Thank you for the question.
I will pick up the last point that you made first. I think you're right that there might be some differences in a place like Canada, where there's a lot more bilateral investment with a larger partner, than in Sweden, where it's more of a multilateral, within-Europe situation, but it's not necessarily the case that that makes it harder to think of why a dual income tax would be good. The reason is that in a case like Canada it might even be more likely to be the case that capital flows freely across the border because we're in the NAFTA agreement with the United States, and the more freely capital flows, as Professor Mintz was just saying, the less likely it is that capital income taxes will actually be borne by those who are investing in the country. In other words, what you're going to do when you're taxing capital income is you're just going to decrease the amount of investment in a world where capital flows very freely.
So part of what the dual income tax is trying to do is to recognize that fact, that capital is flowing freely, and to design a tax system that accounts for the fact that by taxing capital income more heavily, we're not actually doing ourselves any favour. For the most part, what we'll be doing is just scaring investment across the border.