NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, here we go. Don't yell at me if it's crap, or something...


<<Can't think of a name>>

People from various classes all around @CountryName@ have rallied in support of lower taxes...

1. "Taxes have gotten far too high! It's bad enough that we have to work all day just to pay for a sandwich, but for the government to take it all? Taxes are far too high, and I won't work unless they are dropped" Said blue-collar labourers, @randomname@. His boss, @randomname@ agreed. "I thought this was a capitalist nation! Lower taxes and let us try to take care of ourselves." When it was mentioned that if taxes were lowered, he would have a 7 figure salary, he refused to say anything more.

(Blurb: The low taxes mean that people are having to almost fend for themselves in @Countryname@)
(Effect: Taxes lower dramatically, civil rights increase a little)

2. "This is madness!" Said @randomname@, your chancellor. "I say stay your course. We provide valuable services to the public. If anything, we should have another tax! Say, on oxygen!"
(Blurb: A tax on oxygen has seen an increase in people purchasing scuba gear)
(Effect: Taxes rise, civil rights decrease)

3. "You know, that got me thinking..." Said @randomname@, the head of the @countryname@ Communist Party. "Why not eliminate private enterprise? The government could manage everything! Sure, we would lose money temporarily, but eventually we would regain it!"
(Blurb: Private Enterprise has disapeared from @countryname@,)
(Effect: Economy falls, Civil rights fall)

<Aww... I feel unloved>

Sorry - I've had this open on my screen for about half an hour while I think about it. I'd like to edit the copy later, if that's ok with you, but, for now, here are my comments:

Option 1 - wouldn't lowering the tax rates also negatively effect stats such as health care, education, and so on (I can't remember the others at the moment)? I'm asking, especially, since the "the low taxes mean that people are having to almost fend for themselves" effect seems to suggest this. Basically, there is a discrepancy between the effect (what you have termed the blurb) and the stats (what you have termed the effect). The effect implies negative results, whereas the stats are actually really positive.

Option 2 - a funny extra stat might be that health increases, due to everyone breathing purer air (especially if the nation has bad pollution). I would also suggest that the economy decreases.

Option 3 - no comment, although I feel that something is missing with regards to the stats (just don't know what).

As a general comment, I also feel that there should be another option, but I can't think what it is supposed to be. I just get this impression of a "hole". Maybe it's just me, though.

Hope this helps.

Communism is stateless, the people not the government own the means of production. A communist option should see civil rights increase a lot and perhaps economy/economic freedom decrease.

Option 2 is a little silly and option 3 should probably be eliminated. Increasing taxation should lower economic NOT personal freedom so civil rights shoud not drop, the same with lowering taxes, economic freedoms increase, civil liberties remain the same (or perhaps decrease as the poorest are denied rights to healthcare/education without taxation.)

<hab>

I'm sure the many people who died in the Soviet Union, or Cuba, would agree with Wolomy on how good communism is for civil rights.

Option 3 stays.

I'll try to put your comments into work, Rondebosch.

<hab>

I'm sure the many people who died in the Soviet Union, or Cuba, would agree with Wolomy on how good communism is for civil rights.

Option 3 stays.

I'll try to put your comments into work, Rondebosch.

Cuba and the Soviet Union were not communist. The Soviet Union described itself as socialist (union of soviet socialist republics) which is the stage before communism. Most people would argue that this was not true either and that a better term would be stalinist or state-capitalist.

Really? So, what's an example of communism then?

Ok...I didn't really want to comment on this because I don't know much about communism, except in the broadest sense, but a quick flip though the Oxford English dictionary provides the following:

communism: n. a theory or system of social organization in which all property is vested in the community and each person contributes and receives according to their [sic] ability and needs; a theory or system of this kind derived from Marxism and established in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere.

socialism: n. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole; (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

I make no judgements with regards to the argument; I have just provided more information.

now thats what i say "crap" :roll: :roll: :roll: