Beta 011: Average Disposable Incomes (New)

[Mushet]

I like it, of course hand in hand it'll be good to fix up the way taxation rate works, but I know that's easier said than done. Still a way to stick it to those nations that let their taxes get ridiculously high and still have allegedly great economies

Many years ago mine were 100% , but I fixed it pretty good.

[Evilcia]

I Quite like how I build my country, and I have no intention to switch how my taxes.

I'm sure how with such a change the black market should be interpreted. its not like my citizen are able to spend anything on the blackmarket. they have no money, they can only trade services, but that is not illegal in itself, except if some of those services are illegals. like Milk and meat.

[Neo Byzantium]

Awesome! I'm sick and tired of countries with 100% tax rates claiming that their citizens have 'great income.'

[Jamilkhuze]

Actually, that's a good point. The game already allows you to have higher taxes for the rich, which means that average disposable income cannot be calculated as simply as average income minus average tax rate.

Simple example: 90% of your citizens earn $1000 and have a 10% tax rate. 10% of your citizens earn $9000 and have a 90% tax rate. Your average income is 90%*$1000+10%*$9000 = $1800. Your average tax rate is 90%*10%+10%*90% = 18%. Your average disposable income, though, is 90%*$900+10%*$900 = $900, which is not the same as $1800*(100%-18%) = $1476.

...It would work if you interpret "average" as the median rather than mean, but it is clear that the current "average income" stats are meant to be means.

Most countries with progressive income tax systems use marginal rates but your general concept still applies. NationStates income tax rates and income equality levels tend to be unrealistically high, but that might just be a reflection on what players would like to see.

[Evilcia]

Just Saying, its not like we can control our taxes rate
If we often choose social programs, Education, Healthcare and government action, over non=action, our taxes sky-rockets.

I can't axe in my social programs, or privatise my business. I'm unable to do that.

[Merconitonitopia]

Just Saying, its not like we can control our taxes rate

incorrect. all basic stats are affected by decisions you make in game.

If we often choose social programs, Education, Healthcare and government action, over non=action, our taxes sky-rockets.

correct. more spending begets more taxation.

I can't axe in my social programs, or privatise my business. I'm unable to do that.

incorrect. there are as many options to decrease spending and privatise as to increase and nationalise.

[Evilcia]

Just Saying, its not like we can control our taxes rate

incorrect. all basic stats are affected by decisions you make in game.

If we often choose social programs, Education, Healthcare and government action, over non=action, our taxes sky-rockets.

correct. more spending begets more taxation.

I can't axe in my social programs, or privatise my business. I'm unable to do that.

incorrect. there are as many options to decrease spending and privatise as to increase and nationalise.

I don't want to privatise my industries and I don't want to decrease my spending. I'M too opposed to that, to be able to do that.

[Aclion]

How will this affect stats that currently seem tied to high income? Will some switch to being associated with high disposable income? (or do no such stats exist and I am just crazy)

[Merconitonitopia]

How will this affect stats that currently seem tied to high income? Will some switch to being associated with high disposable income? (or do no such stats exist and I am just crazy)

This change will not affect other stats in any way. It will add an entirely new stat is is solely derivative of already present stats.

[Aclion]

How will this affect stats that currently seem tied to high income? Will some switch to being associated with high disposable income? (or do no such stats exist and I am just crazy)

This change will not affect other stats in any way. It will add an entirely new stat is is solely derivative of already present stats.

I want to know if violet intends to also make use of the stat for other things.

[Ratateague]

I believe that if this alternative income was to be introduced, there should also be a ranking of how much is provided by the state, as in what you need.

11 stats already detail government expenditures. part of the problem mate, we're trying to balance that that bias towards big spenders.

Same here, with a 97% income tax, most of my citizens enjoy their money in the form of services. If it doesn't supress the current Income stat, I see no problem, although something like "per capita govt expeditures" would be nice.

we already do
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=/de ... ensusid=27
furthermore
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=/de ... ensusid=49
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=/de ... ensusid=28
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=/de ... ensusid=46
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=/de ... ensusid=29
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=/de ... ensusid=31
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=/de ... ensusid=78
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=/de ... ensusid=30
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=/de ... ensusid=57

Four problems:
1. I see 9 links there, including Taxation and not including Eco-friendliness. There are 12 possible government expenditures.
2. Government Size doesn't currently reflect Administration spending. Nor does Religiousness with Spirituality. I have demonstrated this in my nation. I've had Government Size steadily increase while having my Administration spending shrink, waver, and finally cut. Before the trends began tracking my Religiousness, my Spirituality funding was cut early on while the stat skyrocketed.
3. There doesn't seem to be any corresponding spending stat for Social Policy. This leaves 3 expenditures totally unaccounted for.
4. In order to balance this all out between post-tax income and services per capita, there should be three additional stats to reflect Administration, Spirituality, and Social Policy spending.
Bonus: How are negative values in spending reconciled? What would it mean to have negative welfare or defense spending? This doesn't seem to make much sense.

[[violet]]

How are negative values in spending reconciled? What would it mean to have negative welfare or defense spending? This doesn't seem to make much sense.

The rankings display negative values when a nation has zero spending to represent how opposed they are to government welfare (or whatever), so that nations can be ranked in a sensible order rather than all tying on 0. It essentially shows whether welfare spending is 0 because you're just not in favor of it or if you really really oppose it.

There is no actual negative spending as such.

[Merconitonitopia]

i do not know to what extent eco-friendliness reflect environmental expenditure.
taxation is relevant.

government size is not supposed to represent administration expenditure. government size represent all government expenditure. in order words, exactly what the poster above was asking for -- that is, a stat representing how much is spent by the gov't.
again, his complaint and the complaints of others were foolish as we have always had a gov't size stat, which is ultimately what they are asking for -- the sum of all stuff the government does.
the foolishness of the complaint was further demonstrated as i pointed out there were many other indicators that detail government services. what they are asking for already exists in many census stats.

administration stat... who cares. do we really need a stat to detail the "most administratively efficient nations" based on expenditures and administrative policy? lol.
who cares that there is not a spirituality expenditure stat? do we really need one? it is only an expenditure, not a service, and is used to push religiousness which is already accounted for.
social policy is a dump expenditure, its relevant correlations are already accounted for in extant stats.

[Barbarossistan]

If the game reflected the expected effect of 100% taxrates, watch the howls from the big spenders. As is, the game does tend to overreward hveay government expenditure while punishing low spending and free market policies. This new stat would correct that a little.

As for religiousness and the like, those are traits of your population, if your government spends little on it private spending takes up the slack if the people are religious.

[Dragonisia]

I'm seeing a plethora of issues where freedom from taxation rises.. but actual taxes don't fall. Does this make sense to anyone else as to why this occurs when the nation's tax rate remains the same?

[Ratateague]

government size is not supposed to represent administration expenditure. government size represent all government expenditure. in order words, exactly what the poster above was asking for -- that is, a stat representing how much is spent by the gov't.

That's a bit of a self-contradiction you've got going there.
As it stands, Government Size does not reflect the amount of currency being allotted to total spending. Neither as a percentage (which is Taxation), nor as a total (which is listed under the Government tab). Neither does it represent Administration spending, or even size of government in proportion to GDP (mine states 70+, while the economic chart states 36.7%). It doesn't appear to have any bearing at all towards expenditures. It just seems to be an arbitrary stat that says my government bureaucracy is 70 cubits large.

again, his complaint and the complaints of others were foolish as we have always had a gov't size stat, which is ultimately what they are asking for -- the sum of all stuff the government does.

See above.

the foolishness of the complaint was further demonstrated as i pointed out there were many other indicators that detail government services. what they are asking for already exists in many census stats.

To which I pointed out that is not the case, that expenditures don't evenly match up to existing stats, and are either underrepresented or misrepresented.

administration economy stat... who cares. do we really need a stat to detail the "most administratively economically efficient nations" based on expenditures people and administrative policy resource output? lol.

First, you have changed the subject of what is being addressed. No one was talking about efficiency measurements. We were on the topic of how many currency units go to X agency.
Second, you can see why this is a foolish argument to make. By minimally changing four words, I have accurately described how the Economy stat works. (check its description if you don't believe me).

who cares that there is not a spirituality expenditure stat? do we really need one? it is only an expenditure, not a service, and is used to push religiousness which is already accounted for.
social policy is a dump expenditure, its relevant correlations are already accounted for in extant stats.

"who cares?" is not a valid argument to make. It also doesn't help when you don't listen to previous points that I've explained concerning the relationship of stats to spending categories. Whether you are opposed to a stat for lack of caring is irrelevant. Whether I desire a stat because to it will arbitrarily give me another trophy is irrelevant. The point I am trying to convey here, is that for consistency's sake, we include missing expenditure stats so that specific and total spending is properly accounted for. Otherwise we have statistical gaps that cannot be accurately reconciled when analyzing a budget.

[Merconitonitopia]

First, you have changed the subject of what is being addressed. No one was talking about efficiency measurements. We were on the topic of how many currency units go to X agency.

so what you want is to add 12 new census rankings reflecting expenditures to each of the relevant departments?
why? is that really necessary?

[Ratateague]

First, you have changed the subject of what is being addressed. No one was talking about efficiency measurements. We were on the topic of how many currency units go to X agency.

so what you want is to add 12 new census rankings reflecting expenditures to each of the relevant departments?
why? is that really necessary?

No, not 12. Actually read what I've been saying.

[Merconitonitopia]

so what new census rankings do you want

[He Qixin]

Hey, this is so unfair. Lower taxed nations will see a lower decrease in their average income, while the higher ones will see a very high decrease, and may reach a very low amount, or even 0.

Idea opposed.

[He Qixin]

I mean, 34.4%... that seems like, a lot...

[Merconitonitopia]

Hey, this is so unfair. Lower taxed nations will see a lower decrease in their average income, while the higher ones will see a very high decrease, and may reach a very low amount, or even 0.

Idea opposed.

wrong. read the thread.

[La Badlandoj]

I like this idea, moreso if (I saw it discussed vaguely earlier in the thread) this also separates into Average Rich/Poor Disposable Income for flat/progressive tax nations.

[Dragonisia]

I now oppose this change as well since I see almost every event that gives an increase to freedom from taxation.. rarely actually decreases taxes. What's the point?

[Merconitonitopia]

I now oppose this change as well since I see almost every event that gives an increase to freedom from taxation.. rarely actually decreases taxes. What's the point?

nope. Hayek Index is exactly inverse to effective tax rate.
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=dra ... ensusid=49
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=dra ... ensusid=50