Treasury paper on tax effectiveness

After reading the first few pages and seeing all the assumptions, utility maximizing static representative household, Government that runs a balanced budget, everything is in equilibrium, full employment, wages adjust to clear the labour market etc not sure of the value of their conclusions.

It all comes back to the purpose of taxation. MMT framework we are not seeking to raise revenue for Fed Govt
Taxes are for stabilizing the purchasing power of the currency,
To express public policy ensuring equality in wealth and income
To express public policy in subsidizing or penalizing various industries etc.
To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits ie infrastructure

This paper is looking at the efficiencies of various taxes, I imagine that is looking at the costs imposed versus revenue raised, so is tax efficiency a problem in a MMT framework ?

I see the value of an LVT for ensuring equality in wealth and income and for penalizing various industries
eg Developers land banking not sure about pursuing tax reforms for efficiency.

I don't think there is much in that paper to discuss its about efficiency of taxes ie how much revenue you end up with after the effort/cost of collection, from an MMT framework I don't think that's important, since we are not raising taxes for revenue.

Tax reform, that vexed question, you really have to ask what needs reforming and why.
Are they inefficient, is that a problem ? Are taxes progressive/regressive like the GST.
Do taxes and concessions have undesirable outcomes ie Super, CGT and negative gearing.

Stamp duties,conveyancing and other State taxes were supposed to disappear over the years with the advent of the GST, but States have hung on to their revenue.

Do we want to take all taxing away from the states and just use grants, horizontal fiscal equalization, or do we make sure they get rid of all there silly little inefficient taxes and just use an LVT.

Or do we go full Georgist just use a "land" tax and eliminate taxes on labour and corporate income altogether.

Economists since Adam Smith have observed that, unlike other taxes, a public levy on land value does not cause economic inefficiency. A land value tax is often said to have progressive tax effects, in that it is paid primarily by the wealthy (the landowners), and it cannot be passed on to tenants, workers, or users of land. Land value capture would reduce economic inequality, increase wages, remove incentives to misuse real estate, and reduce the vulnerability that economies face from credit and property bubbles

From an economic view "land" can include

extractable resources (minerals and hydrocarbons)
severables (forests and stocks of fish)
extraterrestrial domains (geosynchronous orbits and airway corridor use)
legal privileges tied to location (taxi medallions, billboard and development permits,
or the monopoly of electromagnetic frequencies)
restrictions/taxes on pollution or severance (tradable emission permits and fishing quotas)
Right-of-way (transportation) used by railroads, utilities, and internet service providers
issuance of legal tender (see seigniorage)
privileges that are less location dependent but that still exclude others from natural
opportunities (patents)

Current LNP "tax reform" is just tax cuts to business and high income earners, maybe a little tinkering on super concessions but changes to Capital Gains discounts and Negative gearing look unlikely.
Really not much more than pushing their small Government ideology and by reducing taxes they are trying to ensure constraint on future Governments since nobody wants to increase taxes to fund Govt services.

If it aint broke don't fix it