Dodecanese Dictator Debate No. 1 – Income Tax

Thank you for posting, Pro! Well, I suspect there has been a slight confusion. To further clarify, I will elaborate my advocacy of my above proposed tax plan in simplistic terms. Workers will make money and pay their taxes based on their ability to pay. In a tourism country (that is, after all, the main income) the prices of the most ordinary things would be much higher than places such as, per say, Huntington (WV). These people would have to pay much money. The poor would not have that much to spend, seeing as the prices of their nessecities would be high. Their ability to pay would be minimal, seeing as if they wouldn't stop paying all-together. Worse yet, the could move and the nation would not be a settled place. With the leaving of the poor class (and that is the majority), you would be forced to tax the rich more heavily. In a business to make money, some corpertations would see a heavy taxation for a still developing country a liability and they would lose interest and withdraw their business. Eventually, the country would either dissapate or you would have to sell it, if you even could. My proposed plan is a system of income tax that analyzes a person's assets, income, and other financial obligations. In this, the person would be charged a reasonable amount that they could pay, within reason. If the tourist trade booms, the income tax wouldn't be a problem, and you could eliminate is and start rennovations based on the income of tourism. The rich would have play very little role but as an added asset for your buisness and attract more corporations and provide competetion as investment in your booming country, rather than have it disappate. All though this approach is slightly unorthadox, with an island, it could be done. As for you being an "I would be an ethically-aware dictator who would govern with a strong social conscience, introducing legislation that would benefit the many, not just the privileged few." Hitler, my friend, believed that he was doing the ethical and right thing for his people, and, in a country as a leader, your people come first and matter the most. Since ethics are not defined, any system of ethical inclinations could be adopted, for better or worse, for adaptation of devious purpose, or retained for precieved moreality. In essence, ethical claims do not matter in this debate, due to the hypathetical context, there can be no evidence. "That's why I would ensure that burden of taxation would fall on those with the broadest shoulders by ensuring that the wealthy 20% of the population contributes the most, in absolute terms, to the government's coffers." In this, you would not gain maximun interest in corperations' eyes and you might lose valuable investments. These investments could be banks, finiancing consultants, lawyer offices, etc. established in your country. "This has only ever been possible through the framework of social cohesion and a society will never be united in pursuit of its common goals if the prosperous few refuse to share some of their wealth with those less fortunate members of the community. It is this sense of noblesse oblige that forms the bond that keeps society together and prevents the majority from turning on the prosperous elite and dispossessing them of their wealth." The people would not refuse to share their wealth, if you were dictator, lest they be thrown in prision. These wealthy people would more than likely be invested heavily in your country. If you maltreat them, then I garuntee you that your entire country would suffer financially. You can not simply tax them because they have the most money. In my plan, you look at what's avalible. Since this is still a developing country, I can say without harming my case that you would have to wait to establish some luxuries, such as public transport, before you accumlated so much debt that your country might fail. It would be best to follow my plan and wait unti the general coffers could support this kind of innovative ideas. "In the final analysis, by paying more in absolute terms than someone on low wages, a high net worth individual is discharging his moral duty to assist those with greater needs and fewer resources." To this, I point out again that these wealthy people would more than likely be invested in your country. Thank you for your time, Pro.