Page 1 of 4

Beta 011: Average Disposable Incomes (New)

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:03 pm
by [violet]
Beta 011: Average Disposable Incomes (New)

Proposed Change: This would be a new World Census scale that measures average incomes after tax. For comparison purposes, pre-tax incomes are shown as "Current." Nations with no income tax show identical pre- and post-tax incomes, while nations with 100% tax rates show 0 income.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:20 pm
by Fauxia
Hell yes. This is a great idea. Although, would this eliminate the pre-taxation income? I mean, it’s simple math, but most don’t want to do it probably.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:23 pm
by Drasnia
Finally a reason to have a 0% tax rate. Thanks [v]!

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:30 pm
by [violet]
Fauxia wrote:would this eliminate the pre-taxation income?

No, this would be a brand new World Census ranking, not a replacement for "Average Income."

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:38 pm
by Caelapes
[violet] wrote:
Fauxia wrote:would this eliminate the pre-taxation income?

No, this would be a brand new World Census ranking, not a replacement for "Average Income."

Could there be a corresponding opposite census for “most services provided by the state” for nations that have a high “average income” that is, as shown by this new census, entirely provided in the form of services like healthcare and education and not actual wages? I’m top 3% in the world for average “income” but that’s expressed entirely through services and not through a paycheck.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:11 pm
by Consular
As long as it doesn't override average income and is just a new category I think its good.

Seems to be working as intended for me, in that disposable income is almost none.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:36 am
by Aclion
Oh yes please. ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Caelapes wrote:Could there be a corresponding opposite census for “most services provided by the state” for nations that have a high “average income” that is, as shown by this new census, entirely provided in the form of services like healthcare and education and not actual wages? I’m top 3% in the world for average “income” but that’s expressed entirely through services and not through a paycheck.

The different services governments provide already have their own stats, mostly.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:08 am
by Merconitonitopia
surprised I never thought of this myself. now that's it been brought it up it makes a lot of sense that this should be included. this is especially useful as otherwise there is no reason to care about how high or low taxes are realistically speaking, while this rewards lower taxes and punishes higher taxes to balance things out somewhat.

as a nation with 100.0% tax rate, my citizens will now make earn an impressive annual disposable income of $0.00.
Caelapes wrote:Could there be a corresponding opposite census for “most services provided by the state” for nations that have a high “average income” that is, as shown by this new census, entirely provided in the form of services like healthcare and education and not actual wages? I’m top 3% in the world for average “income” but that’s expressed entirely through services and not through a paycheck.

This is already expressed collectively in government size and taxation, and individual services already have their own stats.

If you mean a stat representing the $$$ subtracted from income by tax though I would support this. eg. a nation with $100,000 avg. income with 80.0% tax rate would = $20,000 disposable income and $80,000 per capita gov't expenditure.

I'm not sure how this would work with black market, but black market is already not considered it seems.
Actually that's a good point. [v], my citizens make no disposable income due to 100% tax rate. Yet, two-thirds of my economy is constituted of black market activity. Is this implying people involved in the black market turn in all of their revenue from their illegal activities in to the government? If so, that is very, uh, patriotic.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:16 am
by Merconitonitopia
On second thought, realistically applying black market as outside of government control and thus not subject to taxation would completely fuck up half of my rankings, so forget I ever mentioned it. :L

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:42 am
by Candlewhisper Archive
This one has been on my wishlist forever. Thanks for looking to implement.

The betatesting page is a little misleading, suggesting that Average Income itself is going to change, but it looks technically solid, certainly.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:03 am
by Caelapes
Aclion wrote:The different services governments provide already have their own stats, mostly.

Right, but those stats don’t directly represent the amount of funds being spent per capita to provide those services.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:55 am
by Trotterdam
Shouldn't Welfare count towards disposable incomes?

Merconitonitopia wrote:I'm not sure how this would work with black market, but black market is already not considered it seems.
Actually that's a good point. [v], my citizens make no disposable income due to 100% tax rate. Yet, two-thirds of my economy is constituted of black market activity. Is this implying people involved in the black market turn in all of their revenue from their illegal activities in to the government? If so, that is very, uh, patriotic.
This is also a good point.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:05 pm
by Aclion
Caelapes wrote:
Aclion wrote:The different services governments provide already have their own stats, mostly.

Right, but those stats don’t directly represent the amount of funds being spent per capita to provide those services.

Oh that's a good point. We only have total now.

Trotterdam wrote:Shouldn't Welfare count towards disposable incomes?

Another good point. Building on that, should healthcare policy affect it? I mean if you're paying for your own healthcare that's going to eat into your disposable income quite a bit(I know, I've been there), but if healthcare is paid for by the state via taxes then it wouldn't. Similar arguments could be raised for education, or even law enforcement.

and this is why you never give a mouse a cookie

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:42 pm
by Merconitonitopia
Aclion I think you are misunderstanding. Disposable income is not income after expenses, it is income after taxes.

That is true Trot. Welfare does not take $ from the populace for the gov't to spend, it takes it from one group to another and gives it to them as income. Perhaps welfare should only account for a small % of disposable income lost to account for the costs of running and managing the system.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:49 pm
by Caelapes
I'd argue that "welfare" in countries like Caelapes would not take the form of wages but would refer to resources used to directly provide for the sheltering and feeding of its citizens. "To each according to their need" doesn't mean the state is writing a check for people to turn around and give back to the state to receive those services. I don't think that welfare necessarily needs to be included in disposable income.

Merconitonitopia wrote:Actually that's a good point. [v], my citizens make no disposable income due to 100% tax rate. Yet, two-thirds of my economy is constituted of black market activity. Is this implying people involved in the black market turn in all of their revenue from their illegal activities in to the government? If so, that is very, uh, patriotic.

a per-capita ranking of the black market would be awesome, although I recognize that it's outside the realm of this particular beta. I've kept my black market down to 0.01% of my total economy (a per-capita equivalent of $28.62), but because this is an old nation with a lot of citizens, I'm ranked in the top 40% of the world for black market size. Having rankings for disposable income that includes black market or having a separate per-capita black market income ranking would be very nice.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:04 pm
by Trotterdam
Aclion wrote:
Caelapes wrote:Right, but those stats don’t directly represent the amount of funds being spent per capita to provide those services.
Oh that's a good point. We only have total now.
No, those values are per capita, or at least something that doesn't change as your nation size increases.

Aclion wrote:
Trotterdam wrote:Shouldn't Welfare count towards disposable incomes?

Another good point. Building on that, should healthcare policy affect it? I mean if you're paying for your own healthcare that's going to eat into your disposable income quite a bit(I know, I've been there), but if healthcare is paid for by the state via taxes then it wouldn't. Similar arguments could be raised for education, or even law enforcement.
Well, I'd say privately-purchased healthcare comes from disposable income. I mean, you have the choice of not paying for the healthcare and staying sick, if you want. It's your money.

It might not be a very attractive choice, but so long as you have the choice, I think it counts as disposable income.

"Income after deducting necessary expenses" would require a definition of what's "necessary expenses", a category which keeps going up as standards of life improve and greater and greater luxuries (clean running water, electricity, internet connection...) start being taken for granted as something that everyone needs to have.

Caelapes wrote:I'd argue that "welfare" in countries like Caelapes would not take the form of wages but would refer to resources used to directly provide for the sheltering and feeding of its citizens. "To each according to their need" doesn't mean the state is writing a check for people to turn around and give back to the state to receive those services. I don't think that welfare necessarily needs to be included in disposable income.
Welfare can take multiple forms, and at least some issues appear to assume the form where you're giving people money to do with as they wish. Unfortunately I don't think the game can distinguish the fine details here, it just sees you as having more or less welfare rather than different types.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:20 pm
by Merconitonitopia
Yes, that is true. I think that welfare would mean a very different thing in different countries.

Example:
In the United States, a deeply capitalistic economy, the gov't simply grabs $$$ from one demographic and dumps it on another.
While in a typical socialist utopia, the state would simply provide these necessities outright akin to breadlines.

It should then, perhaps, be determined by whether or not a nation's economy is dominated by the private sector or public sector, and to what extent that is so.



Trotterdam -- again, disposable income is income after taxes. we already have a working definition with Acilion's proposition does not adhere to.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:43 pm
by Aclion
Trotterdam wrote:
Aclion wrote:Oh that's a good point. We only have total now.
No, those values are per capita, or at least something that doesn't change as your nation size increases.

Huh, shows how often I check those stats. :P

Trotterdam wrote:
Aclion wrote:Another good point. Building on that, should healthcare policy affect it? I mean if you're paying for your own healthcare that's going to eat into your disposable income quite a bit(I know, I've been there), but if healthcare is paid for by the state via taxes then it wouldn't. Similar arguments could be raised for education, or even law enforcement.
Well, I'd say privately-purchased healthcare comes from disposable income. I mean, you have the choice of not paying for the healthcare and staying sick, if you want. It's your money.

It might not be a very attractive choice, but so long as you have the choice, I think it counts as disposable income.

"Income after deducting necessary expenses" would require a definition of what's "necessary expenses", a category which keeps going up as standards of life improve and greater and greater luxuries (clean running water, electricity, internet connection...) start being taken for granted as something that everyone needs to have.

You could make the same argument for whatever a particular welfare program is providing. Though I think apparently we've confused disposable income with discretionary income.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:14 pm
by United Massachusetts
It's interesting to say the least. It'll make me sad, but is probably a good addition.

Could we have income after expenses?

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:45 pm
by Merconitonitopia
United Massachusetts wrote:It's interesting to say the least. It'll make me sad, but is probably a good addition.

Could we have income after expenses?

it would be difficult to calculate but a discretionary income would be an interesting stat. that said, let's just take it one at a time for now. this thread is for disposable income.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:21 pm
by American MapleStory
Very good idea! We need this because a 200,000 before tax income with 80% taxes is not the same as 200,000 with 15% taxes!

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:07 am
by Western Sammarin
As someone who runs a nation >90% taxation, and have been wondering about the generous perception given by large incomes pre-tax, this seems like a perfect idea.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:20 am
by Raventsvo
ummm
Image

I oppose this change

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:49 am
by Drasnia
Raventsvo wrote:ummm


I oppose this change

You have a 99.5% tax rate. Of course your people aren't going to have much disposable income. If you want to improve the stat, lower your taxes.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:24 am
by Caracasus
Can't say I am against this... but I wonder if it might not be an idea to examine some of the underlying issues with tax and how it is modeled first?