Join the new world

This month the following citizens were part of the eAusProdCom: Nathan.Hill, bennydm, Henry the 8th, Guagature, Aussiee Bloke, Gueneo, J Seemore, and Rusty D.

I’ve done my best to summarise the points raised within the eAusProdCom, and also in the Senate, Cabinet, and Newspaper Articles. I’ve divided this all into 4 sections: Productivity, Taxation, Loans/Stimulus, and Aviation.

The opinions contained herein are not all necessarily the opinions of the Department of Finance, they are more of a summary of the opinions which exist. My recommendations in bold represent what I think is a cautious and moderate approach for first steps, based on some level of consensus.


Productivity Summary: The recommendation is to work on both limiting the effects of pollution through see-sawing, and to negotiate rental arrangements with neighbours next term. We have a good chance of at securing at least an extra 10% each in Food and Housing by renting regions from neighbours.

Prime Minister Gueneo published an excellent article on the see-saw effect, which I used to make a recommendation for employers to use collected work tickets on even days, especially in Q1 Housing and Q7 Weapons. Further explanation can be found in both of those articles.

Increasing the base bonuses, with a preference for renting from neighbours rather than having them rent from us, has been the preferred option, especially as we have higher bonuses than many of our nearer neighbours.

The idea of a safe non-bonus state has been raised, one left out of training wars for people to place a mixed holding in if they wish to lower the chance of pollution which more effects the bonus states. Victoria was the most popular suggestion, due to ease of coordination, however, there also seems to be a reasonable number of industries set up in Queensland, most likely due to it neighbouring eIndonesia and being our current capital.



Taxation Summary - The recommendation is to leave taxes on hold for up to a month while things settle, but possible changes to housing and weapons taxes seem to have some support and potential benefit to the economy as a whole. Further details on Aviation and possible region based taxes are yet to appear so it is difficult to make solid recommendations for those.

There have already been law proposals by three senators for tax changes in Weapons, Food, and Housing. All failed, although some votes were very close. The main reasons given for voting against were the lack of discussion beforehand, and the need to wait for the new changes to settle first.

Opinions on how long we should wait for things to settle vary, obviously some say not at all, while others say up to a month.

A point with regards to both Weapons and Housing, is that taxes for both were set when we had 0-10% bonuses, and the market was relying on imports, or locally based traders who buy overseas and then sell here at a margin. Now that our own industries have more of a chance to be profitable, there may be a case for lowering the VAT on one or both of these. A point has also been made, both recently and some time ago, that lowering import taxes may increase competition and keep local producers more honest, as well as bringing in more tax by increased volume. The counter argument is that if import taxes are too low then countries with larger bonuses may undercut our own producers, making their businesses uneconomical, and treasury revenue may also suffer on both fronts.

Mutual tax rebates with other similar sized countries is an idea which has been raised. Portugal started a rebate scheme. Although one here could be based on a particular industry or in one of the low pollution regions. We could certainly benefit from such a scheme if it was with a country with high Aviation bonuses. A criticism of this approach is that once a holding is set permanently in place, it would require future governments to honour the deal. It would also require a lot of ongoing administration and paperwork.

We're still not sure if the previously mentioned regional governments and regional taxes will be a thing. Staff have provided no further information. If they eventuate it may also allow different work taxes for different regions, thus enabling us to boost one industry or region above others, enabling better economics where it is needed, or helping to spread our pollution across more regions.

The issue of work tax was raised more in general, but the opinion seems to be that our work tax is quite reasonable by global standards. The modest surplus it brings should hopefully enable more spending on not only MPPs, COs, and boosting our military strength, but also some of the ideas in the next point:


Loans and Stimulus Summary: Reinstating and expanding Boss Bucks. Particularly for our citizens to set up their second holding company in eAustralia. Possibly some outright grants for second holding companies if the budget allows.

The Joey Development Scheme would need some reworking to include holdings, it has also been suggested that the new citizen’s welcome message may need a link to an education article on holding companies.

The Boss Bucks loans could be expanded to a range of companies as well as holding companies. Proof of placement of the first holding company in an eAustralian territory could form part of the application for a loan or even grant for the second or third holding company. While we only saw a small demand in the first Round of Boss Bucks a couple of terms ago, it’s difficult to know how much demand there could be for a grant scheme. The senate would need to vote on how many funds to allocate to the trial round and whether it should remain a loan or whether a partial or full grant can be given in certain cases.

While the initial funds for holding companies would be probably best restricted to eAustralian companies in eAustralian territories, it could possibly be expanded later either foreign citizens to set up holdings in eAustralian territories, especially in the lower bonus pollution free regions, or for eAustralian citizens to set up holdings offshore, possibly with mutual arrangements with other countries, especially if it seems necessary in Aviation.



Aviation Industry Summary: All we know is that there will be no WAM, and we have no bonuses. Helping our citizens to set up Aviation Holdings offshore may be a strategy for consideration. Also leaving the Aviation Taxes at their low default level for now may be best.

The overarching view here is to wait and see.

Attempts should be made to see if we can support the industry here, even without a bonus. Lower taxes, tax rebates, loans, grants, etc., can all be considered.

As the industry can only be worked by employees, having no bonuses in Aviation may place a strain on the economics. However as there is no WAM, also needing to be in the same region as an Aviation holding isn’t an issue, and so offshore holdings in countries with an Aviation bonus may be a consideration, with the kind of grant arrangements discussed in the previous section.

If it is decided to place offshore holdings, finding regions with low pollution and tax, long term stability, and in countries we have a good relationship with will be important. War or embargoes could reduce productivity or even bring work to a halt.

But again, all this remains to be seen as we know very little about Aviation as yet. As soon as we know more, the eAustralian government will do our best to inform and educate our citizens and build the best strategy.


Dread Pirate Hobbits
eAustralian Minister of Finance