Jump to content

Mongol Federation

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,101

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Mongol Federation

  10. Mongol Federation

    Posted

    So, in your system, the government just turns into a giant company. With the most successful company being the one government that rules the world without regards to borders. Also, what of policing and defence? You essentially can't turn a profit when you're running an army, except if you resort to being mercenaries and looting. On second thought, letting armies loot and fight for profit might not be such a bad idea. Heck, we're doing it on a small scale already, why not go full-scale? trollface.jpg

    I did state some level of contemporary taxation may be needed depending on the population and level of development. This isn't an anti-tax plan, it's a reformist tax plan.

  11. Mongol Federation

    Posted

    We're trillions in debt and in economic crisis because the people in charge $%&@ed up. And when the government becomes for profit, do you really think that it'll actually do what it's supposed to do? Look at the many examples of corporations screwing over entire countries for profit right now, and then apply that to the largest government in the world, which owns 8,000 nuclear warheads. Do you not see how this will NOT end well at all?

    Hanse why the gov't would be kept out of management. They collect the money, nothing more in this plan.

  12. Mongol Federation

    Posted

    So instead of a system that works, you want the government to become a giant corporation?

    I can't possibly see how that could go wrong...

    Trillions in debt, underfunded projects and obligations, lost pay for workers, ect. and you call that a system that works? Sorry but letting people keep what they earn and ensuring that the money taxpayers pay gets spent on what they actually want/need seems to be the more logical path.

  15. Mongol Federation

    Posted

    "Such a system, based on profitable infrastructure, would at 1st seem like the status quo but consider this: You currently pay your utility bills, as a result you lights stay on, the water keeps flowing, the garbage get's picked up and you maintain communications with the outside world. You then turn around and pay taxes to keep the roads paved, the cops patrolling and the firefighters keeping the flames at bay. In my proposed system, you pay the utility bills and nothing more as the profits pay for what your taxes do now."

    You realize that this would just raise the cost of your utility bills until they cover the amount that is currently covered by taxes.

    And you don't think the billions of dollars in profits don't already? They could rase rates, yes but as i've already said, you could just vote them out if they can't justify the increase.

  17. Mongol Federation

    Posted

    I admire your desire to explore new ways to raise capital to fund a country. I can see you've given this considerable thought. Kudos to that.

    I do see problems with this, however. I'll address the first problem by asking a simple question:

    How much are dividend payments going to be? They need to be large enough to make people interested in investing in a company, but not so large as to take so much profit away from the company that it can't help support the Government in the way you suggest. This could be a very difficult balance to strike. People like making money and don't like giving money to the Government. Who's going to make this decision? The "owners" or the Government? This is a pretty large conflict of interests.

    Another issue is if an economic slowdown occurs. In the current system we have, Governments will borrow more during times of economic slowdown and recession, to address the shortfall that occurs from reduced tax income. The "guarantee", if you will, that allows them to borrow such colossal sums of cash is the fact they will again earn it back through taxation. If a Government's sole, or primary, source of cash are private enterprises, it's much riskier for lenders to lend money to the Government in question and then you have very serious problems if they can't, for example, pay people their social security payments, or can't fund the military.

    Finally, there's the dodgy issue of the Government being involved directly with business except in extraordinary situations (like the recent banking crisis). People generally want lower taxes and less involvement from the state, not more. Without trying to biased, this problem will be more present in the US due to the "libertarian" attitude a lot of Americans have. People in Europe don't generally stress over a large state, but they do in the US so, were this to work anywhere, it would be somewhere which is already at ease with a large public sector.

    Indeed, but then do private companies give out all their profits in dividends? Same concept.

    Which is why I based this off infrastructure. Everyone needs power, water, roads, ect. You may need to lower rates (better to make less money then make none because people can't afford it) but only a total economic collapse will prevent people from paying. This part of my plan, I admit, isn't totally thought out.

    As I said, the gov't would nationalize (an unfortunate necessity) and take the profits as tax. The IAs themselves wouldn't be run by the gov't however.

  18. Mongol Federation

    Posted

    If the government started to make a profit, people would demand that taxes be lowered because of the idea that taxes should be held at the absolute minimum possible. That's how taxes have worked for the majority of modern western development; I fail to see how that is feudal at all.

    Likewise, western ideals are self destructive in their own right. I don't think we need the governments to practice full fledged capitalism on their subjects, lest they become completely independent of the governed and work more for self preservation and personal motive rather than listening to the people, unless you think that supply and demand might take the place as the main democratic force of the people. That, in and of itself, would be terrifying. (Don't like your government? Well $%&@ you, you're going to have to go without power and water for a while, and god help you if you're alone in your quest)

    Ugh, I already explained away all that but...

    Yes it would be demanded contemporary taxes be lowered/abolished. That is in fact the goal.

    Alas this isn't capitalism nor would these be gov't run entities. Rather these IAs would be no different then they currently are in regards to general operation. Rather their purpose would change: 1. They would be owned not by outside investors (or the gov't) but by their employees and the local population via privately traded stock. 2. Their profits, rather being pocketed by investors, CEOs, ect. would instead be transfered to the relevant gov't (this would be the gov't's tax), minus dividend payments. 3. These IAs would be overseen by democratically elected administrations, so your fear, "Don't like your government? Well $%&@ you, you're going to have to go without power and water for a while, and god help you if you're alone in your quest" is needless as any such action would result in ether that administration/administrator getting voted out or if truly as extreme as you put it, impeached for corruption.

    These IAs would be independent entities answerable to the people. The gov't's involvement will extend strictly to the initial rationalizations and collection of tax. The people for their part will see their taxes lowered/eliminated as profits from the IAs would replace them and would even see some of that money returned in the form of dividends (unlike tax returns that are in fact simple change for over payment of taxes).

  20. Mongol Federation

    Posted

    "Still, 1 major feudal system remained in place, the taxes." This statement is false. The concept of feudalism as proto-capitalistic is an invention of Marx; and a particular failing of Marx's adaptation of the Hegalian Dialectic, and socialist thought, like yours that relies on it. Rather, taxes pre-date feudalism by approximately 3000 years. (http://www.upenn.edu...cientTaxes.html) They are not an instrument of a repressive form of government, rather they are the instrument that defines a government. You cannot have a government without taxes.

    Indeed but I'm not a Marxist, I'm speaking of feudal taxes and this isn't an argument for abolishing taxes but rather reforming them. Rather then spending money on infrastructure with no return and having to tax income and wealth to fund gov't, this system would allow infrastructure to pay for itself and allow for an alternate form of funding allowing for contemporary taxes to ether be reduced or eliminated, depending on how much money this generates (something that would differ from place to place based on population and level of development). As I sated before, you pay your utility bill and then you pay your taxes. Would it not be more efficient to pay your utility bill and have that be your tax?

    I've already provided an example of how 1 piece of infrastructure can pay for both itself and another. All 1 must do is expand the concept.

  25. Ghuxalia

    Posted

    Say again, what?

    During 1 of the Ideological Wars 1 of the nationalist alliances used the Norwegian national anthem in a recruiting video. Their nationalism, participation in the wars, germanic symbolism and an unfortunate claim by Storm Front that they used the game as a recruiting ground prompted Norway, upon discovering the video, to try to have the game shut down for being a Nazi training site.

    The number of players skyrocketed, the community backlash wiped out the Nazis, Norway was humiliated and I think admin still thanks them for the free advertisement that put this game on the map and made him lots and lots of money. awesome.gif

×
×
  • Create New...