TTI Forums

To begin a second thread related to my taxation question. Obviously in a tax-free state it would be nigh impossible for the state to build any sort of asset base. Presumably all the assets would be held by the individual citizens.

And just like the movie, “Bruster’s Millions” it would be difficult to spend a vast pool of money without gaining some form a tangible assets.

So the question, should the state posses assets at all?

My answer would depend on what level and type of government. At a national level in the real world, I don't think it'd be proper of a government to control any assests in a competetive private sector. Same thing at the state level.

But when you get into a more corporate setting, such that we have in EVE, I think it's proper for that type of government to build and control assests. As a matter of fact, I would think it's recommended that they do.

So, unless I've misconstrued(sp.) the question and have proven that I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, I can't really answer yes or no.

LOL… Didn’t mean to confuse you Emi !

Ya know I am not sure there are any right or wrong answers to some of these questions I am asking.

I think the responses help bring all the talented minds of our corporation together on the topic. The responses frame our understandings and collective opinions about the various subjects; they help us form common ground.

I think that in the real world, the government has to posses some tangible assets to achieve the production of giffen goods and public services that we talked about earlier. However, this is quite often done by the government owning majority shares in a corporation which produces these services (thus controlling its board). Which is, in effect, a nice hybrid way of achieving the same thing, rather than direct operational government departments.

Indeed, a real government also acts as a regulator in many respects, and needs resources to regulate what is sometimes a short sighted indiscriminate market (in such regards as environmental pollution for instance). But in order to finance such resources, even such shareholdings, there needs to be a starting flow of money, which would be taxes. Those government owned corporations then make profits which if not reinvested, will be distributed back to shareholders which are primarily the government, thus creating an alternate steady source of funding.

In an eve setting this is a little more complicated. Essentially what we have is a corporation, which also has to act a little like a government, since it has no feasible way of earning all the profits itself as a corporation and paying its employees wages. Thus what we (and many other corporations who arent 100% collectivist) end up with, is a corporate/government type shell which is populated by wealthy and productive individuals. And I wouldn't have it any other way. However, this corporate/government shell of ours needs to secure long term financing outside taxation. Taxation is needed to fund things initially, but as income from this invested taxation is generated, obviously taxation can gradually fade away.

Whether this money is invested internally or externally, it is the only way to guarentee long-term financial stability for the 'shell' which essentially binds all of us, and is in all of our best interests. The richer the shell is, the more it can spend on advertising, projects etc to make us more attractive to fellow minded players, which is an objective we all share and voice frequently.

I think the question isn't so much 'should the government posses assets', but more 'what kind of assets should the government posses to maximise revenue'? If we look back to the production example I cited in the other thread, if central funds were used to buy up a stock of blueprints, which were then researched to a realistic optimal efficiency, the corporation then has a massive money making tool for itself and individuals.

Look at it like this. Any individual may come along with the correct production skills, and be able to 'work for' the corporation in production. The corporation buys the minerals (paying people to haul them), it provides the blueprints. The producers produces, and sells the goods for as much as he can. He pays his entire sales income back to TTi, which then pays him a performance relatd wage of 70% of his profit, the 30% profit kept by TTi as return of its investment on blueprints and minerals.

Say the producer then goes akf for a few months. Here now we don't need to wait for someone else to buy their own stock opf blueprints, research them and start producing again to have any sort of production. Instead anyone with the requisite skills, trust and competence may enter into the shoea of the last producer and pick up where and when he likes. All you need is a proper system in place (and this is how we worked it in TX-I). Even when that producer doesn't have enough 'sales slots', or people want to act as sales agents, the producer can produce centrally and sell on location to the sales agents at a discount, who may then run around empire selling their wares for whatever markup they like.

And as you can see, with just a little imagination you have created a potentially large player economy within the corporation (which can even be extanded outside the corporation in terms of sales agents) which secures an income for the corporation as a return on investment. Depending on how successful this is, taxes will factor less and less. The incentive to hand over 20-30% of your profits as a producer is there since you don't have to worry about the time and capital expenditure bar to production (and more significantly, the lack of a ready market to sell on researched T1 blueprints to realise your investment should you no longer want to produce).

In this sense, the 'government' becomes much more capitalistic and more like a 'corporation'.

Max certainly what you are proposing is a great business model. It’s the same model that the members of my last corp that I founded followed (they make Ravens), and yes the corp wallet did fatten. But the fact is that all those players were working for the greater good of the machine – a central government.

Obviously every RL government holds assets. But the real question is, should they? See in a “pay-as-you-go” system, government serves as an agent coordinating the relationship between customer and franchisee. As such, under this system it is not government that would hold the assets, merely the authority to grant and revoke franchises.

I maintain that the degree of personal freedom in a society is inversely proportional to amount of assets the government possesses. I consider the total wealth of a society the combined personal wealth of the populous and the total wealth of the government. Compute the ratios. Where are the most oppressed countries in the world?

• Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa? Extremely poor populous, the centralized governments of military dictators.
  The Muslim theocracies? Poor populous and wealthy religious central authority.
  The nations of central Asia and the Balkans? a relatively well off populous and vast central governments.

I’ve been looking for an example counter to this thesis, but have yet to find one.

IMO the ONLY way to effectively fight collectivism (and its numerous ills) is to avidly minimize the wealth and assets of government. If you build a mountain of gold, I guarantee you that there will be more than one person climbing it to plant their flag and stake their claim. And the larger the prize (ie: fatter the balance sheet and wallet) the greater the competition to get into that plunderous role.

In my utopia, government has few assets. The populous with varying degrees of wealth control almost all the assets produced by their own labors. In this utopia the goal is to progressively and continually reduce the influence of government, and to enhance the interaction and relationships of the populous.

By the by, in my past corp that went Commie. A group of 30 people built the corp wallet up to 2 B through massive empire mining operations and selling Ravens. Then, as I predicted, one of the trusted inner circle took the money and ran. Transferred it to several characters, dropped his account and sold the isk on E-bay. They figure he made between $800 to $1000 US. All those people worked so hard to build this bronze cow called a corporation. And in the end a single man reaped the benefit. This is what collectivism is ALL ABOUT, and it is why….

I will not live as a slave to another man

Who owns the lamp posts from Max's other example?

I hear what your saying, I honestly do, but my model isn't collectivist, its simply a return on capital investment. In Tenax, we invested 300 million into the 'corp'. After a few months the 'corp' was worth 2 billion, which was just 20-30% of what the individuals made. No tax, simply the payment of the 20-30% return on using the 300 million isk stock. Its just simple investment banking on behalf of the corporation, and as I said, simple trade off on the part of those who wanted to produce. In the short-to-medium term it is far more cost and time effective to pay a 20% return to using corp assets and keeping the rest than it is to spend out on a blueprint stock and research it. I fail to see how that is collectivist in the slightest. What the corporation spends that isk on is then up to the controlling mind of the corporation, since it is its money.

Look at the new POS for instance. That is Dagny's money, and a % fee is paid to those who are investing in and administering the POS. Is that collectivist? Of course not, everyone can see that is a simple return on Dagny et al's time and money. It is far more cost effective to be part of that than each person set up their own individual POS. Aside from the initial expenditure on the corporation's part coming from tax revenue as opposed to coming from Dagny's wallet, I see no difference whatsoever.

This discussion is aside from taxes, and as such I see no basis for the argument that 'state assets' producing a revenue by effectively leasing them out to individuals is collectivist. I think your resentment to any 'central' assets come from the fact that you were burned once, and TTi was burned once long ago. But, as hard as it may sound, 99% of corp thefts come from rediculously bad administrative controls. We had no thefts in TX-I, and there was a net worth of about 3 billion isk there.

In my mind, the question of whether a corporation 'should' or 'should not' invest to produce its own income is somewhat of an absurdity. If it did not, it would have to rely on 100% taxes or provide no amenities. If it provided nothing at all, why be in the corp? How do we recruit? How to we pay for HR/advertisements... by relying on alms from those who care the most? Thats even more counter-objectivist than the income tax argument. I don't like taxes, but if they provide a mechanism whereby the 'state' can invest to produce its own wealth and thereby reduce the burden of taxation in the long run, I'm all for it.

With regards financing corporate long-term economic security and provision of amenities there are few scenarios:

a) corporate expenditure reduced to 0 meaning no offices, factories or labs in the corporate name (since there is no income to pay for them);
b) 100% reliance on tax to support corporate expenditure;
c) partial reliance on tax, partial reliance on investment returns (eventually moving to a investment returns + pay as you go where possible);
d) 100% or partial reliance on alms to support expenditure

An Raaz, the state owns the lamposts, as they own drainage, roads etc. And Musashi... the US has a very wealthy and resourceful government, yet a wealthy populous. The UK has a wealthy government and a welathy populous. Spain has a relatively poor government and poor populous, as does Greece and all former Soviet-block countries. I think the only real examples which fit it with your model are Holland, Denmark and the Nordic countries where the government's are relatively minimalist and the populous relatively well off.

Lastly, before I finish hijacking discussion threads which are surely meant as a discussion between not only musashi and I , I'd like to point out the fact that because of the inherent impracticalities and problems with such a concept as 'free market economy', that there is and can never realistically be such a concept which is more efficient than partial state intervention. After all, who will provide a country's defence for instance? That isn't something you can charge for in a free market (I know this opens the discussions of whether a country does actually NEED defence but that is entirely a seperate topic). I don't like over-meddling state control, but you just cannot get away from the fact that the state HAS to intervene where the market fails. Hell, even the Thatcher government realised that. And lets look at that word... 'government'. In such a radical and bizarre concept of 'free market economy', we wouldn't need a government... to govern what if the market will provide everything?

Max Delorian wrote:I think that in the real world, the government....

In an eve setting this is a little more complicated.

and i thought it was as easy as puttun cool thingers on your ship and flying real fast. Government has to own assetts. Doesnt Hong Kong have a pretty free market? their gov'ment has loads of assetts. bottom line is our world is not 'safe' for free market without protection and interactions with government.

Doesnt Hong Kong have a pretty free market?

Actually having assisted in a comparative study of Eastern competition law and policy you wouldn't believe how anti-competetive the Hong Kong economy really is

And to sum up what I said in my long post above into a small concept. Both in US and UK corporate law there is a little concept known as seperate legal personality. So think of TTi the corporation as having its own persona, just like I am Max Delorian. If I (Max Delorian) wish to invest my assets into Shazam to earn me a %, why shouldn't I? If I chose to advertise 'Max Delorian' the brand, or employ dough to run my website, I am going to need to pay him really aren't I. Try and equate TTi as its own persona, the controlling mind of which are her directors, and every one of us who does something for her as her employees who get paid accordingly. And she then provides things for us, for which we pay her. Whether that is via an income tax or a pay as you go system, is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread.