Taxes

It had to happen. Whatever you do, don't argue about taxes. But no, you had to go there. So here's the deal.

Taxes have increased 2% for most people, that's not much given we started out at 34% already, and noone of you is willing to give away his or her privileges.
If you remember (you probably don't): the tax raise went into early funding of the education reform - so we have the smartest kids, the best school books and the brightest future ahead, and an stipulation to improve TV shows. And what are you, my beloved citizens, concerned at? That our kids can say phuket 50 times in a row, while our evenly beloved neighbour kids only make it up to 20 before being smacked on the head?! I mean, where are your priorities, guys! And gals!

So here are the proposals I get: Away with taxes. I can understand that. We are paying way to much. I know that feeling.
You know what they charged me for my pack of Woofleonian Style Waffles yesterday? 7 rivets. It says 6.01, but of course that's seven, because we only have whole rivets, remember? And to add insult to injury, what did they say when I said "that's a bit steep"? "It's because all of your taxes, Sir. " Now I have to pay seven rivets for a small pack of Woofleonian Waffles that are - double insult - produced cheaply in the Kingdom of Immutability, I just hope our friends at Woofleonia at least get some woofles for the recipe - and tnow it's also my fault. Where was I?
Oh yes, this argument is invariably followed by lower all taxes, cut back this and that, but not the one thing I benefit from. You know what this is? Kindergarden games.

As an example, lets take one of our IT guys. He says healthcare, education and social welfare for the less fortunate subsidies aren't important, because because people just need to be a bit more like him and they are instantly easy. But Subsidies for IT Investments In Rural Areas (SIIIRA) must remain, because that's really hard.

You know what's funny about it, Mr. Oh-So-IT? You are not an expert on social welfare, not on education, nor - you guessed it - healthcare. But you claim to be an expert on IT, and your mom comes from a rural area.
So you are basically saying: you can't do what you claim to be best at without my money.

Listen, guys (and gals): Unless the Book publishers industry unanimously votes to do without Subsidies For Large Lettered Books For The Elderly (SFLLBFTE), I won't cut back taxes on anyones wish. Period.

So the next option on the table? Tax the rich more, the poor less.
To be true, the really rich pay 50%, some more, of what they cannot hide. I would tax them a lot higher, because all people I met that were richer than me were arrogant stupid assholes thinking they know how the world works and all, but couldn't feed a pig without getting their hands dirty.
But there's the first problem: "rich", for most people, is relative, it usually means "richer than me". So the argument comes out as: "tax everyone but me".
Two more reasons speak against it: Future generations need someone to tax - think of the rich peopel as "Money Zoo". Second:
Tax Evasion Balance. This means: Every percent they are supposed to spent more on taxes will instead be spent on clever schemes to avoid that. All extra rivets in the game go to a bank in Buckold, and the King of Zommer will mock me about my tax rate. We would just breed businessmen that excel at tax evasion.

Note to self: devise a scheme to export tax evasion specialists to those in need, determine target market and suitable prices.

Taxing the poor less: The very poor don't pay much anything beyond the sales tax, luxury tax etc. they pay when buying stuff from their government subsidies - so this is a null sum game fur us, and a secret fundung of McBurger and CheapoBeerCan Inc, again. The majority is the biggest source of income, to lower their taxes and still breaking even, I'd need to increase the highest tax bracket to about 178%. I still have to figure out a way to do that.

So third option? Let everyone decide where taxes go.
I trust you, I really do. But I don't know whether I should trust you to think of tomorrow, to think of the country as a whole. You can argue with most individuals, but if you start to put them together, funny things start to happen. They kiss and throw cutlery, but most importantly, they spent most of their time making sure noone is more fortunate than themselves. Weird, eh?

So, I am torn on this. I wish I just could dismiss this. That would probably be the best.

But Jessica says I should show more decisiveness, I am a leader, after all. So I decide: there will be a tax reform, and with the next tax return declaration, you can vote on where your money goes. (Not literally, of course, we let the numbers run through the guy you always harassed in high school, because he's good at math).

And I trust you, may dear lazy Tivertoniasensis who are to lazy to fill out their complicated tax thingie, to give me some wiggle room. And to complain that tax return sheets jsut got more complicated.

Sigh. Life of a leader is hard. I need a backrub.