I was initially disappointed but, on reflection, I thought it was an interesting discussion, not so much because of the quality of the content, but because of what it told me about each of them and how it got me thinking about tax policy.
Dan came across as well informed, well researched, but also quite rigid, and very much an establishment man. To me, LVT feels deeply unimaginative and ideological. Gary, on the other hand, came across as a rigid idealist with a compelling vision, but one that still has some significant practical hurdles to overcome. At times it felt like they were having two different conversations. Dan also has a professional reputation to protect (IMO, his piece on LI was more of that), so I don't think anything particularly groundbreaking was ever likely to be achieved with cameras rolling. That's the conversation I'd really like to be a fly on the wall for.
I also think they both missed a trick. Given the audience the show was likely to attract, I'd have loved to have seen them tackle a much bigger challenge. More of a blue sky meets pragmatic realism style of problem solving. Forget arguing over one tax versus another. Could they actually put their differences aside to design a tax system that slows or puts a dent in the increasing wealth and influence that billionaires have, raises revenue efficiently, balances the burden fairly, is politically achievable, and is stable enough that governments don't keep tinkering with it every few years? That would have made a great two part documentary.
Because ultimately none of it really matters if you don't have a competent government. To me, that's a really big problem. I'd have liked to hear an honest assessment of the gap between what a competent government could look like versus where we are now when it comes to tax, public spending and redistribution. But that also was never going to happen on camera.
We spend huge amounts of time discussing how to change the behaviour of taxpayers, businesses and billionaires through the tax system. But where's the discussion about changing the behaviour of politicians? What incentives are there for governments to spend taxpayers' money efficiently rather than just coming back for more? What do they personally lose if their policies fail? They are generally well paid and largely insulated from the consequences of their own policies. Even worse, many retire on generous DB pensions, while the taxpayer picks up the bill when things go wrong.