The first paragraph raised red flags. The “onus on economists to plan” is an oxymoron. The reigning neoclassical economists planned our current neoliberalism with no idea of “what will happen next”. The article poses three commendable objectives, but they are too much enclosed in “the box”. The box is dominated by the wrong tax base.

A more equal society need not include greater potential demand for goods and services. Certainly not while the life of our society is being threatened by a climate disaster caused by consumption of goods and services. Above the reasonable wants of life, production should be limited to sustaining the commons, increasing energy efficiency and green energy production. To whatever extent that taxation is required to supplement money creation by Government deficit, or tax revenue based on socially motivated penalties to deter unwanted market transactions, consumption, not income, should bear progressive rates of tax. A tax base of consumption would also remove the competitive advantage of imports. Domestic production must bear the total cost of national taxation, of which imported goods and services are exempted.

Above all others, Chartered Accountants recognize that income requires definition by form and timeframe. Income not in the form of money is not a means of exchange for consumption. Therefore, the calculation of consumption is the total of money available to be spent less that not spent, but saved. Savings might require some definition to exclude purchase of non productive assets or transferred from national jurisdiction.

Sustainability must entail regulation as well as taxation to both encourage and discourage activity. The resale of financial instruments divert money from productive use to valueless inflationary asset growth. Together with regulatory control of gambling and speculation, point of sale tax would encourage investment in the real economy. Heavier tax of short term trading would improve the sustainability of corporations through long term planning and investment. Taxation of distributions to non productive stakeholders would encourage the reinvestment of profit to the long term benefit of the corporate entity and society.

In any society, productive private and public wealth benefit each and every member. It is only as the wealth is consumed is wealth diminished. During war a high bracket rate of 96% on income did not reduce productive effort. During this war on pandemic and climate change, 96% tax on high brackets of consumption seems reasonably sustainable. Time to step outside the box.