Maya Forstater

To be fair, in the Vienna paper it is spelled out. But caveats are quickly discarded. As Alex notes he does not make it clear in his recent briefing. What is the chance that anyone else will make the distinction if the indicator is made the official UN marker for "illicitness"?

Presumably Alex is not proposing that the UN have a marker for "illicitness" which is simply a calculation of the difference between the status quo and a unitary tax system?

The final sentence then admits the indicator will be at inaccurate. So how big is that and why try to use this artificial benchmark? Is it not like using the policy gap to redefine and remeasure the tax gap.

I have no knowledge of Pearson’s tax affairs but that cannot be right.

(* note -- its close but not quite what the proposed indicator would measure - indicator uses outward sales while Pearson report revenues including intracompany transactions ....but its close enough to get an idea of what the indicator captures in practice here)