Unified Party

[SupremeLeader 127]

1 hour ago, DLimit said:

The risk would not even exist within a socialist system considering that industries would be formed according to the needs and desires of the people. In fact, through Universal education, skilled labourers with critical minds shall be more likely to contribute towards inventions and discoveries in order to enhance the human development of humanity rather than utilizing one half of their entire life selling their labour power to a bourgeois-C.E.O. that merely profits from one's labour.

This is a communist fairy-tale.

Now, please understand that I'm not a blind follower of the system of capitalism, and I acknowledge the many faults of the system. This is why I personally advocate for a free market with subtle government intervention in order to sustain a healthy environment for all individuals and businesses to thrive (control the outbreak of monopolies that destroy competition). 

One of the communist system's strengths of being able to quickly mobilize it's people towards a common goal (whether forced against the will of the people or not) also leads to a major weakness, which is the lack of incentives- a major problem that the USSR ran into. When the USSR assigned an individual a certain job (most of the time against his/her will, as most communists states do), the efficiency to produce the desired result was massively inefficient and actually was a lot of the time detrimental to the development of that given program. For example, in a study conducted in the former USSR, over 50% of the work force admitted to drinking alcohol while on the job. Furthermore, unbeknownst to the communist party, nearly 40% chose to work a second job privately to attain more wealth.

A reason for failure in work ethics and motivation is the necessity that all communists must be employed. Overmanning positions trivializes the work needed to be performed and placed the concentration on quantity rather than quality. “This fact,” according to David A. Lane, “gives rise to economic pressures that keep wage low and demand for labour high, which leads to widespread overstaffing and slack work standards.” Instead of each person contributing, each additional excessive worker lowers the overall quality of the product. Many communist societies force upon jobs out of theoretical necessity without providing a way of sustaining interest or providing training. Therefore, Communism in practice counteracts the goal of making society better through communal collaboration.

 

1 hour ago, DLimit said:

The majority of employers did not even start from the bottom considering that their wealth was inherited from their ancestors. 

This is just a flat out lie.

http://www.ustrust.com/ust/pages/insights-on-wealth-and-worth-2016.aspx

Only 10% of the modern wealth comes from inheritance. In fact, the vast majority of business owners in America were self-made, and the majority of their wealth came from businesses that they created with no other familial assistance.

2 hours ago, DLimit said:

Their business is based on exploiting the labour power of working-class citizens for profit, without even contributing more than a small percentage of towards the business. Within a Socialist state, one is not expected to be wealthy in order to contribute their inventions or discovery towards a system. Instead, values shall be determined based on one's ideas rather than their wealth.

Working in a factory line completing repetitive tasks, for example, should not be rewarded the same as a person who creates a revolutionary product with real consumer demand. This is just a fundamental disagreement between you and I, it seems.

[DLimit 167]

16 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

This is a communist fairy-tale.

Now, please understand that I'm not a blind follower of the system of capitalism, and I acknowledge the many faults of the system. This is why I personally advocate for a free market with subtle government intervention in order to sustain a healthy environment for all individuals and businesses to thrive (control the outbreak of monopolies that destroy competition). 

One of the communist system's strengths of being able to quickly mobilize it's people towards a common goal (whether forced against the will of the people or not) also leads to a major weakness, which is the lack of incentives- a major problem that the USSR ran into. When the USSR assigned an individual a certain job (most of the time against his/her will, as most communists states do), the efficiency to produce the desired result was massively inefficient and actually was a lot of the time detrimental to the development of that given program. For example, in a study conducted in the former USSR, over 50% of the work force admitted to drinking alcohol while on the job. Furthermore, unbeknownst to the communist party, nearly 40% chose to work a second job privately to attain more wealth.

A reason for failure in work ethics and motivation is the necessity that all communists must be employed. Overmanning positions trivializes the work needed to be performed and placed the concentration on quantity rather than quality. “This fact,” according to David A. Lane, “gives rise to economic pressures that keep wage low and demand for labour high, which leads to widespread overstaffing and slack work standards.” Instead of each person contributing, each additional excessive worker lowers the overall quality of the product. Many communist societies force upon jobs out of theoretical necessity without providing a way of sustaining interest or providing training. Therefore, Communism in practice counteracts the goal of making society better through communal collaboration.

 

This is just a flat out lie.

http://www.ustrust.com/ust/pages/insights-on-wealth-and-worth-2016.aspx

Only 10% of the modern wealth comes from inheritance. In fact, the vast majority of business owners in America were self-made, and the majority of their wealth came from businesses that they created with no other familial assistance.

Working in a factory line completing repetitive tasks, for example, should not be rewarded the same as a person who creates a revolutionary product with real consumer demand. This is just a fundamental disagreement between you and I, it seems.

Arguing that subjects shall lack an incentive towards labouring within the workplace is based on a false analysis of the Socialist system. One had attempted to argue that "most Communist societies force their citizens to labour specific roles within society". Yet, Communist states have NEVER existed within society considering that such states were often degenerated worker states under state-capitalism.

Aside from such inaccurate claims, a Socialist state does not "force" citizens to labour within the system. In reality, through Universal Education, each and every single citizen shall be capable of specializing in a certain role that one desires, rather than being forced to externalize one's labour in order to merely survive (referencing to Marx's "Theory of Alienation"). In the process, the majority of manual labour would be replaced with automated machinery, resulting in subjects possessing more time to produce fulfill their internalized desires through the assistance of Universal education.

One had attempted to compare states such as the U.S.S.R. with Socialism. Within the U.S.S.R., the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" would APPOINT managers within the workplace, which resulted in managers misrepresenting the labourers within the workplace. However, a Socialist state would consist of a worker's democracy, which involves labourers electing individuals into managerial positions. Thus, managers would be a representation of it's workers while ensuring that productivity remains maximized based on the interests of it's workers.

 

The link that you had posted is a nation-wide analysis of wealth distribution. However, less than 10% of the citizens within the planet Earth possess more than 60% of the world's wealth, indicating that wealth is INHERITED on a global scale. 

What would prevent a Socialist state from replacing the role of a mere C.E.O. that simply "manifests an idea that appeals to the public"? Public surveys could easily resolve such issues within the public sector, specifically when the public sector is CONTROLLED by the PEOPLE/WORKERS.

How I perceive the issue with the bourgeoisie v. proletariat issue:

CEO: I have an idea... manifest this idea for me.

Worker: Alright, I shall produce 100% of your idea and distribute such an idea to the public.

CEO: Brilliant, you only deserve less than 1% of the profits.

Worker: Alright, I shall produce 100% of your idea for 1% of the profits. I shall be provided with the identical wage despite my productivity. Producing 100 of your ideas during the first hour and 2000 of your ideas during the second hour shall result in attaining the identical wage.

CEO: Deal.

 

Labour power remains exploited through an hourly wage.

Edited November 4, 2017 by DLimit

[SupremeLeader 127]

10 minutes ago, DLimit said:

Yet, Communist states have NEVER existed within society considering that such states were often degenerated worker states under state-capitalism.

Right, but why do you think that happens in the first place? It's due to the fact that when communism crumbles due to being unsustainable, the people default to the economic system which aligns most naturally with human nature: capitalism.

When the state cannot produce a certain good or service which the people need, the people will look within to see if another can provide that good/service, leading to the recycled reliance of capitalism.

13 minutes ago, DLimit said:

The link that you had posted is a nation-wide analysis of wealth distribution. However, less than 10% of the citizens within the planet Earth possess more than 60% of the world's wealth, indicating that wealth is INHERITED on a global scale. 

This is an assumption that is not backed up in any study discussed thus far. I was speaking specifically of the wealth distribution within a capitalist country, which in this case was the U.S.

14 minutes ago, DLimit said:

What would prevent a Socialist state from replacing the role of a mere C.E.O. that simple "manifests an idea that appeals to the public"? Public surveys could easily resolve such issues within the public sector, specifically when the public sector is CONTROLLED by the PEOPLE/WORKERS.

In advocating for a direct democracy, you ignore the dangers of tyranny of the majority, which is honestly just as bad as tyranny of the individual.

Whether you are forced by a tyrant or the majority it really doesn't matter and in some ways worse because the majority does it conscious free, they think they are doing right.

If you need an example, you can just look at the majority supported slavery in the South (of the U.S.). 

18 minutes ago, DLimit said:

In reality, through Universal Education, each and every single citizen shall be capable of specializing in a certain role that one desires

That is, if that certain role is needed or required by the economy of that country.

Everything defaults back to very basic economics: supply/demand.

It is incredibly dangerous for a government state to artificially produce un-needed positions just to occupy their citizens, by the aforementioned problem of "overmanning".

I would argue that capitalism does a much better job of regulating this sort of thing.

[DLimit 167]

55 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

Right, but why do you think that happens in the first place? It's due to the fact that when communism crumbles due to being unsustainable, the people default to the economic system which aligns most naturally with human nature: capitalism.

When the state cannot produce a certain good or service which the people need, the people will look within to see if another can provide that good/service, leading to the recycled reliance of capitalism.

This is an assumption that is not backed up in any study discussed thus far. I was speaking specifically of the wealth distribution within a capitalist country, which in this case was the U.S.

In advocating for a direct democracy, you ignore the dangers of tyranny of the majority, which is honestly just as bad as tyranny of the individual.

Whether you are forced by a tyrant or the majority it really doesn't matter and in some ways worse because the majority does it conscious free, they think they are doing right.

If you need an example, you can just look at the majority supported slavery in the South (of the U.S.). 

That is, if that certain role is needed or required by the economy of that country.

Everything defaults back to very basic economics: supply/demand.

It is incredibly dangerous for a government state to artificially produce un-needed positions just to occupy their citizens, by the aforementioned problem of "overmanning".

I would argue that capitalism does a much better job of regulating this sort of thing.

"Communism crumbles due to being unsustainable"... Communism has never existed. The majority of PROCLAIMED Socialist states collapsed due to U.S. interference.

"When the state cannot produce a certain good or service which the people need, the people will look within to see if another can provide that good/service, leading to the recycled reliance of capitalism." ... The state would be governed by the People. Thus, the people shall be capable of providing themselves with their demands.

"This is an assumption that is not backed up in any study discussed thus far. I was speaking specifically of the wealth distribution within a capitalist country, which in this case was the U.S."... It would be unjust to merely reference to one Capitalist nation-state when that one nation-state exploits the entire planet Earth for it's profits, resulting in providing it's citizens with the privilege to function as business owners through the exploitation of labour and resources overseas.

"Tyranny of the majority"... Constitutional guidelines such as providing subjects with the "Right to Life, Liberty, and Personal Property", alongside with anti-discrimination Laws, shall not result in tyranny.

"Supply and Demand"... More suitable within a Communist society considering that the demands of the public are only produced if it is profitable within a capitalist society. Food and shelter is a major demand within the capitalist international community. Yet, homelessness and malnutrition is a major issue amongst capitalist developing nations throughout the globe. P.S. Developing nations are more capitalist than The United States of America considering that labour Laws, minimum wage Laws, environmental Laws etc... do not exist within these nation-states, which is the reason as to why U.S. multi-national corporations form their headquarters within these developing nations.

 

"It is incredibly dangerous for a government state to artificially produce un-needed positions just to occupy their citizens, by the aforementioned problem of "overmanning"."

Automated labour resolves the issues regarding the need for producing commodities that fulfill the desires of society. However, skilled labour is a necessity for humanity, even during peaks of over-production, considering that subjects could apply their skills and experience in order to invent and discover new ideas for humanity.

An over-supply of doctors? Not at problem, such doctors could utilize their time conducting research in order to cure illnesses rather than treating patients for minor issues. An over-supply of teachers? Teachers shall conduct research rather than teaching students. Any manual-labour-based job would be replaced by automated labour, resulting in issues such as "underproduction of industrial and agricultural-based commodities" to be non-existent.

One's attempting to argue that capitalism is sustainable when food is dumped in the garbage bin due to overproduction within nations that lack the purchasing power to provide their citizens with food... it's extremely sustainable with utilizing fossil fuels as a means towards producing profits rather than resorting to renewable-based energy sources (sarcasm).

The food and energy crisis would not exist within a Communist system due to the current development of advanced technology.

Capitalism is extremely sustainable for preventing Indian farmers from attaining access to sanitary water within the rivers of India considering that Nestle had monopolized the water industry. (sarcasm) 
 

Edited November 4, 2017 by DLimit

[SupremeLeader 127]

7 hours ago, DLimit said:

"Supply and Demand"... More suitable within a Communist society considering that the demands of the public are only produced if it is profitable within a capitalist society. Food and shelter is a major demand within the capitalist international community. Yet, homelessness and malnutrition is a major issue amongst capitalist developing nations throughout the globe.

Again, this goes back to the whole "quantity over quality" thing again whenever a communist society puts its' people to work towards a communal goal.

The demand of the people does not entirely in itself create demand for motivated workers. It's incentives such as the opportunity to make more money, to have a nice house, and to provide for your family that motivate workers to work hard. It's only human nature to act in our own self greed, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

In the situation you provided, a communist society would force its' business owners to artificially lower their prices, and force workers into public projects to create more housing. Do you see where this can lead to further poverty and the destruction of small business in an already shitty situation?

The idea that a capitalist society only produces the needs of the people *when they can afford it* is very much true. This goes back to where I stated: 

8 hours ago, SupremeLeader said:

I would argue that capitalism does a much better job of regulating this sort of thing.

Many communist states historically haven't gone bankrupt due to U.S. intervention, but more so based on the irresponsibility of its own economy. This is what happens when you give too much power to the majority to make decisions; aka tyranny of the majority.

Why do you think companies are trying to leave socialist cities such as Seattle (where I live)? It's because within a socialist society, small and large business cannot thrive.

Amazon, Boeing, Microsoft, etc. are the BIGGEST contributors to our state economy, and because of recent propositions by socialists such as Kshama Sawant and Mike O'Brien, they're almost being forced out.

7 hours ago, DLimit said:

An over-supply of doctors? Not at problem, such doctors could utilize their time conducting research in order to cure illnesses rather than treating patients for minor issues.

Read what I said here:

8 hours ago, SupremeLeader said:

Overmanning positions trivializes the work needed to be performed and placed the concentration on quantity rather than quality. “This fact,” according to David A. Lane, “gives rise to economic pressures that keep wage low and demand for labour high, which leads to widespread overstaffing and slack work standards.” Instead of each person contributing, each additional excessive worker lowers the overall quality of the product. Many communist societies force upon jobs out of theoretical necessity without providing a way of sustaining interest or providing training. Therefore, Communism in practice counteracts the goal of making society better through communal collaboration.

Also, as a side note, do you see how the idea that everyone will have a job with the same pay will kill competition?

Why should a doctor thrive to become a partner with one of the top healthcare providers in the country if he's going to be paid as the same local joe practitioner down the block who puts in half the effort?

7 hours ago, DLimit said:

The food and energy crisis would not exist within a Communist system due to the current development of advanced technology.

Another communist fairy-tale. The Koreans fell for these kind of empty promises, and look at them now:

 

 

[DLimit 167]

24 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

Again, this goes back to the whole "quantity over quality" thing again whenever a communist society puts its' people to work towards a communal goal.

The demand of the people does not entirely in itself create demand for motivated workers. It's incentives such as the opportunity to make more money, to have a nice house, and to provide for your family that motivate workers to work hard. It's only human nature to act in our own self greed, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

In the situation you provided, a communist society would force its' business owners to artificially lower their prices, and force workers into public projects to create more housing. Do you see where this can lead to further poverty and the destruction of small business in an already shitty situation?

The idea that a capitalist society only produces the needs of the people *when they can afford it* is very much true. This goes back to where I stated: 

Many communist states historically haven't gone bankrupt due to U.S. intervention, but more so based on the irresponsibility of its own economy. This is what happens when you give too much power to the majority to make decisions; aka tyranny of the majority.

Why do you think companies are trying to leave socialist cities such as Seattle (where I live)? It's because within a socialist society, small and large business cannot thrive.

Amazon, Boeing, Microsoft, etc. are the BIGGEST contributors to our state economy, and because of recent propositions by socialists such as Kshama Sawant and Mike O'Brien, they're almost being forced out.

Read what I said here:

Also, as a side note, do you see how the idea that everyone will have a job with the same pay will kill competition?

Why should a doctor thrive to become a partner with one of the top healthcare providers in the country if he's going to be paid as the same local joe practitioner down the block who puts in half the effort?

Another communist fairy-tale. The Koreans fell for these kind of empty promises, and look at them now:

 

 

"In the situation you provided, a communist society would force its' business owners to artificially lower their prices, and force workers into public projects to create more housing. Do you see where this can lead to further poverty and the destruction of small business in an already shitty situation?"

Businesses would not exist within a Communist system. My person should not bother engaging in a conversation with a human being that is not even aware of the definition of Communism.

"Businesses will lower prices in Communism"... Seriously unaware of the definition.

I cannot believe that I had wasted my time arguing with a human being that had produced such a claim.

One also cites the D.P.R.K. as a Communist state when it is a Pseudo-Monarchy.

Even worst, one classifies Seattle as a Socialist city... it's a capitalist city with a few SOCIAL (not socialist) policies.

The conversation shall be discontinued until one is capable of even grasping the BASICS of economics. One cannot discuss the deeper content until the opposing party is aware of the basics.

 

I shall merely provide you with one counter-argument regarding the claim of "competition". Within Cuba, subjects are willing to study and practice medicine for the purposes of producing remedies and hospitalizing patients, despite earning a lower wage than a waiter or waitress, considering that their PASSION to fulfill such a role within society overpowers the materialistic incentive towards fulfilling the role within the system.

But, in all honesty, I cannot waste my time arguing with a human being that classifies Seattle and the D.P.R.K. as a Communist, or even a Socialist, state. Basic economics must be discussed before one even attempts to indulge in the deeper content.

Edited November 4, 2017 by DLimit

[SupremeLeader 127]

10 minutes ago, DLimit said:

Businesses would not exist within a Communist system. My person should not bother engaging in a conversation with a human being that is not even aware of the definition of Communism.

What are you talking about?

We're speaking within the confines of the GAME, which has an inherently capitalist economy with a backbone of small business.

You can't just take away the ability for people to create a business, because that's an integral part of the game mechanics.

Your argument should not be whether communism is applicable to the real world, but rather if it is AT ALL possible in this game, which it isn't.

Being a Governor does not give you the power to change the mechanics of the game, no matter how hard you RP.

[DLimit 167]

9 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

What are you talking about?

We're speaking within the confines of the GAME, which has an inherently capitalist economy with a backbone of small business.

You can't just take away the ability for people to create a business, because that's an integral part of the game mechanics.

Your argument should not be whether communism is applicable to the real world, but rather if it is AT ALL possible in this game, which it isn't.

Being a Governor does not give you the power to change the mechanics of the game, no matter how hard you RP.

(My mistake, I had accidentally transitioned the discussion to a real-life-based scenario considering that I am legitimately a true Marxist and activist within the real world)

Businesses would be owned by the state. The citizens would state their needs to the party. Afterwards, the party would boost production of the specific commodity or service until such needs are met. 

Individuals will be paid differently within the game. However, an income-tax shall ensure that wealth and resources are equally distributed according to the needs of the people. One should examine the P.R.P.'s economic tax program, which consists of three cycles, within it's main post/topic.

Edited November 4, 2017 by DLimit

[SupremeLeader 127]

10 minutes ago, DLimit said:

Businesses would be owned by the state.

This isn't possible with how the game has been currently presented.

As of now, the game will function as such:

1) Each person can have one business to their name (per server)
2) Each person can have one job to their name (per server)

Nowhere has any developer stated that the government can take control of small business, because it's in the rightful property of the people who started them.

For example, once I start my business in game,  you can't do anything to touch it, as you have no powers to do so.

[DLimit 167]

10 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

This isn't possible with how the game has been currently presented.

As of now, the game will function as such:

1) Each person can have one business to their name (per server)
2) Each person can have one job to their name (per server)

Nowhere has any developer stated that the government can take control of small business, because it's in the rightful property of the people who started them.

For example, once I start my business in game,  you can't do anything to touch it, as you have no powers to do so.

The game mechanics remain well-aligned with the taxation system of the game considering that high taxation policies would result in the state possessing the purchasing power to invest in businesses that strictly meet the demands of the people. Thus, on an abstract and figurative term, the state would own the means of production.

 

One economic cycle consists of a "100% taxation system", which causes the state to own 100% of the resources for the purposes of distributing such goods according to the needs of the people. Within the party's topic, the original post mentions that the "Revolutionary Stage" shall result in abolishing the "Income Tax" in exchange for a "Revolutionary Tax".

[SupremeLeader 127]

9 minutes ago, DLimit said:

One economic cycle consists of a "100% taxation system"

This would seem like a wildly unpopular idea among anybody who seeks economic success via the means of their own ideas being translated into the game.

10 minutes ago, DLimit said:

thus, on an abstract and figurative term, the state would own the means of production.

So, your plan is to tax businesses to hell until they die, so the state can buy them for cheap?

[DLimit 167]

5 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

This would seem like a wildly unpopular idea among anybody who seeks economic success via the means of their own ideas being translated into the game.

So, your plan is to tax businesses to hell until they die, so the state can buy them for cheap?

The plan involves ensuring that each and every single human being shall attain universal food, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, education, and transportation. How would a business be deceased when a demand for a commodity shall result in purchasing mass-produced versions of their commodities or services?

[SupremeLeader 127]

6 minutes ago, DLimit said:

How would a business be deceased when a demand for a commodity shall result in purchasing mass-produced versions of their commodities or services?

Because the business' success would be at the will of the government, not on their own volition to succeed.

[DLimit 167]

5 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

Because the business' success would be at the will of the government, not on their own volition to succeed.

It would be based on the will of the People considering that the People shall decide which commodity or service serves their interests.

[SupremeLeader 127]

25 minutes ago, DLimit said:

It would be based on the will of the People considering that the People shall decide which commodity or service serves their interests.

Great.. under your administration my business will be at the will of the 14 year old majority player-base.

How motivating...

[DLimit 167]

13 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

Great.. under your administration my business will be at the will of the 14 year old majority player-base.

How motivating...

Imagine a situation that consists of fourteen year-old millionaires determining the will of your business as consumers, as-well. The situation would not be any different under a capitalist system. However, within a capitalist system, the citizens with the highest purchasing power shall determine the outcome of a business rather than the majority of the citizens within the island.

You: Argues that "Supply and Demand" is a necessity within any system.

Also you: Dislike the idea that "Supply and Demand" may ruin his business when it is in the hands of the majority, rather than a few wealthy investors that would already regulate the market with inhumane capitalist practices.

Edited November 4, 2017 by DLimit

[SupremeLeader 127]

50 minutes ago, DLimit said:

Imagine a situation that consists of fourteen year-old millionaires determining the will of your business as consumers, as-well. The situation would not be any different under a capitalist system. However, within a capitalist system, the citizens with the highest purchasing power shall determine the outcome of a business rather than the majority of the citizens within the island.

You: Argues that "Supply and Demand" is a necessity within any system.

Also you: Dislike the idea that "Supply and Demand" may ruin his business when it is in the hands of the majority, rather than a few wealthy investors that would already regulate the market with inhumane capitalist practices.

You do understand that there’s a distinction between the population deciding to buy my product or not, in comparison to the population deciding the DIRECTION of my company, right?

This is VERY different from one another.

 

[slovaceck 58]

15 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

You do understand that there’s a distinction between the population deciding to buy my product or not, in comparison to the population deciding the DIRECTION of my company, right?

This is VERY different from one another.

 

@SupremeLeader @DLimit This sounds like something to be settled in the First IPO Debate! I hope to see you both there. Visit our thread for more info. 

[SupremeLeader 127]

54 minutes ago, slovaceck said:

@SupremeLeader @DLimit This sounds like something to be settled in the First IPO Debate! I hope to see you both there. Visit our thread for more info. 

I’m not a politician, nor do I want to be one.

We just are on the opposite end of the political spectrum and I took issue with a few things he advocated for.

After all, who the Governor is will massively impact my experience in the game and I just want to make sure we have the right people in power.

Edited November 4, 2017 by SupremeLeader

[slovaceck 58]

15 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

I’m not a politician, nor do I want to be one.

We just are on the opposite end of the political spectrum and I took issue with a few things he advocated for.

After all, who th Governor is will massively impact my experience in the game an I just want to make sure we have the right people in power.

Ah ok, so then make sure you attend so that you can ask live questions and see which politician shares your views. 

[DLimit 167]

12 hours ago, SupremeLeader said:

You do understand that there’s a distinction between the population deciding to buy my product or not, in comparison to the population deciding the DIRECTION of my company, right?

This is VERY different from one another.

 

One's company shall not be manipulated by the state. However, companies that serve the interests of working-class citizens shall be heavily funded in order to ensure that the demand of the public is served.

[SupremeLeader 127]

1 hour ago, DLimit said:

One's company shall not be manipulated by the state.

15 hours ago, DLimit said:

economic cycle consists of a "100% taxation system", which causes the state to own 100% of the resources

Giving out government subsidies to businesses the state wants to support is one thing, but to have to tax businesses 100% just to gain control of everyone's property (yes, within the confines of this game it is THEIR property) is a ridiculous notion.

You're deepthroating a system which promotes nothing more than mediocrity.

[DLimit 167]

7 minutes ago, SupremeLeader said:

Giving out government subsidies to businesses the state wants to support is one thing, but to have to tax businesses 100% just to gain control of everyone's property (yes, within the confines of this game it is THEIR property) is a ridiculous notion.

You're deepthroating a system which promotes nothing more than mediocrity.

One should examine the party's dialectical understanding of the "economic cycles" of taxation in order to comprehend the idea that a "100% revolutionary tax" shall not be permanent. The 100% revolutionary tax is applied as a means towards ensuring that income-inequality does not run rampant to the extent that it causes a major division of the classes.

 

[ColeBarron 27]

On 11/1/2017 at 10:59 PM, Xilvius said:

We believe in flat rate taxes across the board, unlike the majority of our competition that want to increase taxes dramatically dependent on your yearly income.

Do you have a specific rate in mind? I know a few parties have showed interest in flat rate across the board. I'm just curious what that rate would be. 

[Xilvius 32]

7 minutes ago, ColeBarron said:

Do you have a specific rate in mind? I know a few parties have showed interest in flat rate across the board. I'm just curious what that rate would be. 

Because no developer has confirmed exactly what taxes are used for, we havent set a particular rate, HOWEVER, i will NOT be accepting a salary in order to reduce the cost of taxes. Instead, my personal pay as governor will be donated to pay things taxes are used to pay.