NationStates

I wouldn't be surprised if this has been brought up elsewhere.

Some of the things I absolutely deplore about the large majority of issues I receive:
1) ALL of the choices result in varying increases of the base tax rate.
2) Choices that essentially retain the status quo -- i.e., choosing it maintains current Administrative policy -- results in an increase in the base tax rate.
3) Choices that expand the tax base by bringing in additional taxpayers -- e.g., taxing the formerly exempt Church, or closing loopholes exploited by the wealthy -- increases EVERYBODY'S base tax rate.
4) An absence of an option to formally endorse the status quo of the situation. [NOT the same as dismissing the issue, which is essentially ducking the issue.]

Because of a mix of any number of these factors results in me dismissing nearly 7 out of 10 issues that get sent my way. Possibly 8 out of 10.

I'd say it's probably a good thing that your government doesn't decide every single issue that comes its way. Micromanagement requires more government.

Erastide wrote:I'd say it's probably a good thing that your government doesn't decide every single issue that comes its way. Micromanagement requires more government.

Yeah, but dismissing 7 out of 10? Heck there is only 50 or so (not nearly that many, actually) issues that get offered up. I find myself only really dealing with the same <10 issues. The rest are a waste of my time (unless I was particularly self-destructive).

Marcuslandia wrote:3) Choices that expand the tax base by bringing in additional taxpayers -- e.g., taxing the formerly exempt Church, or closing loopholes exploited by the wealthy -- increases EVERYBODY'S base tax rate.

Of course the average tax rate will go up if you force another group to pay more, since more taxes are now being collected. Having one group taxed more will always factor into a nation's average tax rate, since it's not part of an isolated tax system.

Palpatinist Coruscant wrote:

Marcuslandia wrote:3) Choices that expand the tax base by bringing in additional taxpayers -- e.g., taxing the formerly exempt Church, or closing loopholes exploited by the wealthy -- increases EVERYBODY'S base tax rate.

Of course the average tax rate will go up if you force another group to pay more, since more taxes are now being collected. Having one group taxed more will always factor into a nation's average tax rate, since it's not part of an isolated tax system.

But not only is the total of collected taxes increasing (the numerator), the number of taxpayers (the denominator) is also increasing.

Example: 90 people pay $900. The cost per is $10. Ten more people are added which add another $100. You have 100 people paying $1000, for a cost per of $10. No per capita change.

There would undoubtedly be a fluctuation, and that actually could go in either direction, but generally the net per capita change would be quite small. Taking the tax the Church issue, I don't care how much you get out of all of those thousands of churches, it is NOT going to raise EVERYBODY's taxes by 2%. (Or was it 4%? Can't remember.)

Marcuslandia wrote:

Erastide wrote:I'd say it's probably a good thing that your government doesn't decide every single issue that comes its way. Micromanagement requires more government.

Yeah, but dismissing 7 out of 10? Heck there is only 50 or so (not nearly that many, actually) issues that get offered up. I find myself only really dealing with the same <10 issues. The rest are a waste of my time (unless I was particularly self-destructive).

This is why when I first started out, I very shortly created a puppet nation to choose all the wacky answers to issues... that was my fun nation, and my main was supposed to be serious - which meant that it mostly just sat there and became boring.

After a while, I decided it was more fun to just take the Issues as they came, dismiss the ones I had found out I didn't like from playing with my other puppets, and choose whichever answer would tweak my stats appropriately with the ones I didn't really care about.

Marcuslandia wrote:

Erastide wrote:I'd say it's probably a good thing that your government doesn't decide every single issue that comes its way. Micromanagement requires more government.

Yeah, but dismissing 7 out of 10? Heck there is only 50 or so (not nearly that many, actually) issues that get offered up. I find myself only really dealing with the same <10 issues. The rest are a waste of my time (unless I was particularly self-destructive).

Aren't there quite a few more than 50 issues?

I understand that tax increasing issues are a problem, but they are mainly there to show what your nat'l priorities are. If you choose a pro-education stance, your taxes will go up, as will your percent of taxation to education. If you are sick of education, increase other taxed areas, and then, when budget time rolls around, decrease taxes on the whole, taxes decrease, but your priorities are largeyl unchanged.

Marcuslandia wrote:

Palpatinist Coruscant wrote:

Marcuslandia wrote:3) Choices that expand the tax base by bringing in additional taxpayers -- e.g., taxing the formerly exempt Church, or closing loopholes exploited by the wealthy -- increases EVERYBODY'S base tax rate.

Of course the average tax rate will go up if you force another group to pay more, since more taxes are now being collected. Having one group taxed more will always factor into a nation's average tax rate, since it's not part of an isolated tax system.

But not only is the total of collected taxes increasing (the numerator), the number of taxpayers (the denominator) is also increasing.

Example: 90 people pay $900. The cost per is $10. Ten more people are added which add another $100. You have 100 people paying $1000, for a cost per of $10. No per capita change.

There would undoubtedly be a fluctuation, and that actually could go in either direction, but generally the net per capita change would be quite small. Taking the tax the Church issue, I don't care how much you get out of all of those thousands of churches, it is NOT going to raise EVERYBODY's taxes by 2%. (Or was it 4%? Can't remember.)

I think his point is that the people not paying taxes is included in the tax rate.

So in your example it would be: 100 people in nation, 10 people are exempt so pay $0, 90 people aren't exempt and pay $10 each so that = $900 total, so the tax rate is 9 per capita ($900/100 people). But if you unexempt those 10 then 100 people pay taxes and it's $1000 total, so 10 per capita ($1000/100 people.)

It depends on how you would calculate the "average" tax rate. Your way would be average of all tax payers, mine would be average of all citizens.

I remember the day my Economy "Imploded". 100% tax rate. Very nearly quit the game because it seemed no matter which choices you made, the tax rate went up. But then I decided to implement a different strategy. Tax breaks by eliminating Social programs left in write. Don't invest in _anything_ that costs tax dollars. Don't do _anything_ that brings in more tax dollars. (See previous posts.) Dismiss any issue that has tax increases on ALL of the choices. (A hefty percentage of the issues.) "Budget time!" is a great one because if you choose to unfund Social programs and let the citizens instead donate to charity, it drops the tax rate a whopping 6%. It took about 3 months at 2 issues a day, but I rolled taxes all the way back to 6%. (The Economy never got better than "Reasonable" however.)

And the country now would make Stalin's USSR look angelic in comparison.

Want to keep taxes down to a reasonable level? Simply make choices on the basis of which one would be the _worst_ for your citizens. Guaranteed to work. The people hate it here, but at least the government isn't dipping into their wallets every time they turn around.

The tax rate is virtually irrelevant to the state of the economy. Mine is 66%, yet my economy is a powerhouse.

I'm not sure exactly how the economy is calculated, but it's nowhere near as simplistic as "taxes go up, GDP goes down".

You must do a fair number of pro-Biz/who cares about the Environment when we're talking Economic benefit? issue choices.

Nope.

Honestly I'm not sure what I did, but there was a world survey a while back (at the moment it's about the Largest Basket Weaving Sector), and apparently I'm an ardent supporter of corporate welfare. To be honest, it just seems like my economy grows over time, proportional to the number of people. I'm sure that's not it either though. =/

We've got about the same population size, but my Economy is only at "Good". OTOH, my tax rate is 0% and has been few the last several weeks. I think the difference is the corporate welfare. Maybe I'll start to ease up on those money-grubbers and see what happens.

for issue(s) I don't want to deal with, I go ahead and dismiss them. I don't really like it when certain nation(s)allow their citizens to be nude in public, shouldn't they be busted for indecent exposure?

Minions Stadium wrote:for issue(s) I don't want to deal with, I go ahead and dismiss them. I don't really like it when certain nation(s)allow their citizens to be nude in public, shouldn't they be busted for indecent exposure?

What is "indecent"? To the person that is naked, it obviously isn't. So it's to the viewers to decide whether or not they want to label what they see as "indecent".

Next it's about laws. For what purposes are laws enacted? To regiment the Will of the Community. You can do this; you can't do that; you _will_ do this other thing. Who in the community gets to decide what will be laws? If it's a solid dictatorship, then it's what _he_ feels is necessary. If it's singular power group, like a military junta, laws are decided by what they want. If it is a true democracy, then laws are decided by EVERYBODY by referendum. In a representative democracy, then it's usually a case of the representatives deciding, "What does it take to get me re-elected?" PLUS who the most persuasive lobbyists are.

For anti-nudity laws to be passed in a representative democracy, it requires the pressure of soooooo many people that the politicians worry about re-election. If the anti-nudity crowd are an obvious minority while nudist wannabes are the clear majority, you'll have to get used to naked people roaming the streets.

Marcuslandia wrote:

Palpatinist Coruscant wrote:

Marcuslandia wrote:3) Choices that expand the tax base by bringing in additional taxpayers -- e.g., taxing the formerly exempt Church, or closing loopholes exploited by the wealthy -- increases EVERYBODY'S base tax rate.

Of course the average tax rate will go up if you force another group to pay more, since more taxes are now being collected. Having one group taxed more will always factor into a nation's average tax rate, since it's not part of an isolated tax system.

But not only is the total of collected taxes increasing (the numerator), the number of taxpayers (the denominator) is also increasing.

Example: 90 people pay $900. The cost per is $10. Ten more people are added which add another $100. You have 100 people paying $1000, for a cost per of $10. No per capita change.

There would undoubtedly be a fluctuation, and that actually could go in either direction, but generally the net per capita change would be quite small. Taking the tax the Church issue, I don't care how much you get out of all of those thousands of churches, it is NOT going to raise EVERYBODY's taxes by 2%. (Or was it 4%? Can't remember.)

I think the game simply assumes that if your government is the sort that would extend taxation in one way then it's the sort that would also extend taxation in other ways -- without you getting separate issues to answer about those -- too...
... which does make some sense.