Taxation

[unmerged(2695)]

Will it be possible to change the level of taxation? High taxes in wars, low taxes in peace.

Noineteenth century liberals were all in favour of low taxes and the struggle over taxation and public expenditure was central in the domestic politics of all European countries.

If we are to concentrate on grand strategic nation-building decisions in thegame I think the level taxation/public expenditure needs to be included, possibly as a DP-slider.

 

[Zagys]

Bad idea. Soon everyone will find out which tax rates are perfect in different situations, meaning no real decisions will have to be made regarding taxes. It will just add more micromanagement, something Victoria doesn't need.

 

[Nikolai II]

Rising taxes were implemented so late in the game that it is almost outside of the scope.

Only almost, but so little that maybe it should be event-based?

 

[unmerged(2695)]

In Britain taxes actuall fell during the entire period until about 1890. The same is the case for most European countries that adopted economic liberalism.

The demand for limited government was the most important domestic political issue in the world in the period. It was as important a constraint on political decisionmaking as the size of the neighbouring country's army.

I really don't think a DP slider for high/low taxes is much in the way of micromanagement.

 

[supergamelin]

The player should not have full control on taxation and expenditure. Though limited action should be allowed according to the type government in power and current situation at home.

For exemple in France in the years leading to 1870 Army reforms failed due to lack of funding as parliamentary opposition refused to vote an increase in army budget. The result was thorough unpreparadness for war and military disaster, which was in fact one of the aims of the opposition parliamentaries who wanted to overthrow the government, ..........and then called for unlimited resistance against the Gemans.

In most countries development was slowed by opposition to government spending and intervention. This was a major source of conflict in the US between the North and the South. Where the South wanted low taxes and custom tarrifs for their agrarian economy while the North wanted to fund and protect their industrialization.

The point is that taxes were voted by parliaments, and I think the British and Americans fought a few wars to establish that principle and thus the player should not be able to do whatever he wants to.
Otherwise you're just throwing away one of the major priciples of the time at least for Anglo-saxons democracies

 

[unmerged(16605)]

Maybey there should only be war texas just like in EU2.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Originally posted by Che Guevara
war texas

Freudian slip of the tongue?

 

[Tim O]

The U.S congress passed an amendment (19th?) to implement an income tax in the first decade of the 20th century. I hope that and a coresponding increase in government revenue will be in the game. Hell, I hope all amendments to the constitution are in the game.

 

[supergamelin]

Taxation varied greatly from nation to nation and was largely linked to the size of the armed forces. The US federal government relied heavily on customs revenue to fund their government and had virtually no standing army.

However the various states in the US must have had some sort of income. They were in charge of such things as education or justice and had their own administrations to finance. That means in fact that each state had its own policy regarding taxes. But that would not really be manageable in the game unless you play a single state. But then the player will want to play the US as a whole and those matters will have to be handled at federal level?

However I do not know much about the XIXth century US tax system.......

 

[Tel]

Tax rates that are adjustable by the player are a definite plus for the game. Increasing tax rates should be accompanied by dissent that could rise over time. The player would have to choose between increased profits in the short term and potential problems down the line.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

Taxes are evil! Trust me i know! (im swedish)
IMO taxes could be represented but it wouldnt be easy you have to think about what the taxes are paying for education infrastructure military healthcare etc...

 

[Johnny Canuck]

I tend to think that taxation policy should be in the game to some degree. Hardu is absolutely right - the question of taxes was key to the question of the entire nature of 19th-Century Britain & other European states. Hopefully, the question of taxes is also linked to other issues like customs & the free trade/fair trade/protectionism.

 

[The Andy-Man]

maybe it would be alot of micro-management, but an indepth economic system (taking into acount aggrt demand ect) with an anual budget a la crisis in the kremlin would be brillliant - esp for UK

 

[IEX Totalview]

I'm a tax accountant, but I agree taxes are evil... unless I'm playing EU II at which point they rule. I won't pay higher taxes for healthcare now, but I impose them on my subjects so I can have a bigger army in EU II.

Don't forget the easiest way to tax people - print money. The Confederacy received the majority of its income during the ACW from the printing press. Should have really bad "inflation" effects though.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Forget about printing money.

The world went on the gold standard in the 1870s.

 

[peo]

Originally posted by Hardu
Forget about printing money.

The world went on the gold standard in the 1870s.

Yes but they still printed money and as a result the money became worthless after the value of them was more than the value of the gold they had.
It wasn't a immidiate result but it happend during the time.

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by Hardu
Forget about printing money.

The world went on the gold standard in the 1870s.

And the game starts in 1835..

Also some nations had silver standard much longer, due to lack of gold (at least Japan) but that made their economies more vulnerable.

 

[unmerged(5588)]

Perhaps it could be modelled similar to the investments of Eu2. Lower taxes means more growth in the private sector. The country benefits by increased industrialization.

 

[el freako]

I dislike the idea of a much higher rate of taxation during wars, as this is not what usually happened.

Usually wars were funded by borrowing, even WWI was mostly paid for in this way.

 

[Tim O]

The passage of the 16th amendment and the corresponding jump in national revenue must be represented in the game.


Article XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Proposal and Ratification

The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been ratified by 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913.

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah