Nobeard Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Dear Planet of Orbis, The citizens of Piratopia are rather distressed as of late. The people are rioting in the streets of New Mogadishu, with demands that Piratopia sever its ties with the alliance of Arrgh! due to its extremely unfair system of taxation. They are claiming that, as a newer nation, our country should not be subject to a flat taxation rate which is regressive upon poorer nations such as ours, and that our alliance should be able to tax larger and more established nations at a higher rate. Personally, I am very against this proposal and believe that the little people need to be contained through regressive taxation as they are in Piratopia itself. I would love for alliances to be able to keep the small folk in check by taxing the bajesus out of them for the sake of the powerful elites such as myself. However, given that there is currently a gun pointed at my head by a group of armed citizens, I pen this letter in the hope that changes will be made to accomodate their desires. I implore you all to consider this, given that my life is literally hanging in the balance. Sincerely, Nobeard Pirate King of Somalia Quote "Damnation seize my soul if I give you quarters, or take any from you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Alliances can already impose a progressive tax system by refunding tax payments to smaller nations. Don't make the game do your alliance leaders' work for them. 3 Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Alliances can already impose a progressive tax system by refunding tax payments to smaller nations. Don't make the game do your alliance leaders' work for them. alliances can already impose a tax system through the trade system. don't make the game do your alliance leaders' work for them. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 The Buccaneer Republic of Ogaden agrees with Piratopia's rampaging mob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The rich are job creators. Taxing the rich is bad for the economy. There should be a flat tax - $50k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Tiered taxes have already been suggested and shot down. Check it out - http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3648-tiered-taxes/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobeard Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 Well, the idea shot down actually argues that the leader should be able to tax individual nations at different rates. I'm saying being able to tax nations higher or lower based upon their nation score would be nice for more even alliance growth, not singling out individual people for "punishment." 1 Quote "Damnation seize my soul if I give you quarters, or take any from you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'm not opposed to this idea but given alliance's ability to focus the bank's funds on smaller or bigger nations, I'm not sure this is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kern Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Well, the idea shot down actually argues that the leader should be able to tax individual nations at different rates. I'm saying being able to tax nations higher or lower based upon their nation score would be nice for more even alliance growth, not singling out individual people for "punishment." ??? you actually say( and therefore acknowledge) that the idea to tax 2 players differently (based on personnal criteria) has been shot down already, yet you ask for possibility to tax 2 players differently (based on score). be it based on personnal criteria or based on player score, it is the same, you dont consider the player income. instead of "punishing" specific player (whch could be the one with really high income), you "punish" all player for the simple reason that they have better score (regardless of their income). futhermore, even though you are the player that initiated that proposal, you dont ask for a progressive taxation but a tiered taxation. (you cant tax "progressively" based on score. you can put different tax rate for people within specific scores, which is a "tiered" taxation and has been shot down) Progressive taxation work based on income. here is a video about progressive taxation. (so i dont have to explain it all here.) https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-finance/taxes-topic/taxes/v/tax-brackets-and-progressive-taxation even though the system we have now is good, it could be ok to have the progressive system (including the "no tax" on the first tax bracket that would help new player.) however, such a system would be complex to implement and could be abused so it's possible that even this system could be shot down. Edited January 27, 2015 by John Kern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobeard Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 I don't know why you're giving me an argument against progressive taxation. I don't care for the arguments for/against it (or for/against regressive taxation, for that matter); I want it implemented in the game to give the game more depth. Congrats on taking your first economics class though. Quote "Damnation seize my soul if I give you quarters, or take any from you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) 1) why do a pirate nation which based on looting and plunder needs taxing on his own people? 2)Taxing the members of alliance individually does good for young nations, but you know how it would be abused when dealing inactives. unless someone set a rule like exemption of/to forbid taxing inactives by turning them into grey, then issue is settled... is what sheepy meant about forbid of taxing individually... SHEEPY please? Edited January 29, 2015 by Arthur James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiliam Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Oh god, more socialists. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphman Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Unless Sheepy Coded the banks in with this in mind, I most likely would have to completely restructure it to do this. Quote Leader of UPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobeard Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 1) why do a pirate nation which based on looting and plunder needs taxing on his own people? 2)Taxing the members of alliance individually does good for young nations, but you know how it would be abused when dealing inactives. unless someone set a rule like exemption of/to forbid taxing inactives by turning them into grey, then issue is settled... is what sheepy meant about forbid of taxing individually... SHEEPY please? 1) Utterly irrelevant to the thread at hand. 2) You misunderstand, as the prior poster did. I am not arguing for the ability to tax individual nations at different rates, but the ability to tax different tiers of nations based upon their nation scores at different rates. For example: Nation A score is 10. Nation B score is 20 Nation C score is 20. Nation D score is 30. I am arguing that it would be beneficial for alliances to have the ability to tax nation D at a higher rate than C and B, and C and B at a higher rate than A. People seem to be misunderstanding by saying we should be able to tax any of them however we like. That isn't what I am arguing (although if I was playing toward "pirate standards" I sure would be). For that matter, I also indicated that we should also allow for regressive taxation, which would be the inverse: A would be taxed higher than B and C, and B and C higher than D. Not many folk would be on board with this, of course, but it could be used by the so-called "elite" alliances that pop up. As to whether or not the nations being taxed are inactive, it is of little consequence considering if this were implemented it would almost always be for progressive purposes, and the nations that are inactive tend to not contribute much to taxation anyway (i.e. are smaller nations). I don't really see why people are so worried about it being "abused;" even if the system was gamed, the potential cost of gaming it (being banned) will almost always outweigh the potential benefit (slightly more revenue). Quote "Damnation seize my soul if I give you quarters, or take any from you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kern Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) it seem you dont understand it or dont want to understand it. (i wasnt against the "progressive taxation" but against your false idea about score based "progressive" taxation) If you make player pay more if they got high score, it would punish player that got great armies as armies generate score and eat your income so you would gain less income because you got an army and would need to pay more taxes because you got an army. the only solution for them to keep a good income and expand would be to reduce their army which would be detrimental for their alliance as they would lose firepower. i stay on my position, progressive taxation work only based on income and what you ask for is a taxation on score. score dont generate income so two player having the same income could be taxed differently because they have score higher or lower than the limit. for example: nation A got 10k income/ turn and a score of 99 nation B got 10k income/turn and a score of 101 player below 100 score pay 5% and the player with score higher than 100 pay 10%. nation A would pay 500 credit of tax nation B would pay 1K credit of tax. therefore it would be counterproductive for nation A to increase it's score as it would lose income and be slowed in it's expansion while the tax he is paying may go to higher score player that have expansion problem due to the same tax system. basing the tax on the players income would be wiser than not looking at the income at all. progressive taxation is about "progressively" increasing tax rate based on income tier. like this, for example: - first 10K income are tax free -next 20k income are taxed at a 5% rate (maximum of 1000 credit for this income tier) - next 20 income are taxed at a 10% rate ( maximum of 2000 credit for this income tier) - ... with that progressive taxation: someone with 15 k net income would be taxed 0% on the first 10k and 5% of the remaining 5k . therefore he would pay 250 credit to the bank. (1.6% of net income) someone with 25 k net income would be taxed 0% on the first 10k and 5% on the remaining 15k. therefore he would pay 750 credit to the bank.(3%of net income) someone with 35 k net income would be taxed 0% on the first 10k , 5% on the next 20k and 10% on the remaining 5k. therefore he would pay 1500 credit to the bank. (4.2% of net income) that way every player are taxed the same way, the amount of tax they pay depend on their own decision (about how they build their nation and the income it generate) and not the alliance leader decision to tax player with discrimination about their score. Edited January 31, 2015 by John Kern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobeard Posted February 1, 2015 Author Share Posted February 1, 2015 I don't necessarily disagree with basing it upon their income either, as I fully understand that income isn't entirely determined by score. My point is that it would help smaller nations grow faster and thus give more potential (and therefore incentive to keep going) to smaller alliances. Not to mention it would make the game mirror real life more correctly. Quote "Damnation seize my soul if I give you quarters, or take any from you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jong-Il Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I agree with this, actually. Not so much as mandatory, but just make it an option for alliances to use it or not. Quote The many forms of proof regarding Kastor's sexuality: - Kastor: I already came out the closet. - MaIone: I'm gay * MaIone is now known as Kastor - Henri: i'm a !@#$it Skable: the !@#$ is a codo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilac Veritas Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Could be complex to implement, but it would be great if we could set tax brackets based upon a nation's profit, and it would be even better if it didn't treat the income as a whole. e.g. 0% tax until $x, 7.5% tax on every dollar over x until y, 15% tax on every dollar over y until z, etc. But that could just be overcomplicating the coding. Quote As you sow, so shall you reap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 This is essentially what our bank does. As the top member of my alliance, I get jack shit little benefit from our Bank, despite paying more in taxes then anyone else. What I do get is a Bank that funnels my tax revenue down to pathetic third world shitholes our newer member nations so they can be useful to the alliance.. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I agree with Grillick. Your alliance leadership can better tailor how the bank spends it money to address bracketing issues. Tax rates themselves are unlikely to have significant impact on growth for nations, unless they are very high, which will stagnate growth, obviously. Its how the Bank spends the money that has growth impact. 1 Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Servo Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Well, the idea shot down actually argues that the leader should be able to tax individual nations at different rates. I'm saying being able to tax nations higher or lower based upon their nation score would be nice for more even alliance growth, not singling out individual people for "punishment." I have a lot of support for this idea. It would also allow a more political aspect to arise within the inner workings of any alliance. Especially if its a democratic alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Servo Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 A system could work I think, maybe not just on an individual basis, but revenue or nation strength. But some function that allows the alliance leaders to decide their own taxation system would be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.