NationStates Jolt Archive

"Do you know how much of my year's work goes to the government?" demanded angry worker Johan Mombota. "Too much! Government spending has gotten way out of control. It needs big cuts in welfare, health, and education. But leave those subsidies to business alone. We need them to create jobs."
[Accept]


"It's not the AMOUNT of tax, it's where the burden falls," says student activist Naki Bush. "And at the moment, far too much of the burden is falling on the poor. People on high incomes still have more money than people on low incomes. I don't think I need to say anything more than that."
[Accept]


"I don't object to the amount of tax, I object to where it's being spent," says social reformer Billy-Bob Longfellow. "I'd like to see everyone have a choice as to where their items go every time they fill out a tax return. Everyone would feel a lot better about opening their wallets if they had a say as to where the money went. I think you'd see a lot more public money going to education and a lot less to business."
[Accept]



Which choice increases welfare the most?

I don't really think any of them increase welfare. Option 1 surely doesn't do anything for welfare.

I would think number 2 would increase welfare the most. [/guess]

I think, option three enhances the amount, of money, that is spend on welfare, education and such.

Option 2. Option 3 would most likely increase your education a lot and welfare a little, I presume.

I think all option 2 does is give the rich a higher tax rate, as indicated by the description "the average tax rate is x%, but much higher for the wealthy." I don't see anything in option 2 that has anything to do with welfare.

In fact, I don't see anything in option 3 that has anything to do with welfare, either. All that does is allow the taxpayers to decide where to allocate their money. They might decide to put it into welfare, or education, or defense, or whatever their little hearts desire. If I had coded this issue, I'd make option 3 increase or reduce things completely at random, but if it's not random than it's probably what the person in that option says: more to education, less to business.

The only option that mentions welfare at all is option 1, which specifically states that welfare, health, and education should be cut, but not business subsidies. Without more evidence, we can't assume the other two options affect welfare at all.

IMO, number 1 will help shrink government, make it more pro-business and possibly make it more corrupt. Society will take a hit but your economy will likely improve.

Number 2 puts an unfair tax burden on the wealthy, makes your government bloated and socialist, anti-business and anti-wealth, and civil rights seems to take a hit.

Number 3 seems to boost civil rights & political freedom, but the economy takes a hit, possibly a big hit. I don't think taxpayers make very good economic decisions where their tax money goes. But maybe this effect is random?

This seems to be an issue that can help change the direction of your country if that's what you want to do, but if you like how things are going, I'd dismiss it. No matter how you answer it, it seems to have big repercussions that aren't easy to control.

IMO, number 1 will help shrink government, make it more pro-business and possibly make it more corrupt. Society will take a hit but your economy will likely improve.

Number 2 puts an unfair tax burden on the wealthy, makes your government bloated and socialist, anti-business and anti-wealth, and civil rights seems to take a hit.

Number 3 seems to boost civil rights & political freedom, but the economy takes a hit, possibly a big hit. I don't think taxpayers make very good economic decisions where their tax money goes. But maybe this effect is random?

This seems to be an issue that can help change the direction of your country if that's what you want to do, but if you like how things are going, I'd dismiss it. No matter how you answer it, it seems to have big repercussions that aren't easy to control.

IMO, number 1 will help shrink government, make it more pro-business and possibly make it more corrupt. Society will take a hit but your economy will likely improve.

Number 2 puts an unfair tax burden on the wealthy, makes your government bloated and socialist, anti-business and anti-wealth, and civil rights seems to take a hit.

Number 3 seems to boost civil rights & political freedom, but the economy takes a hit, possibly a big hit. I don't think taxpayers make very good economic decisions where their tax money goes. But maybe this effect is random?

This seems to be an issue that can help change the direction of your country if that's what you want to do, but if you like how things are going, I'd dismiss it. No matter how you answer it, it seems to have big repercussions that aren't easy to control.

I've got a question myself. How long until my nation receives that issue? My tax rate has increased from 50% to 100%.

Option 3 will drastically cut your economy. Not a problem in our case, as economy is not seen as being of prime importance.