Disclaimer: not gov, never was gov. I like reading these posts just to understand the drama. I am responding to this one because I am genuinely confused at the central argument being given.
In the case of Grumpy, isn't their "more efficient taxation" literally zero taxes. From what I see, the only way they as an alliance generate any revenue is the 20m entrance fee and any war reparations (which I understand is a big no-no in the current meta, so just the entrance fee). It would be pretty difficult for any other alliance to be more efficient than zero taxes.
Frankly I get the idea that Grumpy's economic policy is actually their foreign affairs policy, where they advocate for shorter, more frequent wars, wherein they take very little damage and continue to generate revenue while other alliances get reduced to rubble, both allies and enemies. And this unchecked growth is the reason we are targeting them in this war, the reason we have targeted them in the past and most likely will have to target them again in the future.
Inherently this war is a part of us trying to improve our economic policy in relation to Grumpy (and Guardian too I guess, but you guys seem to be avoiding the drama) by leveling some of their growth and trying to shake their image as untouchable.
Now back to the purpose of my making this post. What is the argument you are trying to make? Should we be putting all of our big players at 0 taxes, should we be inciting conflict between our opponents in order to allow us to war profiteer, should we put a Reagan mask on Justin and adopt trickle-up economics? Or do we keep throwing our nations at GG until the game shuts down in 10 years.