 'mean_word_length': 5.2046511627906975, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Mirrlees Review's Good Tax System: 'Old World' Versus 'New World' Professor Opinions

This article examines the relevance of the 2012 UK Mirrlees Review’s findings for its “good tax system” for taxpayers in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. This qualitative study on the Mirrlees Review’s findings identifies and interviews a number of tax professors and an economist in these three comparable small to medium sized OECD countries. The three countries have similar cultural, social, economic and political customs and institutions that also facilitate a good comparison.This article finds considerable consensus for much of the Mirrlees Review’s good tax system with recent tax reviews in Australia (the 2009 Henry Review) and New Zealand (the 2010 Buckle Review), all preferring land tax, broad income and value‑added tax regimes. Reflecting this, a high level of consensus was found among the respondents for much of the good tax system. The responses also highlight a number of contentious areas that provide scope for further research. The respondents strongly agreed that political factors dominated tax design in the three countries. The responses further suggested that major tax reform is difficult but possible in the right circumstances. How to successfully achieve tax reform looms as a key area for further research.