Introduction / Context:
The prompt considers consolidating indirect taxes into a single levy. We assess which arguments are strong on logic and relevance, not on historical labels. Modern reforms (like value-added taxation) emphasize simplification and efficiency.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I claims administrative simplification and lower costs.
- II claims business benefits may enlarge the tax base and compliance.
- III argues “no country does this,” an appeal to novelty/authority.
Concept / Approach:
- Simplification and fewer rates/levies generally reduce cascading and compliance costs — supportive of I.
- Better design can improve compliance and economic efficiency — supportive of II.
- Argument from “no one else does this” is logically weak unless it shows why it is harmful.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I is strong: Unification typically reduces administrative friction and duplication.II is strong: If compliance costs fall and input credits flow smoothly, businesses benefit and tax collection can improve.III is weak: Policy strength is not decided by imitation; lack of adoption elsewhere is not proof of unsuitability.
Verification / Alternative check:
Many jurisdictions have consolidated complex indirect taxes into broader-based systems for the reasons in I and II.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options listing I&III or II&III miscredit III. “Only II” understates I’s administrative logic. “None is strong” is false. Therefore, the accurate set (I and II only) corresponds to None of these among the given choices.
Common Pitfalls:
Accepting bandwagon arguments as strong reasoning.
Final Answer:
None of these
Discussion & Comments