Talk:Taxation Revision Resolution

Taxation Revision Act Klaus Mikaelson OP — 03/28/2023 8:26 AM Tabled by Erich Crysler, MGA, UKN, as a government-sponsored bill. Taxation Revision Act, 652

A resolution to amend the current system of taxation. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Taxation_Revision_Act#Article_1%3A_New_Taxes Proposed by Erich Crysler, MGA, UKN. Voting is presently set for 11 April 2023 The Kodiak Republic Wiki Taxation Revision Act . Klaus Mikaelson OP — 03/28/2023 8:28 AM @Assembly Member With the Prison Reform Act currently on hold, and a slot in the government queue therefore open, discussion on this proposal is now opened. von Zeppelin [FED] — 03/28/2023 8:35 AM Completely for the first article, completely against the second. Businesses must grow first; the cream should be collected later. Emile(DPPK) — 03/28/2023 8:40 AM I agree that small businesses must be given a chance. However, fraud must be controlled. Image But I don't think we should repeal the act. We should rather enforce fraud regulations. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/28/2023 8:53 AM I find the property tax insultingly low, but I will have to do some research on the average property value, the low outliers, and the high outliers to provide a sufficient suggestion. ((OOC: Would like some GM details on the above)) W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/28/2023 8:55 AM I have some serious concerns about the act.

Initially, it makes no distinction as to how it fits within existing tax structures. is the tax revision act meant to be separate from the existing Income Tax Act, Enterprise Act, and Commodity Tax Act? What is the nature of this fourth "Tax Revision Act" that makes it necessary to be a whole new entity and not an amendment to existing acts?

Regarding Section 1.1, the KPS Report on diverted profits describes this act as "A tax levied on estimates regarding large companies profits earned in this country, regardless of their actual reporting. This is used to prevent multinational companies from claiming that all of the profits they earn are somehow only generated in a tax haven (with little or no corporate taxes), by using cunning accounting trickery." But here it merely creates "a flat tax on all the profits generated in Kodiak by multinational corporation" So are we doubling the corporate tax rate for foreign companies, or are we creating a diverted profits tax? I am certainly in favour of the Revenue Directorate enforcing our National tax laws equally on profits earned here in within Kodiak - but this section does not adequately (I feel) enact such a provision

Regarding section 1.2, I must say I am totally against. a 5% tax on hiring staff is a ludacris attack on our economy. A state should tax behaviours it wants to minimise. Are we to expect that the Groves Government wishes us not to employ people? (Or more mathematically, employ 5% less people?) Wages and productivity should be put towards business expansion and worker pay packets, not toward funding the KWP's budgetary mistakes. Just from a market function, we're literally shooting our most educated (and highest paid) workers directly in the foot with this policy.

Regarding section 1.3, I am quite unsure as to what this does. Are we creating a second property tax set at 1% or are we only taxing landlords' families 1%? This will need a lot of clarification before I think it should be enacted.

Regarding section 1.4, we will need to define what 'luxury goods' entail I think. Is a good coffee a luxury good for just me? or also in the eyes of the state? or a nice watch? a smart phone? The Public Service — 03/28/2023 8:59 AM The member's question is notable. I cannot make a determination about the intentions of this bill, but I will note that the state already assesses a 10% land value tax in accordance to The Commodity and Services Tax Act, 643 and this tax raised approximately 5 billion florins in 650. (https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/The_Commodity_and_Services_Tax_Act,_643)

As for what a 1% additional tax on property would look like, I believe your question is in regards to all property, and could earn anywhere between 500 million or 900 million florins, depending on fluctuations in the property market. As for this bill, I cannot make a determination at this time as to how effective the section would be at implementing such a tax with the language used at this time. The department does not usually run reviews of proposed language except with explicit request of the Cabinet. (since it would take time and effort, and may be amended by the assembly at anytime, rendering said review irrelevant) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 03/28/2023 9:13 AM I would like to see clarification from the author on the difference from the Land Value Tax and a Property Tax.

If they are intended to be the same, setting the aforementioned tax to 1% would be incredibly catastrophic. A loss of 4.5 billion florins (50 billion florins at 1% based on 650's numbers) on the current budget would be disastrous.

If they are intended to be different, what is the purpose of the difference? Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 03/28/2023 9:17 AM I'll let Erich lead the debate here but I wanted to quickly give my thoughts on 1.3 while I had a little moment:

RE: Regarding section 1.3, I am quite unsure as to what this does. Are we creating a second property tax set at 1% or are we only taxing landlords' families 1%? This will need a lot of clarification before I think it should be enacted.

In my opinion, this should essentially be a taxation on land lords and their investment properties, and this tax should not apply to family homes (aka primary property of residences).

I will acquiesce to this bill needing wording updates if confusion arises such as here, thanks for highlighting. Unless Erich has a reword or clarification himself I'll think on this and come back. It is my desire however that this is not an addition to land value tax when it comes to primary residences.

To answer Mr Kyros, it would be separate and not a replacement to land value tax.

I want to make clear however that I will take the GA's discussion into account with consideration to the various parts of this bill.

Initially, it makes no distinction as to how it fits within existing tax structures. is the tax revision act meant to be separate from the existing Income Tax Act, Enterprise Act, and Commodity Tax Act? What is the nature of this fourth "Tax Revision Act" that makes it necessary to be a whole new entity and not an amendment to existing acts?

I suspect this is a wording issue and I have taken it for granted when I last looked at it, thanks for raising. @Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] ^ W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/28/2023 9:17 AM a property tax is on the value of a property (land and improvements) - while a land value tax is only assessed on the value of the land. Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 03/28/2023 9:44 AM I am fully against this act as I do not believe it goes far enough and I will instead standby my belief that my proposed Revenue Reform Resolution would be more beneficial than this act ever could. Seraphina — 03/28/2023 9:58 AM Idk that feels like stomping on someone else's hard work to sell your own Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/28/2023 11:06 AM They were never to be the same, residential property and land value taxes are functionally different. A property tax will be in place alongside a land value tax. The bill needs heavy reword and clarification, I agree on that. If it makes more sense to have it amend existing bills with these new taxes then I’ll do so.

Regarding a payroll tax, if we are to continue funding education and healthcare, services that many Kodiakers rely on, a payroll tax is imperative to achieve substantial funding in these sectors. If not we will have to effectively axe any meaningful progress made in the past years in these areas, or worse a complete regression to worse levels. The Micro-Enterprise Act has been a dramatic failure, it’s repeal should be imminent and complete. The economy has only experience a slight bump due to its passing so I do not even think it is worth keeping even in a fixed and complete state. Emile(DPPK) — 03/28/2023 12:33 PM Regarding payroll tax, you mentioned that it is absolutely necessary to have it for education and health. However, by doing the one, this compromises the other. In my opinion, the tax of something less devestating to the economy must be raised instead of payroll tax. The Micro-Enterprise act is crucial for new businesses. If new and young entrepeneurs are discouraged before they even begin, the amount of new enterprises will plummet and large corporations will gain a monopoly. In the long run, this will negatively affect our economy. The act is a chance for anyone, not only the rich, to start their business. If this privilige is only accessible to the wealthy, there will be inequality and resulting conflict. I suggest that the Micro-Enterprise rather be amended than repealed. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 03/28/2023 1:27 PM I would disagree if anything the repeal of the micro enterprise act is the best part of this bill if the data shows anything the micro enterprise act only encouraged fraud losing the government millions in tax dollars and barely doing anything for the economy Alfonso Sadurin — 03/28/2023 9:04 PM Can someone do a revision of the Tax Code itself and not make acts like this? This is too much work undoing the consolidation in the Tax Code. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/28/2023 9:20 PM I'm not sure I understand. There are presently three tax acts (individuals, enterprises, and commodities), and two tax subsidy acts (micro-enterprises, and building loans). Alfonso Sadurin — 03/28/2023 10:05 PM I guess what I am saying is to consolidate them into one law and revise them accordingly. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/28/2023 10:07 PM Why? Three laws, each less than one page long, probably isn't really that onerous Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 03/28/2023 10:42 PM My personal opinion: I find it easier for our tax laws separated out into context/theme, so I can skip any information that I'm not looking for. So I personally don't see the need for one big super tax law. Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 03/28/2023 10:42 PM I agree. Klaus Mikaelson OP — 03/30/2023 11:11 AM other thoughts or discussion? Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/30/2023 11:38 AM I’ll amend and revise the bill soon to make it clearer and make it fit better within our existing tax code structure. Klaus Mikaelson pinned a message to this channel. See all pinned messages . — 03/30/2023 2:03 PM Klaus Mikaelson OP — 03/30/2023 2:03 PM please keep me in the loop with your timetable Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/30/2023 3:43 PM Hoping to get the changed done by the end of the week Klaus Mikaelson OP — 03/30/2023 3:47 PM thank you Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 04/01/2023 5:14 PM I have amended the bill to hopefully clarify the various clauses and changed it to the "Taxation Revision Resolution" as it only amends and effects other bills now. Klaus Mikaelson OP — 04/01/2023 9:26 PM Thank you! Members, please check the amended bill and post your thoughts when you can EasyPoll BOT — 04/04/2023 8:35 AM Question Do you approve of the Taxation Revision Resolution?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [10 • 50%] 🇧 ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [7 • 35%] 🇨 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [3 • 15%] 20 users voted

Settings
 * alarm_clock: Poll already ended (a day ago)
 * spy: Anonymous Poll
 * one: allowed choice


 * lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: e4e620f7 Klaus Mikaelson OP — 04/04/2023 8:35 AM @Assembly Member Seeing no further discussion, voting on the Resolution is now opened. Klaus Mikaelson OP — Yesterday at 10:18 AM With 10 votes in favor, 7 against and 3 abstaining, this bill is declared passed within the Assembly, and shall be archived in 24 hours