Advertisement
by Mushet » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:27 am
by Evilcia » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:41 pm
by Neo Byzantium » Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:59 pm
by Jamilkhuze » Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:59 pm
Trotterdam wrote: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.
by Evilcia » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:20 pm
by Merconitonitopia » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:52 pm
Evilcia wrote:Just Saying, its not like we can control our taxes rate
Evilcia wrote:If we often choose social programs, Education, Healthcare and government action, over non=action, our taxes sky-rockets.
Evilcia wrote:I can't axe in my social programs, or privatise my business. I'm unable to do that.
by Evilcia » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:46 pm
Merconitonitopia wrote:Evilcia wrote:Just Saying, its not like we can control our taxes rate
incorrect. all basic stats are affected by decisions you make in game.Evilcia wrote:If we often choose social programs, Education, Healthcare and government action, over non=action, our taxes sky-rockets.
correct. more spending begets more taxation.Evilcia wrote: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.
by Aclion » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:06 pm
by Merconitonitopia » Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:51 pm
Aclion wrote: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)
by Aclion » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:29 pm
Merconitonitopia wrote:Aclion wrote: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.
by Ratateague » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:12 pm
Merconitonitopia wrote:Danish-Swedish Scandinavia wrote: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.
Merconitonitopia wrote:Huelistan wrote: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
by [violet] » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:48 pm
Ratateague wrote: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.
by Merconitonitopia » Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:13 am
by Barbarossistan » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:40 pm
by Dragonisia » Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:18 pm
by Ratateague » Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:26 pm
Merconitonitopia wrote: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.
Merconitonitopia wrote: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.
Merconitonitopia wrote: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.
Merconitonitopia wrote:administrationeconomy stat... who cares. do we really need a stat to detail the "mostadministrativelyeconomically efficient nations" based onexpenditurespeople andadministrative policyresource output? lol.
Merconitonitopia wrote: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.
by Merconitonitopia » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:03 pm
Ratateague wrote: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.
by Ratateague » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:10 pm
Merconitonitopia wrote:Ratateague wrote: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?
by He Qixin » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:25 am
jacknjellify wrote:Watch Battle For Dream Island or be eliminated.
by He Qixin » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:32 am
jacknjellify wrote:Watch Battle For Dream Island or be eliminated.
by Merconitonitopia » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:28 am
He Qixin wrote: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.
by La Badlandoj » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:32 am
by Dragonisia » Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:58 pm
by Merconitonitopia » Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:10 pm
Dragonisia wrote: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?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Countriopia, Khantin, New Makasta, Phydios, Radicalania, Sulenia, Valentine Z
Advertisement