NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolved: Parliament should debate a proposal concerning whether income tax should be graduated (progressive). Rates would be set at a later date if this proposal was approved.

Yea - MP

go income redistribution, go!

This thread is better than the other one!

Im thinking maybe a 90 percent tax for those who make over a million dollars a year :D

We do not accept that there are just these two options. We would prefer there to be no income tax, using a fair sales tax for now. Others, such as the UDCP I am sure would argue that as they want to do away with money, there can be no taxation.

Additionally we do need to establish some basic financial details, such as whether we have money, if so, of what type. Who can issue it, and how it is valued. Do we have a central bank, if so who controls it? Tax can only be meaningful with an economic infrastructure in place.

I personally consider that we should have money. Life without it is just too complex and the abolition of money will do nothing to remove the basic acquisitive nature of people. I also believe that we should have a backed currency rather than a fiat currency. I prefer my money to have some value over and above the promise of a group of politicians. I also believe that there should be a legal tender. i.e. a currency that everyone is legally obliged to accept. This should not however be a monopoly. Banks can issue their own currency if they wish, just these currencies are not of obligatory acceptance. They will be optional.

I prefer an independent central bank, but one that has to compete for the position. Any bank may attempt to become the central bank, by tendering for this position to the government. (Fun huh) Just some ideas that are personal and not necessarily the NSCL party line.

On taxation though, our official line is:

Taxation
The government shall apply a flat sales tax, with movement towards self-sufficiency.

a) Essential goods shall not be taxed. These include, but are not limited to: uncooked food, water, energy, residential housing, education, basic clothing, books, communications. Any further claims for tax free status shall be considered by the government.


So we can not accept the proposal as presented.

Yea - MP

go income redistribution, go!

How, with no money?

If there is an exemption for incomes below a certain level so that the poor do not have to pay the income tax, then I'm a supporter of a flat tax.

BTW, Russia actually has a flat tax on personal income.

So we can not accept the proposal as presented.
The alternative was set up with you in mind; I'm willing to compromise on what a nay vote means if it means that this issue will get at the very least debated.

The alternative was set up with you in mind; I'm willing to compromise on what a nay vote means if it means that this issue will get at the very least debated.

A nay vote, in the debate, should simply mean that the proposed law is not accepted. We can not set up a binary choice between multiple options. What we could do, is to set up multiple simultaneous proposals, and the one that gets the most yea votes is accepted. Another option is to use a multiple elimination system, whereby a yea vote eliminates some tax proposal from the options.

As it stands, as flat income tax is not the only alternative to progressive taxation, the nay vote can not default to that.

(In real life, we have a government that proposes a law, and the house approves or disapproves the law. What we have here are multiple parties that can propose laws, and a parliament that can approve or disapprove these. The difference is that we have no existing state that acts as the default, and this is causing us problems. However as we do not actually have to pay the soldiers, or fund the schools, we could simply ignore that unrealistic aspect and vote yea or nay for progressive tax.)

We, or at least I, would be happy to debate progressive taxation.

The proposal is unclearly worded and, in the not so humble opinion of a non-MP, should not go to the Parliament. Kill it!!!!111

( :p )

A nay vote, in the debate, should simply mean that the proposed law is not accepted. We can not set up a binary choice between multiple options. What we could do, is to set up multiple simultaneous proposals, and the one that gets the most yea votes is accepted. Another option is to use a multiple elimination system, whereby a yea vote eliminates some tax proposal from the options.

As it stands, as flat income tax is not the only alternative to progressive taxation, the nay vote can not default to that.

(In real life, we have a government that proposes a law, and the house approves or disapproves the law. What we have here are multiple parties that can propose laws, and a parliament that can approve or disapprove these. The difference is that we have no existing state that acts as the default, and this is causing us problems. However as we do not actually have to pay the soldiers, or fund the schools, we could simply ignore that unrealistic aspect and vote yea or nay for progressive tax.)

We, or at least I, would be happy to debate progressive taxation.

OK, agreed. Initial post will be edited.

OK, agreed. Initial post will be edited.

It now has my support as an idea to be fleshed out and debated. (I still oppose progressive tax, but I would like to see a debate on the issue.)

How, with no money?

A proposal for the abolition of money may be proposed at a later date. In the meantime, while there is still money, I feel it necessary to insure that it is fairly distributed to guarentee necessary and adequate social services, and a decent income for all. Having tax money put into the community where it will benefit all is preferable to having it be amassed sensessly by a small number of people who have no need nor use for it.

In any case, we are, at present, voting to decide whether this should be brought before Parliament, and as such I vote in favour.

Of course income tax should be debated. This is my party’s stance on the issue:

1. The government will maintain a ten percent income tax on individuals with the following stipulations.
A. Individuals with an annual income of less than $12,000 will not be taxed.
B. No private individual may be taxed more than $1,000,000 annually.
C. The government will not extract any other funds from citizens or corporations by way of sales taxes, property taxes, tolls, or hidden consumer fees..

This is clearly one of the fundamental questions. Afterall, many parties (if not most) have been founded with a clear-cut economic agenda.
Yea - and I'm looking forward to an epic debate.

Bumpish.

No income tax period.

Wealth redistribution is theft. There is no possible way that anyone can deny that.

Wealth redistribution is theft. There is no possible way that anyone can deny that.
You better come up with better arguments than that once the debate starts...

You better come up with better arguments than that once the debate starts...

I can provide adequate reasons why theft is unjustifiable. I doubt that anyone can adequately defend theft without relying on emotional or subjective moral arguments.

Unless of course you wish to say that wealth redistribution is not theft, which is just ridiculous.

-snip-
Not here, not now. There'll be time enough later.
Oh, and guess what: I can defend wealth redistribution just with numbers and economic theory...no theft involved.
:D

Not here, not now. There'll be time enough later.
Oh, and guess what: I can defend wealth redistribution just with numbers and economic theory...no theft involved.
:D

We will see when we get there with the numbers and economic theory, but it still doesn't matter, you will have to justify theft as an ethical government policy.

Well, quorum reached! Nine Members of Parliament have voted in favour of this proposal being brought up for Parliamentary discussion.

May I ask, out of curiosity, why the Rt. Hon. Members Vittos Ordination and Melkor Unchained feel that the issue of taxation is not worthy of Parliament's attention?

I can provide adequate reasons why theft is unjustifiable. I doubt that anyone can adequately defend theft without relying on emotional or subjective moral arguments.

Unless of course you wish to say that wealth redistribution is not theft, which is just ridiculous.
There are so many counter-arguments against that, that I don't even know where to begin.

1. Even assuming that wealth redistribution is theft, it makes perfect sense, and it is perfectly justified in ethical terms, when you apply the principles of Utilitarianism: Happiness is good and suffering is bad. Therefore, things that cause happiness are good and things that cause suffering are bad. Using purely economic arguments, we can show that wealth redistribution improves the lives of very large numbers of people, at a very small cost to a very small number of other people (the rich). Therefore it is good.

2. But wealth redistribution isn't theft, because the rich haven't earned their wealth. They have obtained it by exploiting the working class. Most (not all, but most) of the wealth of the rich does not rightfully belong to them in the first place. So it should be confiscated.

Oh, and in case you're wondering how exploitation works, here's a short explanation:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. Profit comes from the difference between what the worker rightfully earns and the salary he gets. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

3. By the way, property is theft. How is property created? By working to change previously-existing property in some way. Eventually, if we trace back the source of any object, we come to natural resources and the work that was used to transform those natural resources into that object.

Now, we can all agree that a person is entitled to "own" his work, but what about natural resources? Natural resources come from land. Thus, property over natural resources comes down to property over land. And if we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.

I'm about to post the actual proposal...link coming shortly.

I'm about to post the actual proposal...link coming shortly.

When you do, I'll forward it to Eutrusca (and to TInk, just in case she still checks her TGs occasionally even if she no longer visits the fora).

Im thinking maybe a 90 percent tax for those who make over a million dollars a year :D
Why stop there? Britain went to 99% in 1977!

Also, I think you mean the you will tax incomes over $1,000,000 notpeople. For their income which is under $1 million is taxed at a lower rate.

Here's the link. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431145)

No income tax period.

Wealth redistribution is theft. There is no possible way that anyone can deny that.
Government is violence. Is that unjustified? If wealth distribution is theft, then the alternative is murder.

We will see when we get there with the numbers and economic theory, but it still doesn't matter, you will have to justify theft as an ethical government policy.
And you'll have to justify your policy, which is murder on the poor.

May I ask, out of curiosity, why the Rt. Hon. Members Vittos Ordination and Melkor Unchained feel that the issue of taxation is not worthy of Parliament's attention?

I oppose an income tax altogether. This proposal worded in a way that assumes an income tax. We should get our priorities straight and discuss the nature of the tax before getting into the actual levels of taxation.