NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to urge UN regional delegates to back the proposal of Sarcodina ("socially just tax system") because it is very important in the aspect of people's freedom. If a tax rate is higher than 60% (particularly 100% which many nation have their tax rate) the population of the nation is crippled in all aspects of life not provided by the government. For instance, if every cent goes to the government how will families pay for emergencies, any luxeries etc. Additionally, this creates an intense apathy in the workforce due to lack of profit from their labor... thus many nations no doubt use physical force to "enthuse" the population to work.
I could write more but I was trying to being succinct so I'll stop...

Antonio Protista,
UN Ambassador from the Commonwealth of Sarcodina :D

Wait for it . . .

Wait for it . . . . .

::the thundering sound of approaching UN members, ready to pounce on the poor game mechanics proposal can be heard:::

Yepp. Here they come. Ready to scream and yell about how you can't change the way the game works. Damn shame too.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

For your information, I do not, errr, thunder.

I stomp! :)

That said, yes, indeedy, it is game mechanics, and further more, while my country at last check, had less then 10% tax for all, I would rather say that its a sovereign issue, is tax. We might as well say, "You there, generic government, you must bow down and submit to us, and while your down there, tie up my shoes..."

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Many have stated that a shift in taxes is a game mechanic issue and that it should not be in a proposal (including yet not only the "Socially Just Tax System Proposal" post but other somewhat similar proposals.) But I would suppose if a bill like raising health care benefits or spending money on the enviroment (like the recently past Ballast Water resolution) then the nations in UN taxes would rise...and if not that is pretty unrealistic. I am under the understanding that Game Mechanic would be for calling a change in the system...Yet I believe the power to change taxes of Nations is all ready part of the system. There is another resolution proposal of some complicated system which is obviously too much for any resolution to be put in place. But the SJTS is simple cut the Nations in the UN tax rate down to 60 if it is over...everyone else doesn't deal with it. After the resolution then things happen and obviously taxes will alter but the nonpermeanant (sp?) cut (which is obvious for such a proposal) is the only thing expected by its author and submitter. If I am wrong well then freedom and democracy seem to be at ends with the UN.

With much gusto and pizazz
Antonio Protista
The Commonwealth of Sarcodina

Here is a copy of the proposal for people's easy access
Please Vote In the Next Few Days...to atleast open a discussion about it.

Socially Just Tax Proposal
Seeing that many nations in the UN have taxes of up to 60-100% that have crippled personal thought and invention,
Whereas the people of these nations are unable to pay for anything the government does not supply,
Whereas, work becomes irrelevant due to the lack of money in return thus creating states with workforces of apathetic drones whom must be threatened to work.
And being that the UN should not support total lack of social mobility thus causing things such as censorship, oppression, and life threatening poverty etc…
I call for a resolution for UN’s member to have a tax rate at the MAXIMUM of 60%; therefore, all nations with higher rate* will be changed to a flat 60% tax rate.
For if people have absolutely no ability to decide where any of their monies go there will be no true freedom and no trace of real Democracy and basic decency in the world.

* This is an added note (only in the post not in the proposal) when a tax rate is changed, though written in the proposal with aggression, it is not permeantly changed. Additionally, the proposal calls for a cut upon passage not a halting of states being accepted with a higher rate or any such thing...And if countries really want to raise taxes then they can for if a resolution is passed like clean up the forests, after a nation does clean up the forests then after it is not checked if they remain doing so.

I think you've missed the point. When you issue forth a resolution that says the game can't have a tax rate higher than 60%, that would require someone going in and writing code that somehow reprimands nations who go other 60% in their tax code. Otherwise, these nations could have a 100% tax rate and just laugh at how inneffective your proposal was. This is a game mechanics issue, clear and simple.

But, if we must delve into the realms of real debate, I would contend that a nation with a 100% tax rate doesn't necessarily equal a nation of apathetic drones. Sophista, like many other countries, is full of people who lose half of their income to taxes but work nonetheless. This might have something to do with the fact that they get free health care, free education up to the Ph.D. level, and a pretty amazing public transit system. Your claim that 100% is automatically a communist hell is unfounded, and, in the world of NationStates where people can claim whatever the hell they please about their population, irrelevant.

Your indictment of the "freedom and democracy" business is also flawed. Bear in mind that your proposal to cap rates at 60% is just as rejectable as someone who wants to mandate government ownership and force 100%. The UN isn't favoring any one viewpoint, it hates all tax-code changes with an equal amount of passion. If every nation is denied a freedom, then there can be no bias, thus the playing field is equal and all grounds for complaint are moot.

Please keep that in mind.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Socially Just Tax Proposal
Seeing that many nations in the UN have taxes of up to 60-100% that have crippled personal thought and invention,

Well you say that but I have yet to see any evidence provided for this in the body of the proposal. Is this a case of 'well, it would, wouldn't it?'


Whereas the people of these nations are unable to pay for anything the government does not supply,

This is in some ways true for us because the soviets are both the state and employer. We see nothing wrong in this and let me be clear: the soviets are a grassroots level democratic body. The soviets have the power that they do because they are controlled by society as a whole.


Whereas, work becomes irrelevant due to the lack of money in return thus creating states with workforces of apathetic drones whom must be threatened to work.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Work has ceased to be drudgery, it is now a creative process, 'life's prime want' if you will. To clarify my point, I'm not suggesting that you wrote your proposal with Albion Soviets in mind-- merely that you assume that a nation like mine must be all the things that you define by the very nature of its tax rate. However, you provide no examples of this. We can provide an opposite case.


And being that the UN should not support total lack of social mobility thus causing things such as censorship, oppression, and life threatening poverty etc…

I suppose the UN's business is what the UN makes as its business-so I won't go down the road of arguing what the UN does or doesn't support. We therefore make recourse to issues such as censorship-- we have none. We have no oppressive measures in place exemplified in our Nation review-- our utter lack of prisons, our lack of drug laws, etc. No one, but no one In AS starves and no one is poor. (No one is rich either, that is true and thus 'social mobility' would be a problem if we felt that civilisation demanded it). Our current rate of tax is worrying to us, indeed. We're hardly dancing around the maypole about it-- but to suggest that because of our tax rate that we must be tyrants is patronising and insulting and tries to make out that we must be children that must have our budgets decided for us by Uncle UN. It will not stand.

We might as well say, "You there, generic government, you must bow down and submit to us, and while your down there, tie up my shoes..."


Isn't this pretty much the case already for a dictatorship in the UN? :P

We might as well say, "You there, generic government, you must bow down and submit to us, and while your down there, tie up my shoes..."


Isn't this pretty much the case already for a dictatorship in the UN? :P

Nooo, I am saying that if we start telling governments what to do to the extent of how to run their economies, we may as well ask for them to give us a blow job. Now, I hate having to speak plainly like that, as I was in origin making what may be a purely ethnic Australian joke to do with oral sex and relating to the extent we would then be regulating member nations.

:wink:

I think its okay to make international law for the benefit of the people, for example that which protects fundamental human rights, but not when were telling them how to use every penny, which is just what this sort of economical directing could lead too.

Any more clear now?

- The Rep of Komokom,

(Also, I've nothing against dictatorships, provided they are "benign", which I say in a broad sense, mainly they respect the will of the people and provide for them, as well as allowing the provision of human rights, again, and after all, I usually end up thinking of some of them as democracy with more power to those in, errr, power... but thats just me I guess, :wink: )

Quite apart from its manifold other flaws already detailed by Sophista, Komokom, et al, this proposal ignores the fact that many nations (such as Ecopoeia) emply a progressive scheme for taxation. For example, a 100% tax rate may not be applied to an individual's full income, but the portion above a certain level.

Vlad Taneev
Speaker for the Economy

First off there are governments that are communist and dictatorships that obviously are at odds to our nation's democratic policies and beliefs (and vice versa, many dislike Sarcodina way of running things as well.) But just because there is disagreeance that does not mean that a proposal should not be voted upon.
Secondly, as I tried to state during my first response, the resolution in my mind (having written in it) wants a TAX REDUCTION to 60 percent but that the REDUCTION IS NOT PERMEANANT...knowing a change like that would be a game mechanic issue...The resolution is calling for taxes at this moment amongst UN nations to be at a maxium of 60% and all nations above being reduced to 60% flat rate.

Henry Protista
UN Ambassador from Sarcodina

SARCODINA: But just because there is disagreeance that does not mean that a proposal should not be voted upon.

Absolutely. However, the representatives posting here are, for the most part, in opposition to your proposal and will vote against it if and when given the opportunity.

Honestly, how do you propose that this temporary tax reduction is enforced?

Vlad Taneev
Speaker for the Economy

Not knowing how taxation is handled by the game mechanics... it is hard to decide on this propposal. Does this proposal require new coding to the game? What is involved in re-setting all nations with a rate higher than 60%?

For all nations in the UN with a rate of 61 percent to 100% will be changed to 60%. This change will happen after a vote hypothetically supports the proposal when it is voted on as a resolution. After the change, the resolution will just serve as a showing of support for reasonable taxes BUT it will not be forced upon any UN nation. A forcement of taxes is a game mechanics issue, but changing a nations taxes is all ready an available part of the game's set up that can be changed and thus not a games mechanic issue in my judgement.

Antonio Protista,
UN Ambassador from The Commonwealth of Sarcodina

For all nations in the UN with a rate of 61 percent to 100% will be changed to 60%. This change will happen after a vote hypothetically supports the proposal when it is voted on as a resolution. After the change, the resolution will just serve as a showing of support for reasonable taxes BUT it will not be forced upon any UN nation. A forcement of taxes is a game mechanics issue, but changing a nations taxes is all ready an available part of the game's set up that can be changed and thus not a games mechanic issue in my judgement.

Antonio Protista,
UN Ambassador from The Commonwealth of Sarcodina

but changing a nations taxes is all ready an available part of the game's set up that can be changed and thus not a games mechanic issue in my judgement.

Do you know this for a fact or is it simply wishful thinking? Please be more specific.

My belief is that the ideas you use on issues and prior to the game and also UN resolutions effect your political freedoms, civil rights, and economy. On top of this, I have seen Sarcodina's taxes flucate without any real reasoning other certains decisions (including that ballast water resolution.) The only way this could happen is if taxes can be altered by decisions of your nation and the UN.
That was a little hard to follow but I hope you get my thinking...

written by Chemoatic Wilder
Chief Economist and Head Taxonmist

POSTED BY: Antonio Protista, UN Ambassador to the Commonwealth of Sarcodina

The Holy Empire of Gethamane cannot support this proposal. Our entire society depends on the services that the government provides for the citizens, and a 39% reduction in our income tax rate would give the choice of either A) Nearly crippling several government-funded programs, or B) Completely removing certain services by the government.

When our tax rate was below 50%, citizens were given the option to choose where their Souls (our currency) went when they paid their taxes. Slowly, our tax rate increased as citizens demanded more services and protections. Now, our citizens own very little, and Gethamane provides everything they need, and most everything they want. As there is nothing to purchase that Gethamane does not provide, our tax rate seems perfectly reasonable.

As for motivation to work, our citizens do it out of religious fervor, as the Church and the State are one and the same. Though I'm certain someone will indicate that it's a "threat" as, if they don't service the Church, they're going to Hell (as it is best expressed in English... We're not a Christian variant).

Regarding the "total lack of social mobility" we have a functioning Church Heirarchy which has nothing to do with economic standing. Social standing is almost entirely based upon service to the Church, granting our citizens the same social mobility as if we were a capitalist society with easy access to money.

To the Holy Empire of Gethamane, it is obvious that this proposal is designed to damage certain government models... namely, our own. Though other government models would suffer at its hands, as well. Our understanding of Communism leads us to believe that Communist states would suffer, as well as any Government model which prohibits private ownership of property.

[quote="Gethamane"When our tax rate was below 50%, citizens were given the option to choose where their Souls (our currency) went when they paid their taxes. Slowly, our tax rate increased as citizens demanded more services and protections. Now, our citizens own very little, and Gethamane provides everything they need, and most everything they want. As there is nothing to purchase that Gethamane does not provide, our tax rate seems perfectly reasonable.

As for motivation to work, our citizens do it out of religious fervor, as the Church and the State are one and the same. [/quote]

I'd like to add my nation's voice to the position of Gethamane.

Though in the Confederation of Mikitivity there is a complete separation between church in state (mirrored by the fact that most members of the Confederation are atheists or agnostic), the basic idea that citizens are unhappy without money is fundamentally wrong.

You can look at completely secular states like my own or to the opposite end of the spectrum at theocracies or other nations in which religion is in fact a defining characteristic of that society and see that our citizens are equally happy.

In fact, I would think that most socially minded governments would be offended by the idea that governments are unwilling or unprepared to help its own people. I certainly know that my country's belief in upholding civil rights is an expensive practice, but to reduce our nation's tax rate would cut at the very core of our social values.

I dare ask, why stop at dictating a tax rate? Why not tell us what times of the year people can have sex (because in doing so, you could reduce social services by reducing the number of births "out of season")? Obviously this is a silly idea, but so too is forcing a culture to place the same value on materialism as others might believe in.

10kMichael

On top of this, I have seen Sarcodina's taxes flucate without any real reasoning other certains decisions (including that ballast water resolution.) The only way this could happen is if taxes can be altered by decisions of your nation and the UN.


OOC: While you are right, I maintain that what you are seeing is also in part a problem of game mechanics. The game didn't have a shipping industry, so the ballast water resolution impacted all industry. That wouldn't be the case in the real world. Furthermore, environmental resoultions in the real world *can* stimulate economies, but in this game the level of impact isn't a factor. So you are right, the ballast water resolution would have zapped everybody's tax rates and/or their economies. Sadly I think this is why some people were so opposed to the resolution. My suggestion is that every time after you see a tax hike or economic hit, just post a silly and simple resolution to remove trade barriers on a specific industry. Heck, just keep beating the poor woodchipping industry and maybe you can use game mechanics to undo problems with the game mechanics.