NationStates Jolt Archive

SF101 Greater Pacific Nations subscription form/application for citizenship.

Congratulations on reaching adulthood/naturalisation in the GPN. Please select your subscription scheme from the options outlined below:

1) Premium subscription. Subscribers pay an indexed income tax no higher than 49% and no lower than 20% (according to your income bracket), and must follow the law or face consequent punishment when apprehended. In return, subscribers recieve full and free access to all government services including; protection by the law, healthcare, emergency services, roads, drainage, social security, and public education.

2) Standard subscription. Subscribers pay an indexed income tax no higher than 20% and no lower than 5%(according to your income bracket), and must follow the law or face consequent punishment when apprehended. In return, subscribers recieve full and free access to government services including; protection by the law, emergency services, roads, and drainage. All other government services may be accessed on a user-pays scheme.

3) Budget subscription. Subscribers pay an indexed income tax of 5%, and must follow the law or face consequent punishment when apprehended. In return, subscribers recieve full and free access to government services including; protection by the law. All other government services may be accessed on a user-pays scheme.

4) No subscription. Indiduals selecting this option pay no tax, and are provided no government services for free. Warning selecting this option exempts you from the protection of the law, and the need to follow it. All government services may be accessed on a user-pays scheme.

(_) Please check this box if you would like to submit an application for citizenship in tandem with this form. Among other benefits, citizenship provides you with the right to vote, and diplomatic aid when overseas. This option is free of charge should you wish to take it, and will not influence any of your subscriptions.

Thank you, and welcome to the community of GPN.

Would you subscribe? If not, why not? If so, which option would you pick? Do you like my structure? This is actually how I think things should be done.

Yea I would subscribe.

Hehehe!

What other taxes are there in GPN?

Yea I would subscribe.
What do you think of the system? Which option did you pick and why?

I went with Option 4, with citizenship. Hells yeah, no rules and right to vote.

What do you think of the system? Which option did you pick and why?

I like Option 1, because I have full access to the gov. and service, and yet I have the option of only paying 20%, which is what I will pay lol. However, I probably won't use most of the government service, so I dunno. Hmmm.

What are the possibilities of upgrading or downgrading? Or are subscriptions permenant?

4) No subscription. Indiduals selecting this option pay no tax, and are provided no government services for free. Warning selecting this option exempts you from the protection of the law, and the need to follow it. All government services may be accessed on a user-pays scheme.

So the "no subscription" option allows for unrestrained "law breaking"? Even against subscribers?

So the "no subscription" option allows for unrestrained "law breaking"? Even against subscribers?

Basically, except that people are allowed to do anything they want against you, under any situation.

What other taxes are there in GPN? Ok, well I'm not as set on the complex tax theory as I am in the theory of optional taxes. that being said, this is why I am beta testing the idea. As such, the complexities of tax are subject to relevant modifications if required. So, the tax would be a tiered income tax. Everyone, subscriber or not would pay a GST of 10% (justified in that you wouldn't be able to buy these things if the country didn't exist). Perhaps you may notice that I have just modelled the tax system on that of Australia. There would be no import tarrifs, inheritance tax, or capital gains tax. Let me know if I've missed something major.

I would reject it for it's inate unfairness. The reason we have a progressive tax system is that while everyone needs roads, some can't afford to pay the even tax for those roads. Others can easily afford it, without even suffering significant loss of money.

20 percent of the income of a $30,000 a year family is 6,000 dollars, which could be the difference between owning a car or not.

20 percent of the income of a $3,000,000 a year family is 600,000 dollars, which still would not prevent them from having all the necessities and luxurys they need.

This system would place the poor in a situation where they did not have access to the services they needed, while the rich did.

I like Option 1, because I have full access to the gov. and service, and yet I have the option of only paying 20%, which is what I will pay lol. However, I probably won't use most of the government service, so I dunno. Hmmm.
Sorry, I didn't specify, but the rate would not be chosen by you, but rather regulated to your income. If you have a high income you would pay 49%, but if you had a low income you would only pay 20%.

Basically, except that people are allowed to do anything they want against you, under any situation.


That should be specified under the other subscriptions. As it stands now, other subscribers are constrained by the law.

What are the possibilities of upgrading or downgrading? Or are subscriptions permenant?



So the "no subscription" option allows for unrestrained "law breaking"? Even against subscribers?

The subscriptions would be 10 year contracts. Hmm, not unrestrained. This is where private law enforcement would flourish. The governemnt police, and private security and law enforcement, and ordinary people could kill these people in self defence without prosecution.

That should be specified under the other subscriptions. As it stands now, other subscribers are constrained by the law.

It says under option 4 that "this option exempts you from the protection of the law".

Sorry, I didn't specify, but the rate would not be chosen by you, but rather regulated to your income. If you have a high income you would pay 49%, but if you had a low income you would only pay 20%.

Well that sucks, I want to change my vote then.

I would reject it for it's inate unfairness. The reason we have a progressive tax system is that while everyone needs roads, some can't afford to pay the even tax for those roads. Others can easily afford it, without even suffering significant loss of money.

20 percent of the income of a $30,000 a year family is 6,000 dollars, which could be the difference between owning a car or not.

20 percent of the income of a $3,000,000 a year family is 600,000 dollars, which still would not prevent them from having all the necessities and luxurys they need.

This system would place the poor in a situation where they did not have access to the services they needed, while the rich did.
Yeah, when I said no higher than, no lower than, I meant that the tax would be regulated to your income bracket.

Yeah, when I said no higher than, no lower than, I meant that the tax would be regulated to your income bracket.

Yeah, but a $30,000 a year family would be unable to purchase Option One, while a family that made more would have a choice.

That should be specified under the other subscriptions. As it stands now, other subscribers are constrained by the law.
I don't get what you mean, but think of it this way. People who don't subscribe have no real protection or access to the law (beyond basic human rights). As such, you could kill them in self defence without prosecution. Likewise, you could beat the shit out of them and not get sued or charged (Though I wouldn't recommend it, as they could just kill you).

Yeah, but a $30,000 a year family would be unable to purchase Option One, while a family that made more would have a choice.
Bullshit, 20% is the lowest bracket in Australia and $30,000 families can afford it. If they can't afford other things, they can access extensive social security thanks to their subscription level.

Bullshit, 20% is the lowest bracket in Australia and $30,000 families can afford it. If they can't afford other things, they can access extensive social security thanks to their subscription level.

Bullshit nothing. If you're paying them back the money you taxed them, why the hell are you bothering to tax them in the first place? Just leave the money with them.

Bullshit nothing. If you're paying them back the money you taxed them, why the hell are you bothering to tax them in the first place? Just leave the money with them.

:confused: Why don't you just go with one of the less costly options?

Bullshit nothing. If you're paying them back the money you taxed them, why the hell are you bothering to tax them in the first place? Just leave the money with them.
I said if, like if they had 6 kids and needed childcare. Most people don't need it. I get an income less than that (I'm studying) and I pay 20%. Big deal. If I need government support i'll ask for it. IF I did ask, I'd be eligible for 200% what I currently earn. Better than being given a 20% tax break, eh?

I don't get what you mean, but think of it this way. People who don't subscribe have no real protection or access to the law (beyond basic human rights). As such, you could kill them in self defence without prosecution. Likewise, you could beat the shit out of them and not get sued or charged (Though I wouldn't recommend it, as they could just kill you).

What I'm saying is you have a potential contradiction or loophole if you don't explitily exempt subscribers from the law in the case of non-subscribers.

:confused: Why don't you just go with one of the less costly options?

Because they, more than those with the money to afford them, need the extra services.

What I'm saying is you have a potential contradiction or loophole if you don't explitily exempt subscribers from the law in the case of non-subscribers.
The law only incorporates those who subscribe to it. As such, those who subscribe can do anything short of breaching the human rights of non-subscribers. Conversely, non-subscribers can do anything they please to subscribers without fear of retribution by the government. However, I would imagine private law enforcement would rise in this situation to protect subscribers from non-subscribers and vice-versa.

Because they, more than those with the money to afford them, need the extra services.
Exactly, so they should go for the premium subscription and pay a progressive tax based on their income.

If I had no income whatsoever Id go for the max subscription with citizenship.
Even 100% of 0 is 0.

If I had no income whatsoever Id go for the max subscription with citizenship.
Even 100% of 0 is 0.
Coll. Then you'd be a dole-bludger, not much different to the ones we have now, in that you'd eventually be forced off the dole back into the labour force unless you could come up with a decent reason that we should keep paying you indefinitely (like a disability). Personally i would make a few changes to the current system. Firstly I would make the dole a little more generous, but reduce it's tenure. It would gradually drop in increments of 10 or 20% over the period of a year or two until you were getting very little. If at any point the government is successful in finding you paid private employment, and you turn it down for reasons of preference, you will automatically dropped to a lower increment. If you were on the lowest increment, or you had rejected 3 rasonable job offers provided by the government, you would lose the dole (but still be able to take the final job offer).

Coll. Then you'd be a dole-bludger, not much different to the ones we have now, in that you'd eventually be forced off the dole back into the labour force unless you could come up with a decent reason that we should keep paying you indefinitely (like a disability). Personally i would make a few changes to the current system. Firstly I would make the dole a little more generous, but reduce it's tenure. It would gradually drop in increments of 10 or 20% over the period of a year or two until you were getting very little. If at any point the government is successful in finding you paid private employment, and you turn it down for reasons of preference, you will automatically dropped to a lower increment. If you were on the lowest increment, or you had rejected 3 rasonable job offers provided by the government, you would lose the dole (but still be able to take the final job offer).

Thats false poll advertising. But I'll take that dole thank you very much until I get a more generous offer elsewhere.

The law only incorporates those who subscribe to it. As such, those who subscribe can do anything short of breaching the human rights of non-subscribers. Conversely, non-subscribers can do anything they please to subscribers without fear of retribution by the government. However, I would imagine private law enforcement would rise in this situation to protect subscribers from non-subscribers and vice-versa.

This is implicit in your set up, but not explicit, and that's bascically what I'm suggesting.

The problem here is that you have it set that subscribers are always restrained by the law.

I can still see situations in which this becomes a loophole or contradiction - carefully (or carelessly) worded statute could set up situations in which subscribers might not be permitted to take action against non-subscribers even though they are not supposed to be protectred by the law.

That's why I suggested making it explicit that subscribers are not bound by the law in regards to non-subscribers.

And I just noted that this seems to have been kicked to gameplay, of all places for some weird reason....

Citizenship, Option 1.

Oh, and just to help prevent duplication, here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498441) the moderation thread asking why this was moved, if you want to put in your 2 cents GPN or anyone else. ;)

Someone thought it was a regional thing... :confused: