Talk:The New Individual Income Tax Act, 654
From The Kodiak Republic Wiki
Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/14/2023 10:08 PM
Tabled by Immanuel con Zeppelin, MGA, CKA, as an independent member’s bill. Voting is presently set for the 28th of May. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/The_New_Individual_Income_Tax_Act,_654 The Kodiak Republic Wiki The New Individual Income Tax Act, 654 An act to repeal and replace the Individual Income Tax Act (630). ACTIONED ## MONTH ####, ## Aye, ## Nay, ## Abstain. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/14/2023 10:10 PM
@Assembly Member Debate is now opened for the first of Immanuel’s many bills. Voting presently set for the 28th of May. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/14/2023 10:10 PM We need higher taxes Not lower GamerKodiak123 — 05/14/2023 10:10 PM i hate taxes W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/14/2023 10:36 PM For what its worth, this proposal does increase taxes. it also taxes all income above 105,000 florins at 100%, meaning that it the maximum income for any individual in the entire nation. An individual at 105,000 florins will suffer an effective tax rate of 43% this is also ~25k florins below the median income. taxing 100% of income from the top 65% of the nation does not feel "Centrist" to me W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/14/2023 10:44 PM Image Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/14/2023 11:10 PM we should put a stop to this all income above 105,000 florins are taxed at 100% should stop with around 60% also would it be possible to suggest a better tax scheme that only involves four levels Exempt - 0% Reduced - 20% Standard - 45% Supplement - 60% W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/14/2023 11:16 PM The existing income tax currently has a 5 level solution Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/14/2023 11:16 PM do we have data on the decile of income? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/14/2023 11:16 PM Image Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/14/2023 11:17 PM do you have data about income deciles? I think we could update the income tax based on that information the median taxpayer should be paying an effective tax less than a corporation Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/14/2023 11:28 PM maybe we can adjust tax rates:
18 to 20% 35% 49 to 55% Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 05/15/2023 12:31 AM I like this Although I would like to suggest an addition that the maximum tax rate is 100% Because currently, there is a very definite possibility of people having to pay more than they earn. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/15/2023 12:46 AM An individual at 105,000 florins will suffer an effective tax rate of 43% this is also ~25k florins below the median income.
Just want to highlight this, this taxation seems extremely punitive on the average Kodiaker. With a median income of 130k being capped at 60k after taxes (This is 6k USD).
This would certainly boost taxes a great amount, but at the cost of the ability for most people to make ends meet. The poor, the workers, and even the middle-class would share the brunt of the tax burden that funds any service, as they typically can only rely on their income. Whereas the rich have wealth beyond income.
A progressive tax should be a tax that does not punish those that most need their income to survive.
Author - Please explain thought process, thank you! von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 2:09 AM Good day, dear friends. For the first time I participate in the discussion of my own bill, which does mek honor, but also imposes obligations.
To begin with, I will note that I created a table (based on Magnus data) to visualize the reform. If desired, you can even enter your data. Attachment file type: spreadsheet Calculation_of_taxes.xlsx 29.34 KB Pay attention to the diagrams on the right of the tables. It is advisable to familiarize yourself with them. (OOC: Sorry, due to subjective-objective reasons, I will continue the explanation a little later) Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 05/15/2023 2:20 AM Is the highest wage-earner in the country on less than $450,000? von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 2:38 AM Yes. Due to the specifics of the initial data, the numbers in the table are not very even.
And note, taxes are collected not from the annual, but from the monthly salary. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 2:48 AM No one will starve after paying taxes (we don't have that many rich people). Here is the confirmation (I'm sorry, but the paint line is made approximately, it should be at the level of 6,666 florins). Image Green indicates the salary after tax payment, blue indicates the amount of tax. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 2:57 AM I dont' understand why we've swapped from annual to monthly Nikolai Orlov (SWH) — 05/15/2023 2:57 AM Oh wow von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 2:59 AM Because the salary is paid once a month, not once a year. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 3:00 AM but under that model we're over taxing people who make most of their income in a short period of time like farmers during harvest season, or shopkeepers during Christmas or summer labourers like construction von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 3:01 AM But they are not taxed at all the rest of the year. Nikolai Orlov (SWH) — 05/15/2023 3:01 AM May I ask, howd you do that, I've been really invested in this type of stuff W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 3:01 AM But they are taxes with a higher threshold for the months they are taxed So if they make 100,000 a year, but only in 3 months, they get taxed at 33k But if I make 100,000 a year, but over 12 months, I only get taxed at 8.3k von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 3:04 AM You are not taxed up to 173076 florins per year. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 3:04 AM that wasn't the point So your own sheet here says it best If I make 100k a year but over 12 months, I get taxes 0$ but if a farmer makes 100k in three months, he get taxed 6.7k three times = 20.1k Image von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 3:14 AM That's fair enough. If you accumulate a large amount of money once, then you can invest it, use it to upgrade equipment or just take up monopolization of the market.
But if the amount of money is spread over time, then you can only buy the upper right corner of the stock and a few wires from the machine. In such conditions, you will not buy anything. When trying to save money, a race with inflation begins: will she eat the money or will it be possible to invest it.
Therefore, since when you receive a sum of money once, you get more, then you have to pay for it. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 3:15 AM or we could tax people on their annual earnings so that we don't harm professions that aren't able to be performed or remunerated year round. Taxing farmers 20% of their income for no reason other than bad timing is a bad policy von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 3:18 AM As I said, the one who gets 100,000 once gets more than the one who gets 100,000 12 times a year. And the increase in wealth is taxed. By not doing this, you are infringing on the second group of people. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 3:20 AM This does not make sense, and is harmful for no benefit von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 3:20 AM In addition, I note that it is not the profit of the enterprise that is taxed, but the salary. If you have left money in your company to develop it, then you will not be asked for money. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 3:20 AM attempting to invest 80k for a few months will not have a 20% return rate I cannot think of a better definition of theft than taking 20k from one man and 0 from another for no reason other than the circumstance of their labour; von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 3:23 AM The reason, moreover, justified, I named. The question is in numbers. I doubt that small-scale farmers earn so much that the difference with non-seasonal workers is 20% or even 5%. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 3:24 AM Except the issue is your tax system does create such a difference, and it does not need to. Its an own goal. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 3:27 AM Just the same, the bill will finally equalize seasonal workers and ordinary ones due to the fact that additional opportunities (which quickly turn into monetary ones) are also taxed. If we want to develop, we need at least to equalize industrialists and farmers, and at most - to give industrialists benefits at the expense of farmers. But do not give preference to farmers in any way. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 3:29 AM If the plan is to tax seasonal professions for no particular reason other than an ideological philosophy and to do away with equity under the law - then I must lobby against this bill. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/15/2023 3:30 AM Someone who gets 100k once, still has to make that last the rest of the year - in such a hypothetical. Someone who gets 100k in a year but spread over 12 months, and thereby getting minimal tax comes out ahead because they retain more pre-tax earnings over the year. There are a myriad ways the 2nd person can gain a lot more from retaining their base income. Especially as their monthly expenses are well covered due to minimal taxation. Whereas the first person with the single 100k payment who gets taxed a greater amount, has less to spread out across each month. They're not going to put all of that to profiting, they are going to need to be fiscally responsible for quite a proportion for their livelihood, and necessities.
Of course the first person would then have to find other work, but I'm just limiting the alternate perspective to the aforementioned hypothetical.
From an annual taxation perspective, I don't see the gap, someone who works seasoningly earning 100k, would be taxed appropriately over the year, the rest would still need to be spread across the non-seasonal months. They aren't simply better off because their earnings are compressed. If they were then to work elsewhere off-season, their tax would be higher due to their annual remuneration being higher which seems to me like it's covering any perceived gap.
At least this is how I see it. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 3:34 AM Can I tell you the reason for the third time? Good.
Those who receive 100,000 times a year actually receive more, as they receive not only 100,000, but also ample opportunities for investment. Those who receive 100,000 12 times a year receive only 100,000. And tears, because for investing you will need to pay part of the money to adapt to the investment.
Also, favoring farmers slows down our development. I have no desire to oppress them, so I only fairly distribute taxes between seasonal workers and ordinary ones. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 3:45 AM But there is not meaningful mathematics that your claim of "investment" will return an amount anywhere close to the tax we take from them. In the example presently, there is no way their 80k will somehow return to 100k (a 25% return) before the end of the year. The Labor of many months is not less valuable than the labour of one. To punish someone for working without pay for a long period for no other reason than having a moderate pay out all at once is cruel It's sheer fantasy, and you can say it three or five or twenty times, but the reasoning is unsound because investments do not magic 25% returns in just a handful of months. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 3:51 AM So do you need a visual formula? Why didn't you say so right away?
I'm a little busy right now, so I'll give you an example later. Could you give me the inflation data for now? Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/15/2023 4:10 AM Sure, take your time!
I'll just add more in the meantime. This current hypothetical still practically assumes that that 100k -> 80k (or whatever number after tax) isn't mostly used for expenses and necessities. So consider an alternate scenario, given two people with equal expenses that takes up most of ones earnings, the person that is basically not taxed is far better off. One person is punished simply because their profession, whatever it is, demands that most of their labour is required only a proportion of the year, with less (or none) the rest of the year. In this case the tax is unfair.
I don't believe that we can simply place someones ability to have income on the theoretical investment of money which has no guarantee of returns - regardless of how rich one is (well perhaps if one was mega rich and able to influence the broader market but I digress). Let's be honest here, 100k in florins is absolutely not even remotely close to being rich. I'm sure we can compute an ideal situation, but that doesn't necessarily mean we ignore the downsides or worst case situations, such as if that extra taxation is actually detrimental.
Surely in a redistribution of wealth through taxation, it is those with means that should shoulder more of the burden than these hypothetical average people. Particularly as most average people only have a wage to call an income in Kodiak's current system. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/15/2023 4:16 AM We can tax people monthly and then adjust annually von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 4:19 AM Would anyone mind if I took the earnings figures not from the ceiling, but from my district, for 2019? William E. Jamison — 05/15/2023 4:51 AM After reading everything through there is no way in good conscience that I can support this bill. If this is passed it will be a major burden on the working people. I know we do need taxes to fund the budget but it should not come in form of extorting large amounts from the hard working laborer's and farmers. I am very much against any form of monthly income tax. It is both morally wrong and political suicide if passed. I could very much see the middle class coming out in protest and rebellion if this is passed! Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/15/2023 5:15 AM I have expressed my disagreement with this bill, it's provisions, and the implications. My disagreement is only further compounded by what I have read again today. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 6:18 AM I apologize in advance for the rudeness, gentlemen, my ideological opponents, but... Have you exactly compared the old and the new system? It doesn't seem like it. Here are two diagrams side by side. Image Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/15/2023 6:33 AM I'm not sure this is saying what you think it is. I don't have time at the moment, but I'm sure you can simply adjust the existing tax brackets and get a similar result, with the difference being annualised tax vs monthly tax. The numbers is not the issue at large? You should also do the same comparison but annualised, as opposed to just the monthly representation, for a complete picture. (If I'm interpreting the nature of the chart wrong in this instance feel free to clarify!) I believe the core complaint right now is that it seems to unjustly impact people that don't work in a typical standard way. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 6:38 AM There will be no percentage difference on an annualized basis, only the numbers are 12 times larger. I substituted the interest values from the existing income tax. To the right of them, I inserted graphs from the bill. Attachment file type: spreadsheet Old_calculation_of_taxes.xlsx 61.63 KB Otherwise, the links are constant and the graphs will change with the change in the interest rate in the corresponding column, so anyone can try to substitute the values. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 6:41 AM I think so too. I'm working on it now. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 6:50 AM @W Magnus Ward (NUP), do you trust the data of Irkutskstat for 2019 (at this link: https://gks.ru/region/docl1125/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d310/i310024r.html )? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 7:13 AM There is clearly going to be a percentage difference on an annualised basis - if you charge tax on monthly incomes. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 7:26 AM The salary (the majority) receives once a month, therefore the tax is withdrawn from the monthly salary. Therefore, there will be no difference if seasonal workers are not taken into account. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/15/2023 7:38 AM aren't we using a progressive tax rate? Image Taxes can be made to be computed annually, with monthly withholding based on monthly rates von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 7:47 AM The problem is that if you do it fairly (i.e. take into account each florin when taxing, then neither our tax ministry nor the citizens themselves will be able to calculate them effectively, breaking our tax collection system. Therefore, such steps are a necessity. But I tried to find a compromise between computability and fair taxation. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 7:47 AM there should be no steps where income is less than the previous step the current tax is progressive Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/15/2023 7:48 AM I'm not sure why it is dropping von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 7:48 AM Can you describe in more detail about the "retention"? How does it work? Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/15/2023 7:49 AM So, for majority of employees, they are on payroll so their income are expected already you got the tax tables for annual income and then the tax department would prepare a separate tax schedule dividing it into monthly and semi-monthly so that for each month, every income you collect get taxed proportionately to the annual tax table then at the end of the year, you adjust the final monthly pay based on the actual annual earnings for the year which ensures (1) monthly income from the government, and (2) equitable tax payments since it would computed for the year von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 7:51 AM These are the costs of compromise of the tax system. As far as I know, the progressive tax uses a step-by-step system of taxation. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 7:57 AM current system as legislated looks like this: where blue is take home and orange is taxes Image von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 7:59 AM (OOC: Is it possible to do the same, but with a real country? I know what income tax should look like ideally. In practice, it is forced to take other forms.) W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 7:59 AM (The Australian system works this way. I'll mock up a quick table for you) von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 8:01 AM (I hope on the state statistical data? An interesting example. If you convince me, I will redo the bill.) W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 8:04 AM (Australia) Image Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/15/2023 8:04 AM am I color blind I cannot see blue W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 8:04 AM (Australia) Image Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/15/2023 8:04 AM yeah, but let's reduce it to four W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 8:08 AM Kodiak as legislated presently Image von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 8:09 AM So, do you want me to recalculate the bill using a similar system? Visualisation (left) Image W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 8:11 AM (The ultimate determination is yours to decide, but I do believe, both IC and OOC that imitating both the progressive taxation and annual assessment is the most straight-forward and equitable option) von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 8:12 AM I'll meet you in a few minutes. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/15/2023 8:15 AM I am bothered by the rates can we make it more round like 18 to 20% 35 to 30% 49 to 50% 65 to 70% fine the 65 to 70 would be too much W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 8:16 AM It would be up to the Author to accept or decline your suggestions - otherwise you are free to propose your own amendment to the President. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 8:17 AM Maybe 0.01 florin, or is it indivisible? Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/15/2023 8:18 AM the wording is weird why not make it those in excess of xxx but not exceeding xxx so that you don't need to compute 0.01 von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 8:19 AM The ruble has a penny (= 0.01 ruble), the dollar has a cent, the florin ...? Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/15/2023 8:20 AM maybe the florin doesn't need a subunit von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 8:21 AM The question is not whether it is needed, but whether it exists. @W Magnus Ward (NUP)? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 8:22 AM the florin is a decimal currency with a subunit of cents von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 8:23 AM That is, 10 cents = 1 florin? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 8:24 AM 100 cents to a florin John Edwards [KWP] — 05/15/2023 8:37 AM I'll freely admit that most of the in depth discussion on tax division went over my head but from a "person on the ground" perspective, increasing tax on a particular style of revenue gain will simply make the workers of that style abandon it for a less taxed one. We will then see an employment crisis for those jobs, farming etc. That's not something we can afford to have happen. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/15/2023 8:41 AM OOC: I'll admit that this was my assumption as to how it's done already but I maybe just taking it for granted due to RL. ;) Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/15/2023 8:43 AM ooc: not everyone is an accountant Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/15/2023 8:43 AM ooc: No I mean that's how pay is taxed in Australia haha, you get tax withheld. It is sad when you see the number on the payslip :P Anyway I digress, let's not continue this line of chat here! Carry on folks! PS: Not an accountant von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 9:52 AM Done, the bill has been changed.
Here is the new table: Attachment file type: spreadsheet New_taxes.xlsx 62.69 KB Visualization: Image W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/15/2023 10:00 AM Just to confirm, if I extrapolate the numbers from your excel sheet here. The annual total of your sheet (income * group population) is 421 billion. The annual total of the taxes taken is 43 billion.
And so your proposal is that the effective average tax rate be dropped from 35% to 10%? von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/15/2023 10:13 AM I have two goals. The first is to rationally distribute the tax burden among population groups. The second is to free approximately the first three subsistence minimums from the tax burden as much as possible, so as not to rob the poor.
After my bill, the tax will be collected only from those who are able to pay it.
The reduction you mentioned is an unpleasant side effect, which, on the other hand, will create a national grassroots investment base. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/15/2023 6:14 PM The reduction you mentioned is an unpleasant side effect Given our current massive financial deficit, I think this is not an "unpleasant side effect", but a budgetary catastrophe. Doing some back of the envelope calculations (thus take this with some salt), the effective tax rate is 35%, as Mr. Ward has mentioned. The current (WIP) government report notes that we take in about 60.5 billion florins in income tax, a difference of 17 billion between your proposed income and the current. To frame that, that is more than our debt interest. That is particularly sobering; you propose we cut from an income that cannot support our debt interest. I dont think any "national grassroots investment base" will make up 17 billion florins, especially in the ensuing financial departure from a government that cannot pay its debts. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/16/2023 12:46 AM Good, are you suggesting to rob the poor to a thread? I don't want to.
But I am aware of the impending budget disaster, so I am working on a bill to cut government spending. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/16/2023 1:23 AM Lets just be aware that right now, we are 70 billion florins in deficit. lowering income tax to 10% means losing 40 billion in revenue - making then a 110 billion deficit. This is what we like to call "the opposite of good". I am also somewhat confused why we would choose to slash income taxes (which pays for services used in common) and not remove payroll taxes (which tax employment - and therefore only wage workers). von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/16/2023 1:48 AM The bill does not change the income tax. He only changes the income tax.
I looked carefully at my table and saw an error - according to the column "Number of people" there is a number 2000, and while there should be 1000000. That is, the group values need to be multiplied by 500. I will do this, and send the table. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/16/2023 1:54 AM it won't make a difference though because the 40 income groups are still a constant ratio von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/16/2023 2:20 AM This affects the amount of revenue to the state budget. And there is some problem with this. According to the table of the old tax system, it turns out only 10 billion per quarter, while in reality it is 60 billion. But I don't see any errors in the table. Maybe you'll see? Attachment file type: spreadsheet Old_calculation_of_taxes.xlsx 61.66 KB Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/16/2023 2:43 AM Our current progressive tax brackets can be adjusted to lessen the burder on the poor. The nature of progressive tax is that it will impose lower tax-rates on low-income earners, and take more taxes from those that have the means to pay. Of course, there is a wider discussion on income vs alternate forms of wealth that the wealthy have, that I won't go into in this discussion.
The key is to at the minimum maintain current levels of median taxation. A drop of 25% will mean a much much more drastic cut across the board, across all expenditures to have an equivalent effect to what would be needed with current income levels. This is extremely concerning, and would cause much harm to the poor that will take a long time to recover from. I would say the same if the current progressive tax was dropped to similar levels. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/16/2023 3:01 AM Change in the act. After that, revenues should grow by 30 percent. GamerKodiak123 — 05/16/2023 9:40 PM taxes suck i do not agree with this act nahhh 95% income tax what are you on we need to lower taxes on businesses and wealthy not raise them GamerKodiak123 — 05/16/2023 9:52 PM what we really need is a land tax or whatever its called W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/16/2023 9:55 PM we have one of those GamerKodiak123 — 05/16/2023 9:55 PM oh my bad von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/17/2023 1:59 AM 95 percent not for the whole income, but only for a part of it, more than 45,000 florins per month. But no one earns that much in Kodiak, so there is no reason to worry. Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 05/17/2023 2:05 AM Clearly, you do not understand how tax rates work von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/17/2023 2:30 AM It seems to me that we have gone a lot to the side.
Who has any objections to the bill? Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/17/2023 8:39 AM Marginal tax rates my lord von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/17/2023 9:07 AM In fact, I only leveled the tax, made it so that there were no steps. Image Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/17/2023 9:18 AM What would be the total estimated income from these taxes? von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/17/2023 9:29 AM But this is a very good question. When I tried to recreate the Kodiak tax system, I received 8 billion per quarter, when there should be 60 billion. Why the difference is almost 8 times - I do not know. But I know that according to my scheme, we should receive 10 billion a quarter, which is 25% more than 8 billion. The table may be wrong in numbers, but it's clearly not wrong in percentages. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/17/2023 9:33 AM This is amenable with me. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/17/2023 10:00 AM So, I did not work on the bill in vain. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/17/2023 5:28 PM I received 8 billion per quarter, when there should be 60 billion. Why the difference is almost 8 times - I do not know. I believe this is because the DPBR is calculated annually, not quarterly. ~8 billion per quarter should be right W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/17/2023 5:35 PM (The issue at hand is the simulation emulates progressive taxation in its down-stream calcualtions - but only on a median tax level. The operable clause in the current act is "35%". The tax rates are only filler) GamerKodiak123 — 05/17/2023 7:20 PM i do know how they work but i think there should be equal income tax for all or better yet no income tax Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 05/17/2023 7:21 PM How would we sustain our programs with no income tax? Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/17/2023 7:44 PM crippling land tax 50% VAT GamerKodiak123 — 05/17/2023 9:34 PM exactly land tax is the best Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 05/17/2023 9:40 PM We already have a land tax, and it doesn’t provide enough income to sustain our programs - we can only cut spending so much. Income has to go up too. GamerKodiak123 — 05/17/2023 9:45 PM increase land tax lower income tax if we tax da land more then ppl will be forced to use what they have and not waste space increasing income tax is anti-trick-down economics taxing the rich means lower wages for their employees i learned that from a professional economist and historian Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 05/17/2023 9:48 PM “Professional economist” Yeah I wish economics was as simple as that. GamerKodiak123 — 05/17/2023 9:51 PM so basically graduated income tax leads to 2 possibilities workers get poorer or we get to borderline socialism Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 05/17/2023 10:12 PM Clearly you haven’t seen 🥃｜party-info yet. GamerKodiak123 — 05/17/2023 10:13 PM ewwww Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/17/2023 10:14 PM All I’m going to say is we have had three socialist chancellors I think we are a little late for border line lol GamerKodiak123 — 05/17/2023 10:14 PM socialism is bad Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/17/2023 10:15 PM I feel like this mabye should transition to rl politics but what’s your reasoning GamerKodiak123 — 05/17/2023 10:17 PM capitalism allows for true freedom, where hard work benefits you most Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 05/17/2023 10:18 PM 💬｜rl-politics Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 05/17/2023 11:40 PM Trickledown is the biggest joke in economics von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 3:01 AM Is silence here an agreement with the bill, disagreement or reflection? Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/18/2023 3:08 AM (OOC: for me it's time, but I guess you can call that reflection. Don't wait on my account, other people should speak if they have more to say though!)
Reflection on my side, I don't presently have anything more to add to the discussion otherwise. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/18/2023 3:08 AM I just want to direct you to this von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 3:11 AM Can you rephrase? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/18/2023 3:17 AM You were making the comment that the current tax brackets don't add up to 15 billion per quarter (60 billion per year) in your spreadsheet. The Simulation Software does not simulate brackets based on what we set for them, it simulates the 'average' tax from the three income classes (ignoring most of the Wealthy because wealthy people don't make their income through wages usually). So within the Individual Income Tax Act - the only 'acting' clause in the law in the simulation is the line saying: Creates a progressive tax on all earnings by citizens of the Republic set at the median annual tax rate of 35% ... . the tax brackets are just window dressing - flavour text - poetry That is why you cannot make them add up properly. but that is not necessarily a reason why you can't make your numbers add up properly. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 3:23 AM Perhaps. Thanks for the explanation. I will calculate how much the average tax is. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/18/2023 3:26 AM To help you in your endeavour 25% - 10.65 Bn 30% - 12.72 BN 35% - 15.11 Bn 40% - 17.05 Bn 45% - 19.08 Bn von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 3:49 AM The data is taken from my table.
The total income of the population is 17.5 billion. Total income tax receipts - 3.4 billion.
Percentage = 17.5 billion × 100% / 3.4 billion = ~19.7% W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/18/2023 3:53 AM The data I gave is from the simulation directly von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 3:56 AM So, the revenue should be ~ 8 billion. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/18/2023 3:57 AM I'm unsure what you mean by 8 billion. The dpbr reports the final income tax at 60 billion/annum. That is 15 billion per quarter von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 3:59 AM Is this quarterly data? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/18/2023 3:59 AM Correct von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 4:10 AM According to my bill, the income in the simulation will be equal to 32 billion florins per year (19.7%). According to my table, our income should be 24 billion florins per year (15.4%). Again, the discrepancy, damn it.
I propose to increase our tax rate in the simulation by 19.7 - 15.4 = 4.3%. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/18/2023 4:23 AM Would you like me to pin that? von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 4:33 AM Yes, please. W Magnus Ward (NUP)
to this channel. See all
pinned messages .
— 05/18/2023 4:38 AM
von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/19/2023 6:48 AM I don't see any point in postponing the vote. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/19/2023 6:54 AM I agree. It will be up to the Assembly to vote either for or against the changes. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/19/2023 6:55 AM But "for", in my humble subjective opinion, is preferable. Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 05/19/2023 6:58 AM The question remains, will this increase the government's tax revenue? von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/19/2023 6:59 AM See. Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 05/19/2023 7:00 AM Also, Section 1.2 leaves out Sections 1.6 to 1.11. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/19/2023 7:00 AM I'll fix it now. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/19/2023 7:02 AM Yes I believe we've ultimately resolved that the increase is from 35% to 39.3% Average Wedge Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 05/19/2023 7:02 AM Noted. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/19/2023 7:04 AM Done. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/19/2023 7:05 AM Note that 39.3% are the numbers for the simulation. For many citizens, this will be a relief. I'll send it again just in case. Image Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/19/2023 7:09 AM I still have concerns with calculating tax and income monthly W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/19/2023 7:19 AM I just want to note that is not an accurate representation of the current system. Image This is the current system (Orange is Tax Share, Blue is Post-Take Income share) note there are no steps W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/19/2023 7:21 AM I agree. I am vehemently opposed to taxes being levied on monthly incomes. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/19/2023 7:34 AM I don't see anything blue Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/19/2023 7:34 AM taxes can be levied on monthly incomes, but reconciled on an annual basis without monthly taxes, we would not receive government revenues in the interim W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/19/2023 7:36 AM Yes, they can be. But in this proposal they are not. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/19/2023 7:38 AM Then, I would need to vote against this act von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/19/2023 10:20 AM Not quite. My system is more accurate, because it takes into account real-life groups of the population, and not millionaires out of thin air. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/19/2023 10:23 AM Blatant lies and manipulation of numbers. As I said, our population is poor, so the tax rate will NEVER be the same as yours. My chart is more accurate because it takes into account the maximum income threshold. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/19/2023 10:30 AM All right, write an article for the bill, and I'll insert it, if everything is in order. I note that in the existing tax system, the terms of tax collection are not discussed at all. In this regard, this law at least sets a firm framework.
The discussion does not take into account the fatal shortcomings of the existing system compared to my system. Only the shortcomings of my system are taken into account. As a result, in order to receive, in the worst case, the lesser evil of the two, we get the greater evil. But even a lesser evil can be neutralized - offer a deliberate amendment that we can discuss. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/20/2023 9:30 PM Something tells me that the majority will vote against it anyway. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/21/2023 5:48 AM Stop stalling for time. It's time to vote - and come what may. Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 05/21/2023 6:33 AM I motion an early vote for May 23 if discussion is over Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/21/2023 7:16 AM Seconded von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/21/2023 7:18 AM How about today? Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/21/2023 7:22 AM Truthfully it's up to the president, I should clarify that I second a motion to bring this to vote as soon as possible. (ooc: I blame tiredness for not reading all of Asden's sentence :P) Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 05/21/2023 7:36 AM (Sorry, didn’t know if an immediate vote was too soon 😂) W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/21/2023 7:37 AM ((no its a fair point, while the debate has been lively, it has actually only been 6 days)) von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/21/2023 8:17 AM ((Just 6 days? An unexpected turn of events.)) Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/21/2023 8:28 AM ((Oh yeah I just looked at the first post and it's timestamped approx 6 days ago, aha! It certainly feels longer, I'm happy to say, good on you Kodiak for such lively discussion. Though I don't know if there'll be too much more so I'm comfortable for this to go to vote soon enough)). GamerKodiak123 — 05/21/2023 11:24 AM ((taxes are dumb)) Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/21/2023 9:41 PM
If there are no objections, a vote will be held in 24 hours. EasyPoll BOT
— 05/22/2023 9:57 PM
Question Do you approve of The New Individual Income Tax Act?
Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain
Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓░░░░░░░ [6 • 30%] 🇧 ▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░ [12 • 60%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 10%] 20 users voted
- alarm_clock: Poll already ended (11 hours ago)
- spy: Anonymous Poll
- one: allowed choice
- lock: No other votes allowed
Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: d63ff46e Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/22/2023 9:57 PM
@Assembly Member poll is now opened and will close in 72 hours. Debate is suspended, be sure to vote. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/23/2023 3:33 AM I ask you to stop voting and continue the discussion. The beginning of voting, apparently, causes a flash of ideas and claims. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/23/2023 9:48 PM
There was a 24 hour period where objections could be made, but none were raised. Voting will continue. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/23/2023 9:58 PM If I collect five signatures, will you stop voting? There are still some unresolved issues that have not been resolved due to objective and not very circumstances. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— Today at 8:24 AM
With 6 Aye, 12 Nay, and 2 Abstain, the New Individual Income Tax act is declared rejected by the Assembly. This post will be archived in 24 hours.