Response To An Ultimatum
•
by Stranger Here Myself
Yesterday I've received a truly unexpected recognition: The Congressional Citizen Award, for my articles which "have forced people to take a look at things, and talk about what they think is best for our country." I really do appreciate the honor.
The failed tax regime is still in place, but discussion has begun, congressional and presidential candidates have been pressured to address the issue, and I do live in hopes. Whatever you think about the tax system, the debate will not be settled by mere trolling, ad hominem insults or "authoritative arguments". Any positive change in that system could only be the result of an open debate appealing to reason, appealing to you, the citizen, the voter, the taxpayer.
I've also came across another "awards" article, the "Block of Cheese Awards". Nominations include:
Worst Party President - me
Worst Writer - me
Douchbag - me
Worst Person of the Year - me
Worst Troll - me
The person most likely to be confused in a debate - me
(...)
Best Economist - Kemal Ergenekon
Now of course there is zero butthurt involved in those nominations. Since voting is anonymous and unlimited, I expect to win all those fancy titles by at least 10,000 votes each. No problem, have your fun clicking.
Awards, however, are merely about who likes and/or agrees with you and who doesn't. good or bad, they are merely opinions.
Another PM I've recently got is about the matter itself. Gnilraps wrote he trusts me to keep that PM private. I won't. I'm not the kind of guy to have a face for the public and another for backroom deals.
I'm not chasing popularity, and don't need my newbie guide to be "trumpeted loudly about" by anyone. I wrote it neither to build my image nor to recruit anyone to anything building a political powerbase. But to a have link I could quickly drop to newbies asking me for advice.
And what is even more important, I don't care about threats. I'm absolutely up to the "media war" he "could probably drum up". I'll tell you why.
The Economic Council's tax plan has failed. And failed big time. Not only because the 'official' explanation Gnilraps provided us with was total BS, "by which I mean Bull Sh*t".
Not only because it's architects delievered a galactic chaos of contradicting claims about it after.
But because it was based on false assumptions. False assumptions about how the game works, and false assumptions about how we all play it.
Yes, the claim it would by any means 'fix' Gold prices is and was BS. No, "nobody is using it as a reason for the tax code anymore", (but still, you shouldn't try to bribe/threaten critics to stfu about it, but have the balls and publically admit it was actually BS).
There has been a lot of (often contradicting) arguments for the recent tax hikes though:
1) Lowering VAT would make goods cheaper
It has not. And no, not because the country is being invaded and we had lost most of our resource bonuses. Historical market data clearly show that has almost insignificant effect on prices.
Prices are not driven by our demand and supply as Kemal assumed based on real life economic theory. Our markets are not "perfectly competitive" and demand is not "perfectly eleastic", as Anyonymous assumed.
We have a developer administered buying bot on them, that buys up something around two thirds of our production at prices we have practically no influence on. Influencing prices to any considerable extent by taxation is simply an illusion.
And contrary to what another EC member, Leroy Combs believes, the bot does pay VAT. It's been throghoutly monitored, observed and documented by multiple users. We can even establish how much VAT it pays - with a very good accuracy. It doesn't pay Income or Import taxes though.
2) Foreign imports will make goods cheaper.
After I had pointed out there're practically no foreign sellers on our commodity markets, Kemal commented something like 'it's an easy score to point at the markets'. And indeed, it is. Those are the freaking things you claimed to have influenced you know! Foreign sellers you hoped to 'push down prices' would have been there - if your theory hadn't been ignoring actual market figures from the very start.
If - instead of weaving your deluded theories in the warm pond of mutual cajolery of the private EC forum - you had took the time to look at the markets (or at least process the data gathered by Chae Dee), you would have found out yourselves that it is not profitable for any foreign sellers to sell here with the current Import Tax & VAT rates. And as it's not profitable, they won't do it. There are no invisible foreigners there, nor ghosts, nor Martians. It's again an illusion.
3) The tax plan transfers incomes from the "lazy", "inactive" employees to the Class A citizens working in communes
No, it doesn't. Commune workers are practically unaffected - as they had not and don't pay income taxes (and even that little due after MW goes to some other treasuries if they base their production abroad. They do pay VAT after the excess WaM products though - as we all do, including the lazy, inactive, worthless pieces of sh, the employees.
Employees are neither 'lazy', nor 'inactive'. The claim commune workers had higher average strength or rank has never been proven or at least attempted to be proven. I monitored my own workers for a couple of weeks. Both their average rank & strength was above the average, in fact, above the average of a few govt-subsidized militias I checked as well. I had Generals and Field Marshalls with a various number of stars applying for a job. Even a National Force. Lazy? Inactive? Again, an illusion.
What the tax plan really does is that it transfers income from the employees to the employers. The Q5 company owners employing others, the moneybags, 'big business'. The likes of ME (yes, me, even though I fight against this tax regime, I am a beneficiary), Kemal Ergenekon, Eli Crownover, Leroy Combs or twisted-pixel.
We are the real beneficiaries, not the average eAmerican. Our production costs are unaffected, we (well, in that case you) don't care about how much of the wage we pay would land in the purse of our employees - we pay the same in totals. However, when we sell our products to the bot, we keep more with lower VATs. So we can rape Lana, buy another company - or buy votes running for Congress ...
We, a select few, are the winners of the tax regime, grow some balls and admit it. And quit the BS about it benefiting Average Joe.
It does not. A single click on the Special Forces Center by any of us is worth ~57 tanks. With higher VATs and lower Income taxes we would have had to post a few more job offers to reach the same profits. And the purchasing power of our employees would grow.
(balls. some don't have 'em)
So don't be lazy. And above all, don't be hypocritical. Your tax plan does not benefit the country as a whole. It benefits a few of us/you only.
Have I been lamenting for too long? Well, that's just all about it:
I don't care about your offers or threats. My agenda is clear, public and consistent: repeal this deluded tax plan and restore the tax regime as of before Day 1430.
Now bring your "media war" on. Call me an idiot, a troll, an imbecile, and 'economic Pizza', whatever you wish. Try mocking your rolling joke 'terribl elitist' was actually not saying the very truth. It will be no change to what you've been doing for months now at all. But hell no, do not expect me to shut up in exchange for your support. I won't.
Cheers,
SHM
(Worst Party President, Worst Writer, Douchbag, Worst Person of the Year, Worst Troll, The person most likely to be confused in a debate)
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
good read...
I am really hoping we are able to gain back most of our regions, establish any bonuses possible, and then lower the taxes in a controlled, but speedy manner so that we are able to keep more money in the pockets of the American people.
SHM, your obsession knows no boundaries. Have fun.
And also, I have nominated no one in those awards. I have also been nominated as worst political figure. Enjoy, we have fans!
"establish any bonuses possible, and then lower the taxes"
Sure. However, nothing keeps us (well, 'them') from repealing the failed tax plan NOW.
And for those of you still not getting it: the current tax regime was crafted to turn out around the same amount of revenues as the former one. The treasury does NOT gain more now. It merely puts the burden on employees from employers. Claiming the opposite is an outright lie.
All the people reading this article without any prior exposure to SHM's rants should know that I presented him with a full model of the consumer's problem in eRepublik when he was asking for math and algebra, which he thought I wouldn't spend the time to write down. I did, and sent him the whole computation file (some long-size value function iteration code with all the relevant formulas of the game coded into it).
What did he do? He just ignored it. As could be expected. Now he has changed his argument to the bot argument.
Firstly, he all he does is fancy plots of the price data. Firstly, he should know that a 5% drop in VAT can at most decrease prices by 2-4%. Did he provide a hypothesis test to reject the null hypothesis that price level is different? No.
Did he take into account that we lost all those bonuses that pushed supply down? No. Did he take into account that demand increased since we are being invaded and people try to use all their savings to buy weapons? No. The list goes on and on.
Secondly, even if the prices remained the same, this means profit margins of the company owners increased. This directly means we enhanced the income of the company owners, increasing return on investment, and increased the incentive to invest, all else equal.
What he does is blame the bot, whose workings cannot be completely specificed. We know a lot about the bot, but there are still some aspects of it that remain unknown - what percentage of the total production does it buy? Does it buy more if the price of the product is lower? Etc.
What he should do is to contribute in a rigorous way to the debate, and prove that low VAT does not help the country. The problem is, he cannot. All theory disagrees with him. And he couldn't be bothered to model the effects on the individuals (which I did), then aggregate those effects to get some results on the national level.
As the self-acclaimed New World Economist, what he claims is "economics is BS - modeling does not work".
Then I ask you New World Economist, if all modeling is "BS, delusional,...", what would you have us do? Surrender and say "we cannot predict anything with the bot around"? Criticize everything to the ground with no actual facts and start eOccupy eWall Street sensationalist nonsense?
You are so lacking in this topic that you claimed countries like Brazil and Indonesia had lower taxes than us - when their tax revenues greatly exceeded ours, because their VATs were humongous. And you advocated we had a similar tax regime where on some other part of the debate you claimed our current tax revenues were too high.
SHM, where do I even start? You will always find people who believe in you. Unfortunately, that won't be because those people are economic gurus who go through your (flawed) argumentation and proofs. They will believe in you only because your ability of persuasion, and because they have some priors on the issue coming from God knows where.
Have fun, gather x votes, and continue to eOccupy eWall Street. Those of us who care about modeling the game's economics to have some understanding of consequences without the power of social experiments will continue to laugh at your flawed arguments and populist propaganda.
"What did he do? He just ignored it."
What a hypocritical and dishonest excuse! You linked a few Mathlab files. I don't have Mathlab, and won't buy one only to take a glance on your alleged 'whole computation'. Present your point in a format that is available and comprehenisve to all of us. Something you've still not done so far.
" Did he provide a hypothesis test to reject the null hypothesis that price level is different? No. (...) Did he take into account that we lost all those bonuses that pushed supply down? No."
Of course I did. Not even a 30% production boost affected the prices your model expected them to. Because YOU CANNOT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT PRICES BY TAXATION. We have the bot doing that:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/operation-epic-fail-the-ec-tax-plan-1895910/1/20
"Secondly, even if the prices remained the same, this means profit margins of the company owners increased. This directly means we enhanced the income of the company owners"
You did. That is exactly what I wrote above. Cannot into reading either?
"What he should do is to contribute in a rigorous way to the debate, and prove that low VAT does not help the country. "
BS, a mere straw man fallacy.
"The problem is, he cannot. All theory disagrees with him. (...) As the self-acclaimed New World Economist, what he claims is "economics is BS - modeling does not work"."
Exactly. All your real life theories do not work when you're trying to apply them on a system working differently. What I claim is that your alleged economic IS bs once you futilely try to fit them on the game. Your modelling does not work, because this game does not work like real economies - economies your theories describe.
That is why you restrain to primitive insults, empty rhetorics and inknowitbetters. You are trying to push the burden of proof on the critic - as you cannot prove the rationale behind your own plan at all.
"what would you have us do? Surrender and say "we cannot predict anything with the bot around"?"
You don't have to say that, we all know you cannot. You've already admitted that you know nothing about the revenues by tax type, Leroy Combs stated he doesn't believe bot pays taxes, etc.
But that doesn't mean everyone was that blind and incompetent. You can't. Many of us can and do.
"that you claimed countries like Brazil and Indonesia had lower taxes than us"
Don't they?
"he treasury does NOT gain more now. It merely puts the burden on employees from employers."
Now you are coming to your senses! The only additional observation you should have is that those employers have more strength and rank on average than the employees. That is the whole point.
You said Average Joe doesn't benefit. If your utility metric for Average Joe is his personal discounted lifetime damage - yes you are right for non-communer non-evading Average Joes.
My whole plan (as I explicitly wrote down) was based on a Social Welfare Function that sums all the personal discounted lifetime damages. Which is the national discounted damage. i.e. TOTAL DAMAGE OUTPUT OF THE COUNTRY.
The tax plan reduced the total damage of some Joes, and increased the total damage of some others. The net effect is OUR TOTAL DAMAGE INCREASED.
Selfish people who care nothing about the success of the country, and those unable to appreciate the importance of having a high damage output as a country will be unable to appreciate the importance of this. But people who put the country's success in front of their personal glory will find this tax plan beneficial.
I explicitly stated my SWF in the beginning, so you are just being funny. You always criticized my reasoning, and now that you have failed, you are criticizing my objective function. Why so late?
"SHM, where do I even start?"
Where you should have started at the very beginning: instead of pompous statements and empty rhetorics, PROVE what you say.
"Have fun, gather x votes, and continue to eOccupy eWall Street. "
If you think Capitol is in Wall Street, your geographical knowledge is somewhere around your economic one.
"Those of us who care about modeling the game's economics"
Check your comments. Once again you failed to address the actual argument or the facts behind them. Your point is nothing else but "I know better, you're stupid".
Stop lying, grow balls, admit failure. Because it can hardly be even more obvious than it already is.
"My whole plan (as I explicitly wrote down) was based on a Social Welfare Function that sums all the personal discounted lifetime damages. Which is the national discounted damage. i.e. TOTAL DAMAGE OUTPUT OF THE COUNTRY.
The tax plan reduced the total damage of some Joes, and increased the total damage of some others. The net effect is OUR TOTAL DAMAGE INCREASED."
And looking at any stats sites we can see it hasn't. But of course it did in your model. Of course your model was absolutely correct. It's all Reality's fault.
" Check your comments. Once again you failed to address the actual argument or the facts behind them. Your point is nothing else but "I know better, you're stupid"."
I don't know if Kemal knows better, but you're certainly stupid.
I love this debate. Nope, it's not yet getting old.
V
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............
big V
I hope that as time goes by more people will see the light. Until that time you will have to endure comments that you are stupid, imbecile, troll, nutcase and so on
kemal > stranger
"What a hypocritical and dishonest excuse! You linked a few Mathlab files. I don't have Mathlab, and won't buy one only to take a glance on your alleged 'whole computation'. Present your point in a format that is available and comprehenisve to all of us. Something you've still not done so far."
Matlab is a software every economist has. Let us skip that. The Matlab file can be opened by any text editor. I am sure you will be able to understand simplest of codes. There is nothing fancy in it. It is plain Value Function Iteration. Oh well, people with plots never need true math right? The colors are all that matters...
"Of course I did. Not even a 30% production boost affected the prices your model expected them to. Because YOU CANNOT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT PRICES BY TAXATION. We have the bot doing that:"
Firstly, define significant. If it is more than 2-4%, OF COURSE it cannot because taxes were 10%ish to begin with. Secondly, your claim has no proof. I claim that making VAT 99% will have a significant impact on the prices. Tell me if you disagree. If you don't, then tell me the *magıc* point between 0 and 99% VAT that makes the changes "insignificant".
"Exactly. All your real life theories do not work when you're trying to apply them on a system working differently. What I claim is that your alleged economic IS bs once you futilely try to fit them on the game. Your modelling does not work, because this game does not work like real economies - economies your theories describe."
I cannot describe how foolish this is. I am modeling the game where people maximize damage subject to their budget constraint. What other behavioral rule you could possibly rationalize? You say my prediction is BS. Where the hell is your alternative?
"That is why you restrain to primitive insults, empty rhetorics and inknowitbetters. You are trying to push the burden of proof on the critic - as you cannot prove the rationale behind your own plan at all."
I gave you the model.
I wrote an article describing the math.
I gave you references. I told you to go and learn DGE and Ramsey's Optimal Taxation. They are really basic stuff, and I am sure you can learn them within a day.
What else do you expect me to base stuff on? I have a complete model that I proposed. Can you get more ludicrous than that?
"You don't have to say that, we all know you cannot. You've already admitted that you know nothing about the revenues by tax type, Leroy Combs stated he doesn't believe bot pays taxes, etc.
But that doesn't mean everyone was that blind and incompetent. You can't. Many of us can and do."
I don't see any predictions anywhere. Am I blind?
""that you claimed countries like Brazil and Indonesia had lower taxes than us"
Don't they?"
They have lower income taxes and HIGHER VAT. Hence their total tax income is HIGHER than ours. They TAX MORE.
"And looking at any stats sites we can see it hasn't. But of course it did in your model. Of course your model was absolutely correct. It's all Reality's fault."
This is a remark even an undergrad would be loath to make. Of course total damage has declined over time. May that we because WE LOST BONUSES? Hence production? My plan increases total damage output GIVEN THE SAME PARAMETERS.
I wonder why I still take you seriously.
By the way, I will not let you slip by. Tell me your measure of welfare of the country. That is the ultimate place where your "theory" fails.
"Firstly, define significant. If it is more than 2-4%, OF COURSE it cannot because taxes were 10%ish to begin with."
Ok, let me put it that way: you cannot push down prices by any tax cuts at all.
"I claim that making VAT 99% will have a significant impact on the prices. Tell me if you disagree. If you don't, then tell me the *magıc* point between 0 and 99% VAT that makes the changes "insignificant"."
Of course you can drive prices UP (closing them on the bot's purchase price). Once they're over that, the bot will stop buying. And prices will consequently fall. Just as it happened recently in Spain.
"Now you are coming to your senses! The only additional observation you should have is that those employers have more strength and rank on average than the employees. That is the whole point."
Now there are two points for you to prove:
- they'll use that extra your tax plan gives them to increase their damage
- they use it more efficiently than an employee
"My whole plan (as I explicitly wrote down) was based on a Social Welfare Function that sums all the personal discounted lifetime damages. Which is the national discounted damage. i.e. TOTAL DAMAGE OUTPUT OF THE COUNTRY."
If you have made this definitions earlier, we might have found out a basic difference. For me the total damage output of the country is the damage put forth in battles for the country or for allies as per ordered by the DoD. I care little about the damage directed elsewhere.
"Selfish people who care nothing about the success of the country, and those unable to appreciate the importance of having a high damage output as a country will be unable to appreciate the importance of this. But people who put the country's success in front of their personal glory will find this tax plan beneficial."
I see very little patriotism in subsidizing the damage exerted by e.g. a Greek militia following their orders. You again are wrapping yourself into the flag and try to hide your lack of actual figures into that ludicrously false rhetorics.
Tell me, whom should we support more out of this three:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/1626573
http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/5061879
http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/4056112
"They have lower income taxes and HIGHER VAT. Hence their total tax income is HIGHER than ours. They TAX MORE."
USA: 25% Income Tax, 5% VAT
Indonesia: 5% Income Tax, 1% VAT
You should really switch of MatLab at times, and check some figures in eRepublik. You know, this is a game. It's not reality, it's a simulation with it's own set of rules, relations, mechanics. Even when MatLab proves youthat foreigners MUST sell on our markets, you should check the game and see that they don't. And then, you might actually bother to make an attempt to understand WHY. Believe me, it's easy. Calculate net sales after your IT & VAT, and see whether it's higher than net sale prices anywhere.
Or keep being ridiculous chasing phantoms and insisting that according your models they MUST be there.
"I don't see any predictions anywhere."
Predictions for what? The bot paying VAT? Or the amount of VAT the bot pays? Or the amount of VAT the bot would pay if you changed VAT? Please try to act like an 'expert' you mock to be, and be exact. What do you want to now? How much taxes the bot paid yesterday? Or on day 1445 e.g?
PILLOW FIGHT everyone \o/
"This is a remark even an undergrad would be loath to make. Of course total damage has declined over time. May that we because WE LOST BONUSES? Hence production? My plan increases total damage output GIVEN THE SAME PARAMETERS."
No, sorry, it doesn't. It is not the absolute decrease of damage that counts here, but the one relative to the resources we hold at certain times. We have historical data on both damage output and resource bonuses (among a bunch of other things).
And sorry, your plan has NOT increased damage output given the same (or proportionally modified) parameters. Neither has it pushed prices down. You are again pulling assertions out of thin air. Solid facts contradict you and your models. I know that comes to you as a shock, but hey, live with it.
http://tinyurl.com/cs2pzrw
I really liked the part where Good Ol' Righteous Balls-o'-steel Gnilraps shows his trademark courage and strength of character.
It's a brave thing ya know - coming out of one of his sixteen shells to admit somebody else made a wrong claim and he just repeated it. Not only that, he admitted his own - though very insignificant mistake - to the public! That, my friends, takes character.
Oh, wait...
"Of course you can drive prices UP (closing them on the bot's purchase price). Once they're over that, the bot will stop buying. And prices will consequently fall. Just as it happened recently in Spain."
There! You have another of your great fallacies. The bot buys stuff according to its revenue to the player, not the market price. This has been proven countless times, and I would refer you to dsokre's article if it weren't deleted.
If the bot-buy price for food is 3 USD in a country with no VAT, and if you increase the VAT to 50%, the bot is willing to buy all food below 4.5 USD. Hence you can never increase taxes so high that the bot stops buying. It only stops buying if people stop making offers with net revenue below the bot-buy price.
In fact this was the reason why bot-suppliers in the US had to change their prices after the VAT decrease.
You disappoint me.
"
Now there are two points for you to prove:
- they'll use that extra your tax plan gives them to increase their damage
- they use it more efficiently than an employee
"
-They are supplied only as long as they fight in battles designated.
-Their rank and strength are higher than the average Joe. That's more damage. And they hit it when and where it matters. That is more effective damage.
"If you have made this definitions earlier, we might have found out a basic difference. For me the total damage output of the country is the damage put forth in battles for the country or for allies as per ordered by the DoD. I care little about the damage directed elsewhere."
What is the difference? If it is people hitting elsewhere, the values aren't that much different. And if you are using this metric, you still fail.
"Tell me, whom should we support more out of this three:"
Don't come at me with hand-picked examples. If you want to prove your point, you have to establish that such people form a considerable fraction of the economy.
"
USA: 25% Income Tax, 5% VAT
Indonesia: 5% Income Tax, 1% VAT"
At the time you shamed yourself, those weren't the figures. Especially Brazil. Now that they have ludicrous amounts lying at their treasury, the Indonesians (correctly) decreased VAT.
Do not try to hide your grievous error. I am pretty sure about the Brazilian case. And they were the prime example you used when you said US failed and Brazil did pretty well.
"No, sorry, it doesn't. It is not the absolute decrease of damage that counts here, but the one relative to the resources we hold at certain times. We have historical data on both damage output and resource bonuses (among a bunch of other things)."
Give me that data, not words.
Always though vat was indirect tax. Consumers pay the price shown while the sellers get 95% of the price they put in to sell
@Lexone
Here is some explanation. Regardless of who pays the tax on the accounting book, it is the elasticity of supply and demand that determines who bears the burden of taxation more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
"If the bot-buy price for food is 3 USD in a country with no VAT, and if you increase the VAT to 50%, the bot is willing to buy all food below 4.5 USD. Hence you can never increase taxes so high that the bot stops buying. It only stops buying if people stop making offers with net revenue below the bot-buy price.
In fact this was the reason why bot-suppliers in the US had to change their prices after the VAT decrease."
What was the max bot price (including VAT) for q5 food before the change and what is it now?
"At the time you shamed yourself, those weren't the figures. Especially Brazil. Now that they have ludicrous amounts lying at their treasury, the Indonesians (correctly) decreased VAT."
When did he shame himself and when did Indonesians change VAT?
I think my questions are pretty straightforward and their answer a specific one :Ρ
"There! You have another of your great fallacies. The bot buys stuff according to its revenue to the player, not the market price."
No, the bot does not buy 'according to the revenue to the player', the bot buys at a fixed net price and pays any VAT above that.
If the bot's price is fixed at - say - 32$, and VAT is 25%, it will buy at 40$. Thus if you push prices up above 40$, the bot won't buy anything at all. The bot cares zero about "the revenue to the player". The basic function of the bot is to swallow the galactic overproduction.
And that makes all your daydreams based on the assumption that demand is by any means elastic complete and utter rubbish. We've been arguing for a couple of months now, and and I must admit that the fact that neither you, nor your bunch of 'economic gurus' have since managed to understand this fact is a source of endless laughter for me. You're like someone sitting on a horse facing its rear, and preaching about the art of riding with a pedantric face.
"Hence you can never increase taxes so high that the bot stops buying. It only stops buying if people stop making offers with net revenue below the bot-buy price."
Exactly. And once prices go over the gross bot price, the bot stops buying. Then prices will fall back again below. Hey, isn't that exactly what I wrote? Yes it is.
Now everyone, let's give Kemal a mass facepalm.
"They are supplied only as long as they fight in battles designated."
O really? Else you raise their taxes - selectively?
"And they hit it when and where it matters. That is more effective damage."
Kemal, are you dyslexiac? I said prove it, not repeat it!
"What is the difference? If it is people hitting elsewhere, the values aren't that much different"
Yeah, sure. Hitting in Argentina for Spain e.g. is surely a part of our national damage output. But ok, your values aren't that much different. Again, it's reality's fault.
""Tell me, whom should we support more out of this three:"
Don't come at me with hand-picked examples. If you want to prove your point, you have to establish that such people form a considerable fraction of the economy."
Two of them are regular employers on the job market. Don't tell me you haven't even took a look on the Job Market before you set up a tax regime benefiting the regular employers. Or were you merely focusing your own profits? Was it like that? Kemal, Eli, Leroy et al. agreeing to cut the taxes for themselves?
"At the time you shamed yourself, those weren't the figures. Especially Brazil. Now that they have ludicrous amounts lying at their treasury, the Indonesians (correctly) decreased VAT.
Do not try to hide your grievous error."
What a pathetic liar you are, Kemal. Both countries have their taxes unchanged since you raised taxes here and our debate over those changes begun.
Lexone:
"Always though vat was indirect tax. Consumers pay the price shown while the sellers get 95% of the price they put in to sell"
It would in a competitive market. However, what we have here - contrary what the EC believes - are not competitive markets. Both PES and PED are practically non-existent. Prices are sticky, and
they are sticky to an extent inconceivable in real world economies.
On Day 1402 when we had 80% food bonus, a Q5 Food was 2.93$
On Day 1412 when we had 100% food bonus and a 30% temporary production booster, a Q5 Food was 2.92$.
Now that we have one single Fruit, it is 2.99$.
That makes VAT practically a direct tax. And that also makes Kemal's beloved models fundamentally flawed. eRepublik markets are not at all perfectly competitive. They are practically oligopsonies, with a big, fat, irrational buyer thumbing his nose at prices, taxes, supply and the daydreams of 'economic gurus' - and buying up to two thirds of total supply at fixed prices.
Someone said in one of the comments that this debate was "Not yet getting old" but I must disagree. This debate will NEVER get old xD
Wild and crazy set of discussion, makes my eyes glaze over.
I'd still like to point out the tiny issue of govt spending being capped from above.
This means that there is only a fixed amount of damage being funneled from the _random_ to the _right_ fighters via taxes, the rest is just damage not done.
There is a slight chance the private citizens are actually fighting for the US in general (and, our beloved allies. I just _love_ Bulgaria's tax regime BTW, it's a truly magnificent sight to behold), maybe even in the correct battle.
Like, the one set by our _President_ as campaign of the day?
The mythical "reserve" simply means we can sustain _constant_ (in terms of USD) damage for longer.
So... overtaxation = less damage, period.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Give us your over-taxed, independent citizens. Give us your lazy, inactive, two-clicking vermin.
We'll help them to become self-sufficient warriors free to choose.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/the-construction-program-over-700k-of-gov-039-t-money-given-away--1914781/1/20
Low taxes = Max damage!
Grow and prosper in a country that supports all citizens.
Canada...conquering and liberating former US territories.
Perma Banned?
banned : L