A tariff is like a consumption tax, where there is "pass-through" of the tariff onto consumers. I would posit, in a situation where everyone gets tariffs, to push consumers to 'buy local', you would likely see "overshifting", or prices rising even by more than the new tariffs,using these as a cover.

WHO doesn't really engage on fiscal policy, but the IMF, World Bank and us at UNDP definitely do, but the strongest voice on this topic is without a doubt the OECD, who has in a sense served as the 'Nixon designed EPA' in creating a body that does the very least to address tax justice.

Changing the role of SDRs is para 54e of the zero draft. The proposal calls for some reforms to SDRs including
- faster issuance mechanism
- faster rechannelling by countries not using them
- better targetting of the allocation to those in need

Arauz & Weisbrot @ceprdc.bsky.social write on this

Furthermore, there seem to be a series of conclusions taken from graphs or data that just don't seem to back these up. For instance, this graph is supposed to show that with high amounts of tax expenditures, you should see tax revenues grow more slowly as GDP increases.Instead I see no relationship.

Then, its main arguments come from the use of DCGEMs in assessing the impact of tax reforms. However these are all for past tax reforms in the region. Why not assess what the impacts of tax reforms, including on tax expenditures, were on ACTUAL outcomes, not ones modelled before the reforms?

Very early on it grants some tax expenditures can be good, such as those for R&D or "employment tax credits aimed at fostering productivity and growth". Any tax expenditure should be judged for its ability to deliver the impact it was designed for, and whether it's worth the revenue foregone. 2/n

Besides the nonsense that the levy would result in less revenue, the industry OVERSHIFTED the tax, further evidenced by the fact that after the government halved the tax increase after a month of implementation, tobacco and alcohol product prices didn't come down, meaning only their profits went up.

When you are too sick to work, or in this case physically unable to work as you are obese, you are no longer part of the labor force. If OZempic makes you thinner, you rejoin the active labor supply, and if you get a job, someone else that would have got that job would now be unemployed.