Join the new world

In the short time I have been in Congress, I have heard a fleeting mention of a more standardized, and economically sound, tax policy and I agree with you in principal regarding the possible rates you propose. I believe that there is value in developing a team of like minded congressional representatives willing to dedicate their proposals to structuring a comprehensive tax policy.

Obviously I would be willing to offer my proposals to such an end if we can reach a consensus from Congress regarding the tax policy rates. Having researched the current tax codes for the top ten eNations (by experience), it appears that, generally speaking tax ranges fall into four basic categories:

Market Saturation, Domestic Saturation, Promotion and Revenue.

Market Saturation generally refers to income tax + import taxes + VAT equal to, or less than, 3%. Perhaps the greatest example of a truly "free market economy", the market alone dictates the prices that can be set by the companies doing business, consumers are fully at the mercy, or benefit, of the market...and the government is virtually powerless to invest in public improvements or maintain a professional military.

Domestic Saturation generally refers to income tax + VAT equal to, or less than, 3% and import taxes greater than, or equal to, 50%. For example, in Indonesia, the only product which is not taxed a domestic saturation rates are houses. Domestic Saturation, while possibly equating to lower prices for the consumer, generally equates to substantially higher profit margin for domestic companies that price based on the market rather than the actual cost. In that aspect it is dramatically great for domestic businesses pricing at market, possibly good for consumers but extremely damaging for governmental solvency.

Promotion generally refers to income tax + import + VAT between 2% and 20%. For example, in Romania (as in many other countries) Hospitals and Defense Systems are taxed in this manner (5/1/1 to be exact). Promotion is generally an attempt manipulate the market by expanding the suppliers, domestically and internationally.

I propose a concerted effort to design a progressive, revenue generating tax code based on industry as Jewitt and other have proposed. I believe that this congress can leave a legacy of sound tax policy which may, in turn, encourage future congresses with the opportunity to focus on building the eUS economy for the welfare of the eUS citizenry and military.

My original though was a flat income tax of 10%, but upon reading other, more educated, viewpoints, I am inclined to propose a flat 7% on all manufactured good and constructs. Further, I would propose a 5% income tax on all RMs. My reasoning for this is concern over the many, many individuals employed in the resource industries, further the RMs currently provide the lowest barrier to entry of all companies which civic engagement by providing newer citizens with a greater profit incentive to start new RM businesses.

I would also propose a flat 3% VAT (which for all intensive purposes is a national sales tax) for all manufactured goods and 2% for all constructs. The reason for the difference is the economy of scales involved.

Finally, the import taxes imposed, for the most part, internationally is elementary at best. The most commonly occurring numbers being 1% and 99%, neither of which are beneficial to national economies. At 1%, the free market reigns with just a hat tip toward possible revenue, and at 99%, the greater likelihood is that a formal boycott should be in place. The import tax policy should be designed with an eye toward balancing revenue with domestic supply. In that vein, I believe that the standardized policy should be a graduated 60/40/25 scale, in which areas of high domestic supplies and low to median costs warrant 60% import tax, high domestic supplies with median to high costs warrant 40%, low domestic supplies with low to median cost warrants 40%, and low domestic supplies with median to high costs warrant 25% import taxes.

At no time should the import tax be increased over 60% unless there is a specific product boycott in place and in no case should the import tax be decreased below 25% unless a specific national emergency warrants the change. The key to import tax policy, in my opinion (however flawed), is to generate both international interest in our markets and generate revenue for improvements and reserves.

As possible food for thought, I would recommend the following draft number for comprehensive tax policy:

Food 7/25/3 (Current)
Gift 7/40/3
Weapon 7/25/3
Moving Ticket 7/25/3

Grain 5/40/-
Diamonds 5/25/-
Iron 5/25/-
Oil 5/60/-
Wood 5/25/-

House 7/40/2
Hospital 7/25/2
Defense System 7/25/2

Again, all of the preceding proposals would certainly be up for negotiation prior to any comprehensive tax policy package. Once consensus was achieved, the changes would require up to 10 congressional representatives (including myself) to combine proposals for the comprehensive overhaul.

Finally, the ancillary benefit, as stated above, would be that this congress would do the heavy lifting so future congresses would not have to; additionally, we would be the congress that, finally, was visionary enough and dedicated to the welfare of the eUSA enough to develop a comprehensive, revenue-focused and deliberate tax policy. I could live with that, and for the eUS' sake, I hope that you, my esteemed colleagues, could as well.