I’ll reverse the rhetorical order to compliment and congratulate the current and former eUSA powers going back to whoever instituted the CRAP and GIMP programs. From my perspective as a new player the cash infusions from these two programs makes possible the feeling of progress. It would be discouraging to have to join a commune to fight and foresee a slow buildup of capital to obtain independence. My feeling on this question can be argued, but for me cash in hand makes a better game.
I have been told taxes are theft and wealth redistribution is socialism and therefore evil. That evil works in the eUSA. Tax revenue distributed by the current programs have several effects.
1) Gives cash to each player that can be used for capital investment
2) Refunds some taxes paid.
3) Incentivises increases in Aerial Rank
4) Provides a daily head count of active players .
5) Decreases the cash amount available for less egalitarian programs
6) Decreases the amount of cash available if the eUSA were ever PTOed
7) Welfare/incentive elimination would signal a profound shift in administration. With every player affected, the whys and wherefores would be thoroughly vetted.
Some of the other possible systems...
1) A pay-for-damage or a pay-for-kill system would reward activity
2) Using the same funds to build up the number of Q5/Q7 buildings of commune owners would increase the amount of food and weapons (total pay) available to the new player who would be shepherded to jobs in the communes.
3) This point is reserved for considering systems I have not thought of and are brought up in the comments
The problem with pay-for-fight is each player must be monitored requiring an administrative system. Communes are basically agreements to give employees products with a greater total value than they could obtain working for cash. Giving gold to such owners depends on a high trust of the owner by the powers or an audit system or a conduit through the government from the owner to the employee, again requiring onerous administration
My analysis so far has assumed the existing work tax system.
George Barker and perhaps others propose a change from the work tax on salary (and an (arbitrary) average salary valuation of the work-as-manager click) to a VAT (value added tax ) of the (arbitrary) average value of the building’s product, assessed on the owner. This would impact most the player with the most capital investment but allow even Q1 farms to be worked with some gain.
The implications of such a tax system:
1) Allow more resources to the new player right out of the box
2) Increase taxes on an owner in step with capital investment
3) Allow some flexibility in VAT rates as they could be raised without affecting the newer player (less capitalized) disproportionately
4) Automatically change the taxes paid in line with inflation or deflation of the (arbitrary) average product price
1) Impose more direct tax on owners that now do not pay employee work tax, lowering salaries.
2) The sale of products by commune owners to raise cash for VAT would decrease the amount of products given to commune employees
3) May lead to deflation as owners must sell products for cash to pay the VAT.
I’m sure I missed some implications as is my wont. Please comment