Talk:Welch Tax Reform Resolution, 666

Welch Tax Reform Resolution, 666 Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 20/04/2024 21:54

Tabled by R. Henry Welch, III, MGA, as an government resolution. A resolution to reallocate tax burden and improve nation-wide economic efficiencies. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Welch_Tax_Reform_Resolution,_666 Voting is set for 7 May. The Kodiak Republic Wiki Welch Tax Reform Resolution, 666 A resolution to reallocate tax burden and improve nation-wide economic efficiencies. ACTIONED on ## MONTH ### with ## Aye, ## Nay, and ## Abstain.

NOTING the difficulty in maintaining positive economic sentiment; ARGUING for a fairer and more efficient tax system; SUPPORTING policies which inform behaviour; COMPROMISING idealism in favour of st... Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 20/04/2024 21:55

@Assembly Member This resolution has been proposed, and the floor is open for debate. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 20/04/2024 21:58 This tax reform will be just one step to repairing the damage done economically by independent bills passed by the last assembly which have greatly increased the cost burden of businesses. The reduction in corporate taxes are expected to cost 2.7 billion florins per quarter.

That said, the increase in land value tax will provide 2.9 billion florins while also acting as a market-system to force efficient use of land. By taxing land value instead of improvements, it means that the more efficient and effective your structure, the better pay off you get. Cities will become more dense, and farmers will pay less for agricultural land since it will have less competition from urban sprawl.

The vehicle registration fee will likely net around 3.5 billion florins per quarter, but forcasts will drop as it mediates car usage - an important step to resolving our gridlock problem in the major cities. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 20/04/2024 22:02

Even though I am a stickler with dropping Corporate taxes, I am sure this will help reduce Corporations leaving here. I do like the two new taxes which will balance out the reduction in corporate taxes. How will this effect the current issue with Corporate exudus? will it reduce this issue? R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 20/04/2024 22:05 Look, reports from @The Public Service would indicate that to repair the reputational damage, we'd also need to undo the changes in workplace safety laws in their entirety. That isn't to repeal them entirely, but to revert them. The cost overhead for a low productivity economy like ours just isn't profitable to also have platinum class worker protections. It really is an either or problem. Either we make the cost of workplace saftey lower, or we don't have workplaces to keep safe. Will this help? Absolutely. But it still will not be enough If we had a more efficient or automated economy, then maybe we could get away with it. But at present, we just don't have the plant Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 20/04/2024 22:06

Thats a difficult thing to do to our workers who work hard, it would be shameful to take away or even reduce the current workplace safety standards. But I can understand where that is the biggest cost on corporations R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 20/04/2024 22:08 Ultimately, it comes down to how things work - either we have lots of wages that don't cost much over head (less workplace safety) - or we have less wages (businesses leave or we replace people with machines) corporate capital is a finite resource if we cost too much to get less product, as presently, companies will move overseas Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 20/04/2024 22:09 I would like to add an amendment R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 20/04/2024 22:09 they may still buy our rocks, but they will process them overseas and sell it back to us at a mark up Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 20/04/2024 22:12

Would you say Wages are relatively high? R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 20/04/2024 22:13 interesting question wages are average for purchasing power, low for international standards, and high compared to how low our productivity is per employee Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 20/04/2024 22:15

If I ask why our productivity is low, could you answer that or would @The Public Service be better at answering it? R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 20/04/2024 22:17 I can answer it but it will be with information from the public service There are a number of issues which drag down our productivity - beyond just work being slower from regulations, there are also health issues. The Kodiak flu remains an ongoing issue, asthma and other respiratory disease is endemic due to pollution, drug addiction and crime reduce worker efficiency, technology as well as automation are years behind, and our internet is terrible. High wages drag down productivity the most, but that's a cost benefit question. we could lower wages but then consumer spending would also decrease. That said, our high level of education and generous adult training subsidies go a long way in mitigating some of these effects R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 20/04/2024 22:43 that said, most of this isn't necessarily relevant to the tax bill. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 20/04/2024 22:46

Ok thank you. Let’s get back on topic R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 21/04/2024 11:46 Either way, I commend the resolution John Edwards [KWP] — 21/04/2024 13:51 This will seriously disadvantage workers, likely driving up support for the commune. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 21/04/2024 14:50 Taxing land owners - the new way to disadvantage the workers. give me a break. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 21/04/2024 19:10 How so? You don't even care to explain yourself for such a comment Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 22/04/2024 08:42 What is the estimated tax revienue that would come from the Vehicle Registration Tax every year? R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 22/04/2024 08:46 This is answered in my first post. 3.5 billion per quarter is 14 billion a year. John Edwards [KWP] — 22/04/2024 15:05 Farmers will be hit with a massive 30% increase on their land tax, when they are already struggling to meet the demands of the existing land and property taxes. Add to that a vehicle registration fee for the many vehicles required for agricultural work and they are being targeted again. This reform merely shifts the tax burden from corporations to farmers. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 22/04/2024 15:10 Its rather impressive to complain that we are unfairly targeting farmers when they are already receiving 4.5 billion florins annually in subsidies, not to mention another 4.5 billion in rural development subsidies which also directly and indirectly support farmers.

Lets not forget as well that taxes are based on value. Farm land is no where near as valuable as town land or city land. lets also remember that farms are businesses, which will also see their taxes lowered with the decrease in coroporation taxes. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 22/04/2024 20:41 Let’s not forget that farmers rely on those subsidies to simply survive. Increasing their burden additionally will mean either that they require more subsidies or more tax breaks. Given our current budgetary obligation, I would guess that neither are a fantastic option. I would request that land used solely for agricultural purposes should be given a more reduced tax rate, so as to lighten the load on farmers. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 22/04/2024 20:59 Farms are businesses that must answer to similar market forces as any other. As mentioned previously, low productivity is already a major economic drain. We should not build a system that depends on 70 year old systems to operate and then pay business for the opportunity. No if a farmer is so on the edge that they can't afford an increase in land tax while also having their other tax burden lowered, then they should sell up or merge with neighbouring farms. This isnt the 19th century. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 22/04/2024 21:56 Which would unavoidably increase the price of food, already a serious issue for our working class citizens. You’re talking about people losing their entire livelihood to squeeze a few more florins from the budget. Farms are not just businesses, they are a way of life and a home. You’re not just saying “sell your business if you can’t afford it”, you’re saying “sell your history” and “sell your home” simply because property taxes have gone up. You yourself already stated that farmland is not high in value. If this is the case, we can afford to decrease farmland taxes in order to ensure a steady supply of reasonably priced food without having to resort to factory farms and mega-corporations playing with our food prices for profit while family farms are pushed out by the government. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 22/04/2024 22:04 This is some real luddite level idealist rot. Farms are businesses. Technology evolves, efficiencies change, and economies of scale change. The one family farm is an inefficient and expensive way to grow food. There is no mathematical reason to prop up single family farmers more than any other artisanal craft.

No, I will not provide an unfair cut out for family farmers - land owners will pay their fair share for land. Whats crazy is of all the policies in this bill, the one you focus on is the actually leftist one - Georgism.

I'm not going to carve out exceptions for this, and we shouldn't. Farmers already get a rediculously high level of subsidy and if they can't hold it together now, the fault is not this tax. Ecky B. Ryland [KWP] — 23/04/2024 05:33 What's your reasoning behind the removal of the property tax? R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 23/04/2024 09:25 By taxing improvements, we lower market efficiency. It is a direct fee for building expensive buildings. Property taxes essentially attempt to tax the same thing as the Land tax, but instead of targeting the actual asset (the land) it targets the improvements to the asset (the building). Taxes are ultimately one of two things: fees for services rendered, or fines for behaviour unwanted. When we charge income taxes, its to pay for social services of which citizens require and thus type 1. When we charge property taxes, the improvement is not receiving any services from the government. The plot of land may, but the improvement can be knocked down and rebuilt for essentially any purpose. Limits to these purposes are almost always tied to land.

Having both a land tax and a property tax essentially double taxes land owners, but also says "please don't build anything too expensive here because your fees will go up."

If we want efficient factories, if we want higher urban density, if we want less suburban sprawl - then we should not tax improvements. Ecky B. Ryland [KWP] — 23/04/2024 14:30 Property tax only applies to citizens with more than one home. It doesn't apply to single family homes. So it only applies to the more wealthy who can afford multiple homes. I don't see why it would be a problem to make them pay more for having multiple houses. It's important to stress that only residential property is taxed, so a farmer with multiple farm buildings is not affected. I therefore see no reason to remove the Property tax. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 23/04/2024 14:32 That is literally within the specific bounds of the problem. When you create a fee on improvements, then you specifically self-select for the cheapest improvements to a property. if you want landlords to buy good land, and build low density crap - you use property tax If you want landlords to build high density and high-value improvements, you don't tax them for doing it. A rising tide lifts all ships, but you want to find some ships and add weight to them - not good policy That said - I'm not removing the article. I find it impossibly difficult to believe the KWP will vote against a tax which punishes land hoarding, improves urban density, and works to ease traffic congestion, reduce pollution, and increase public transportation use but hey, if the KWP is pro landlord, so be it Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 24/04/2024 21:03

@Assembly Member I’d like to see further debate on this bill. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 06:49 ((Do we have an income tax?)) Why are we cutting cooperate taxes? María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 08:04 Because of our poorly productive economy. (Well, that's one of the issues) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 08:13 How is cutting taxes for businesses going to fix that problem María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 08:21 By attracting business interest Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 08:24 I'm afraid that this tax cut will be used to pay off shareholders and leave our regular citizens behind increasing the wealth gap between rich and poor Where in these taxes does our poorest citizens benefit? María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 08:28 ((bro's not a sociocapitalist he's a socdem/socialist)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 08:30 ((No... not really)) María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 08:30 This bill is to improve the economy, you want us to add some kind of financial aid program too or what? Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 08:31 I am leaning to vote for this bill you know I just want to clarify a few things María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 08:32 This bill is to improve the economy, and the surplus obtained by this change would probably go to public services ((i think it was healthcare iirc)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 08:33 ((OOC: Fala is looking at writing another bill to go with the tax law)) María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 08:33 ((i dunno if it'll be possible, it's already on the floor)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 08:34 ((I will keep it a surprise Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 08:34 Probably Yeah, sure Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 25/04/2024 08:34 ((For like... 15 mins Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 08:35 It is incredibly unlikely that any money made by these corporations will go to anyone but the fat cats at the top. This is not speculation, this is history. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 08:43 What are you even saying? You think that the surplus the government makes out of this will go to the rich men's pockets? Are you this indoctrinated? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 08:45 Corporations, madam, corporations. Use your ears, please. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 08:46 Newest nonsense from the KWP, apparently. Any money the government makes goes to give the rich men bigger wages. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 08:47 Please point out where I ever mentioned money made by the government. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 08:47 Where have I mentioned money made by corporations, though? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 08:48 I'm not the one claiming you did! I am capable of making my own points, destinct of what you have to say. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 08:48 It seems that now that you noticed your mistake derived from your bad faith, you choose to blame it on me. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 25/04/2024 08:49 As I was saying, the surplus made by this reform shall be put to use as soon as possible. Mainly for postwar reconstruction and public services. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 08:51 I was responding to Mr. Fala's point about how the tax cut will be used by those it effects. Not everything is about you. You decided that I was responding to you for some reason, despite the fact that I had already finished addressing what you had to say. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 09:02 I still am not certain that "tax cut" equals "better business atmosphere". If "tax cut" just means "more money for the top" (as it always does), I don't see how that will help businesses or the people that work in them. Sure, that might mean a better business atmosphere as more large businesses flock to Kodiak, but that doesn't really help anyone but the big business. How will this help the people? R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 25/04/2024 10:02 These are all a rather simplistic misunderstanding of how this works. Tax cuts permit more capital for business to invest into wages, plant, research, or reducing overhead. Stock buybacks are quite literally a loan repayment for the business which also increases the value of the remaining stock holders.

Also the act of lowering taxes does not immediately put "money in the top". We already have rather high capital gains taxes compared to other nations. Any money an owner or shareholder may wish to attempt to extract from the tax decrease would immediately be taxed at a higher rate.

If you are so simple as to be incapable of seeing that money on a business balance sheet is required for hiring workers or renting retail space, I'm sorry but you're beyond help. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 10:16 If you are so simple as to be incapable of understanding the inherent greed of big businesses that care little for the actual worker they exploit, I'm sorry, but you're beyond help. Tax cuts can permit for more capital for businesses to invest into wages, but they rarely do. It has been repeatedly shown that it will not be the lower 90% of workers that will gain from corporate tax cuts, but the top 10%, the managers and the executives. This research is conclusive in it's results: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/congress-should-revisit-2017-tax-laws-trillion-dollar-corporate-rate-cut-in#_edn18 R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 25/04/2024 10:17 Sorry but no, I'm not going to build policy on the imagined emotional state of a non-sentient entity. I'm going to use numbers and data. "inherent greed" is a meaningless statement to base any decisions on Braughn F. G. Kryos — 25/04/2024 10:20 Your willful and purposeful misunderstanding of my statement is, while par for the course at this point, still incredibly childish. Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 26/04/2024 04:51 ((Speaking without much or any knowledge of the simulation here, but assuming Rykk proposed this to assist budgeting)) I do see a need to restructure our taxes within the region. The government cannot function without an effective tax structure. Presuming no one else has a plan in place I do support this piece. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 26/04/2024 04:53 I will vote to support this bill with my supplement to come to the assembly later in the month R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 26/04/2024 22:14 As stated before, we need to resolve numerous issues and this does a decent job proactively working to those solutions. For low business confidence, we lower taxes on business. to replace the shortfall we use a tax which better-induces long-term economic efficiency. For traffic congestion and pollution, we tax personal vehicle usage. We already have massive bus subsidies, lets use them. The only opposition so far has been a vacuous claim about business being greedy (irrelevant since businesses aren't people) and a vague notion that some members prefer an inefficient property tax over a more efficient land tax.

Lets stop all this buck passing and start a vote. J.F. Sassoon — 26/04/2024 22:16 I motion to vote. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 26/04/2024 22:19 Second Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 26/04/2024 22:20 Third Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 26/04/2024 23:43

Sounds good, I’ll move it to a vote. ((Once I am in the office)) R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 27/04/2024 16:58 ((bump)) R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 28/04/2024 17:26 Mr. @Assembly President can we please move this along Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 28/04/2024 17:29 I agree, if no one wanna continue debating, let’s just vore We’ve dragged this bill out long enough Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 28/04/2024 21:46

((This weekend has been fairly busy, doing this now)) EasyPoll APP

— 28/04/2024 21:51

Question Will the Assembly pass Welch’s Tax Reform Resolution?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░ [17 • 74%] 🇧 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [4 • 17%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 9%] 23 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (6 days ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: ec47b630 Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 03/05/2024 00:30

With a vote of 17 ayes, 4 nays, 2 abstains, The Welch Tax Reform Resolution has passed the assembly. This debate will be closed and archived. @Assembly Member