[Dave]

Paradigm,

Summarize your final proposal surrounding the guaranteed income.

I am not comfortable supporting a coalition until the broad strokes of this issue have been agreed upon by all parties to it.

Your original point was principles, but now you seem to insist on specific policies. The PNL is for poverty alleviation, for a more equitable society, and for a more holistic definition of quality of life than just money.

[Gnote]

Where a coalition with parties explicitly opposed to our party's four principles is concerned, I would like to know some of the details before we hop into bed.

[Dave]

We agree with your first three principles and partially agree to your fourth.

[Gnote]

I can't see our leader abandoning the four principles of our party.

Policy concessions are understandable, but it's unlikely that he would accept a coalition that runs in opposition to our principles.

[Dave]

If we all agreed with the SLD we would be in the SLD, Gnote.

[Dr House]

I've given substantial ground.

All the way from a $25,000 guaranteed income for all citizens, to a guaranteed income equal to the poverty line for those below it and less than the poverty line for those above it.

That is substantial ground. Incredibly substantial ground.

Well you had to give a lot of ground before any consensus could be reached. Your original proposal was beyond unreasonable, it was an economic impossibility.

And you might notice that this turned from a negotiation with the CA to one with the PNL. If the substantially more pragmatic and less (economically) liberal PNL couldn't stand your proposal the CA won't either.

[Gnote]

If we all agreed with the SLD we would be in the SLD, Gnote.

There is a difference between partnering with those you disagree with, and taking policy positions that serve to undermine your party's very foundation.

[Dave]

Well it's a good thing that no one is advocating such policy positions then. The CA is the flat tax and no welfare party, not us.

[Dr House]

As stated, Gnote, we're in agreement with the four planks of your party. We just have a different way to achieve them.

Speaking of which, I don't think there will be much disagreement from the left and center (this is mostly directed at the CA), but I will not be in a coalition that doesn't incorporate an industrial policy. That means our research cartels, forced savings and preferential trade policy all stay.

[Dave]

Have our research cartels been revealed to anyone outside the party?

[Dr House]

hmm, I don't think so come to think of it.

[Paradigm]

I'm just gonna let you guys bicker for a couple more hours. I've got work to do.

[Sephardi]

Income Tax Bracket:


People who don't have jobs have 6 months to find a job. They'll be given $12,000 a year while they're on unemployment ($1,000 a month).

I think this is very fair to the SLD. The percentages on the graph is how much in taxes they'll pay in taxes and they're exempt from taxes if they make less than $30,000.

Corporate Tax Bracket:


What do you guys think?

[Dave]

Your personal income taxes are too high on the low end, too low on the high end.

I have no objection to your corporate rate schedule although my preference is for a flat tax.

One fundamental request the PNL has on any income taxes is that all investment be fully deductible.

[Sephardi]

Your personal income taxes are too high on the low end, too low on the high end.

You didn't read it right. Everybody who makes less than $30,000 is exempt from taxes. How is that too high?

[Dave]

You didn't read it right. Everybody who makes less than $30,000 is exempt from taxes. How is that too high?

The under $30,000 rate is obviously not a problem. Here is the PNL's proposed rate schedule:

1% on income between $0 and $20,000
3% on income between $20,000 and $40,000
5% on income between $40,000 and $75,000
10% on income between $75,000 and $125,000
15% on income between $125,000 and $200,000
25% on income between $200,000 and $500,000
33% on income between $500,000 and $1,000,000
39% on income between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000
44% on income over $10,000,000

As you can see, we propose more lower rates than the CA for all incomes except under $30,000 (where we propose a token 1% rate mainly for enhanced tax compliance) and over $500,000.

This does not include the PNL's proposal for a single penalty, a married childless penalty, or a foreigner surtax.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

It would be lovely if we had a narrower range of economic views in our Parliament, or at least a much larger chunk toward the center. But the reality is that we don't. A quarter of the parliament is dominated by anti-capitalists, another 10 percent or so by laissez-faire libertarians, and then we have the THP and POP which are on their own dimensions.

Even among the four parties that accept some form of mixed market economy there is a huge disparity between the Gnote types and Sephardi/Dave types. We're going to have to come to some kind of compromise eventually, folks. My suggestion is that we don't sweat the small stuff right now and instead think about forming our cabinet and thinking about the SHAPE of our welfare state rather than the SIZE.

[Falx]

Heh, I like that: THP: So out there we have our own dimension.

[Dave]

Even among the four parties that accept some form of mixed market economy there is a huge disparity between the Gnote types and Sephardi/Dave types.

Why are you conflating Sephardi with me? I lead the PNL, which is a producerist party. Sephardi is a vanilla neoliberal. Dr. House, whose policies you seem to love, has a slightly more egalitarian version of my economics.

We're going to have to come to some kind of compromise eventually, folks. My suggestion is that we don't sweat the small stuff right now and instead think about forming our cabinet and thinking about the SHAPE of our welfare state rather than the SIZE.

The size is rather important as well.

[Sephardi]

Sephardi is a vanilla neoliberal.

Vanilla?