Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Economic Council’s Road Map for Tax Reform laid the groundwork for a greater discussion of the consumption tax principle as a basis for taxation in Canada. In his paper, Jack M. Mintz continues this discussion by setting out the case for and against a consumption tax. He argues that the tax treatment of savings is likely to become a more central policy focus for the medium term. More practically, he cites three possible evolutionary changes that could lead to a greater reliance on consumption taxes: a sharp increase in sales tax revenues (sales and excise) to reduce reliance on income taxes; a major expansion of RRSP and pension limits to allow for greater accumulation of wealth to meet future contingencies of various sorts; and the introduction of an exempt-yield tax savings plan (with restrictions on contributed amounts) that would encourage saving by individuals expecting increases in future tax rates. More fundamentally, Mintz observes that the income tax could even be replaced with an expenditure tax system with continuing reliance on the other indirect forms of consumption taxation (sales taxes). Even though Mintz believes that the adoption of a consumption tax would certainly set Canada apart from other countries, including the United States, he holds that the technical issues, including implementation and transition issues, are not insurmountable if promoting future consumption is the key to Canada’s overall development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".