The Fiscal Solvency Protection Act and Election Day
Day 2,164, 21:36
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Tyler Bubblar
This is the second and final article about the work tax, and the Fed/USWP attempt to cut it. Anyone who has perused comment section of the last article can plainly see it upset some people. Since many of those on the opposite side of this discussion (Dmjohnston, Hale, Seppo, and Talostastic chief among them) are people that I like and respect. They are not going for higher taxes to line their own pockets, harm the nation, or destroy the community. They are doing what they sincerely believe is best for this nation. I just happen to disagree with them.
The last article was accused of Pandering and telling a one-sided story/falsehoods/lies in order to win. Let's tackle that:
Pandering: The term is most notably associated with politics. In pandering, the views one is verbally expressing are merely for the purpose of drawing support up to and including votes and do not necessarily reflect one's personal values.
In reality, I have been against the rate hike from the moment it was proposed. The Fed caucus was informed of my stance and I shared my concerns in the PDB as well. It's my sincere belief that taxes need to be cut. High taxes on a crumbling community are a mistake. These next few months are going to be about rebuilding said community. I believe lower taxes should be an integral part of that process.
Lies/one-sided story everything is in public Congress and the Media. The article linked the other sides argument. In the comments of article the discussion and vote for the tax cut were linked. Not sure how else to be open and honest.
This is the Fiscal Solvency Protection Act.
Until such a point in time that the CBO's USD and Gold reserves reach a value of 10Million USD (using market value for gold), congress hereby decides to raise the Work Tax up 5% to a total 10%. The CBO Directors will inform the SCI (and congress, at the Speaker's discretion) of the reserve's progress compared to the goal every month. Once the reserve target is reached, the Work tax shall be reverted in order to match the budgeted expenditures to ensure deficit spending does not ensue.
Congress is encouraged to resume this legislation if the reserves drop below the reserve target in the future
Much has been said about the 10% work tax law. The public was told this law was to raise money for COs to fight Poland, help finance RWs, and show TWO we would not rollover for them. Yet taking a look at the law shows only a desire to raise taxes in order to have a deeper reserve. In other words it would appear that the people of the eUSA were sold a bill of goods.
Many of those who were in favor of the tax increase and voted to kill the Lucky 7 repeal are now switching gears. Circumstances have changed the war is over, we had no idea that we wouldn't have to fight Poland, etc. This is the link to the discussion on the Fiscal Solvency Protection Act:
http://eusaforums.com/forum/index.php/topic,28332.0.html
A look at the discussion will show if anything those who are now talking about reversing course should be confirmed in their decision. Regardless, we'd be more than happy to collaborate with them on lowering the tax rate if they're now interested in doing so.
Really it's about two conflicting visions. 1) We cut taxes to put more money in the hands of the community and lower expenditures to match or come close to revenue. 2) We raise taxes so that revenue matches or exceeds expenditures. The purpose in these two articles is to put the issue in the hands of the voters. Election Day is nearly upon us eUSA, you decide. Vote Feds/USWP if you want taxes lowered.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
In Tyler we Trust 😃
Excellent statement of the dilemma facing our community regarding taxation policy.
Thank you for sharing this objective article regarding the choice our community faces now that 1 million of our taxtollars have been allocated to preserving congress via a vie the recent treaty with Poland.
Another great article. Here's to another chance at a Lucky 7 deal and the Feds/USWP in October \o/
voted for the FORK IN THE FU*KING ROAD!
I can't speak for the LAP, not knowing if they (we) even have a Party-wide view on this, but...
personally, I'll be voting to lower the Work Tax if (when ) I'm in Congress next month.
Hmm... Considering that I like you quite a bit and I'm in SHIELD, I kind of sit on both sides of the fence, let's clarify a couple of the things I said in that last articles comments:
Pandering: When I said that last article was pandering, I meant that in the sense that it was posted in an attempt to appeal to people who don't like taxation (and perhaps don't understand all the complexities of economics in eRep) to gather more congressional votes for the Feds. I did not and do not now mean to imply that this stance does not reflect your personal values. I certainly believe that you take this stance because you don't like high taxes. However, I also believe that the wording and particularly the timing of your last article were intended specifically to appeal (that is, to pander) to less involved conservative elements of our playerbase with the intent to garner more votes for the Fed Caucus.
Let me be clear, I also have no problem with that. I was just cutting through the window-dressing and pointing it out directly.
As for telling a one-sided story, I think you told the story as you saw it, but I did find it interesting that you strongly focused on past voting record and paid little regard to the differences between wartime and peacetime or the change in circumstances since the last vote. Times have change😛 we're no longer fighting in a direct war, and we no longer need to account for imminent large CO/merc expenditures (or large peace treaty reparations), so the taxes will likely be lowered before too much longer assuming that revenues haven't dropped dramatically. Those are all significant differences in circumstance, and they were all conspicuously absent from your last article. If I look at it objectively, I guess that could be seen as flip-flopping or whatever you want to call it, but personally, I've always seen being cautious, evaluating, and adapting to the situation (and yes, changing your mind) as hallmarks of responsible governance.
That said, to my knowledge, new revenue numbers that account for the recent major drop in Average Wage have yet to be released, and yet, you seem to be back on the warpath for lowering taxes before the new congress is even installed. In a way, that's to be expected from you, and I could even commend you for holding to your values, but I ask you this question:
You're now on the record pushing for lower taxes without knowing for sure what current revenue levels are and without knowing for sure that we're taking in enough revenue to finance what we're doing right now. Is that responsible governance?
Personally, I'm not in Congress (nor am I going to be soon), and I can absolutely see both sides of the issue here, but I'm definitely in favor of having all the requisite information in-hand before making a decision.
Trust me, my friend you weren't the only one who called it pandering. In a sense you're right. It's a vote grab, but I'm sincere in this push. For years now we've pushed our spending to limit and beyond. We've had one sacred cow. Everyone knows what that is. Every other budget line except mpps was dropped. Before the work tax they were even beginning to cut into mpps rather than address the sacred cow.
"As for telling a one-sided story, I think you told the story as you saw it, but I did find it interesting that you strongly focused on past voting record and paid little regard to the differences between wartime and peacetime or the change in circumstances since the last vote. Times have change😛 we're no longer fighting in a direct war, and we no longer need to account for imminent large CO/merc expenditures (or large peace treaty reparations), so the taxes will likely be lowered before too much longer assuming that revenues haven't dropped dramatically."
Little regard is all the regard needed in relation as to whether helpful legislation is passed during peacetime vs wartime as the situation constantly evolves moment to moment as we have recently seen with respect to the swift signing of a less than stellar treaty with potentially horrifying implications upon its lapse.
Revenue is essentially pegged by the avg wage as long as tax revenue is concerned. What would be extremely helpful in terms of revenue would be for the MU's commanders commune holders and quartermasters were all to return to the eAmerican tax base vis a vie reclaiming their eAmerican CS immediately despite the resource bonuses.
Irrespective whether all sides are able to be sufficiently rational to realize the eAmerican community is a house divided with some whom fail to realize any delusions of entitlement harm the community as a whole. Given recent legislative activity since the FPSA it seems apparent that those within congress have only dug themselves deeper into their irrational defenses of a overly convoluted USAF command and distribution structure whose existence in its current form is only to pander to egotistic ideals of days now past.
The easiest solutions are to encourage all MU communes to reclaim their eUSA CS or lose their funding. The only true contribution of tax revenue should be a stack of 40 MPP's minimum loyalty maintained every month which is roughly 2KK CC / month
ha!! Fork in the road... thats PUNNY HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA lol
I am Largo. I am AMP. I opposed the Fiscal Solvency Protection Act mainly because it did not have a provision to deactivate it in periods of invasion/wipe/recovery. The last 2-3 months were not the time to be building a reserve. But now we are regaining our regions peacefully and gaining bonuses back, so now is the time to rebuild the reserves.
I believe in the power of the reserve. I believe our reserve is what helped us rid ourselves of our recent wipe. But most importantly I believe in spending the reserve only in wipe prevention and wipe recovery. But when we are in those situations, I believe in spending it down to 0. The rest of the time we should limit our spending to our budget and our budget to our income and our income to the lowest tax level feasible.
Voted for DuckTales
MM medal for free
SUB for SUB only on iVOTERS
join us
http://youvote.ivoters.tk/index.php
You can read in this article how it works!
http://www.erepublik.com/hr/article/do-you-want-5-golds--2329385/1/20
we don't need a reserve of cash! we need to increase our citizens production!
we should give every citizen once they turn lvl 30, 100 gold to build the 10 gold raw places to help them become self sufficient! if they made it to lvl 30 they are likely to stay for a while, and make the gold back in taxes, and them requiring less money to buy weps for them selves!
The idea behind the FSPA was to be concerned with both the present and the future. One is best prepared for uncertain times by preparing now (building reserves to a reasonable level) rather than scrambling to build it when under threat. This has been the consistent vision of the FSPA. Prepare for both the present and possible futures.
Your position, by contrast, is spend during the bad times but not replenish it during the good times. That is not sustainable nor the way to be a successful country.
Better buy more votes for your populist drivel.
Ahh does this mean we can't be friends anymore hatchetman? ;_;