$$$ Give me the money

[Jay]

Currently, the reliance on working-class paychecks is limiting the reality of nations being able to develop and also constraining our capacity for growth, project funding, and national development. I am proposal that we triple the current tax revenue for players while introducing GDP-based startup grants for newcomers to promote a balanced and and non-seniority dominated system.

The current taxation structure is insufficient. We're running nations like we are paycheck to paycheck. We treat debt like the plague. There are limited/no reasonable alternatives for money sources. By tripling tax revenue, we can significantly enhance the RP experience and it would elevate overall RP experiences.

Secondly, I would like to propose that new players establish themselves with an equivalent of their first year's GDP to allow them to catch up and develop. This would make starting from scratch less difficult and also allow people to level the playing field and interact with each other.

In conclusion. Please. Money.

 

[Alexander]

^ This, all of this

 

[Basedcnt]

I too concur with Alex and Jay.

 

[Bossza007]

Here’s my hot take: the current quarterly tax is roughly equivalent to what we received each month before the latest major upgrade. Given that the world is now supposed to have much more money, it’s clear that the state has become adept at collecting taxes. So why not follow Jay's suggestion and triple the quarterly tax? This would be a logical step forward, especially considering the economic system updates we made a year ago. Plus, who really wants to see Alexander drowning in debt?

I also think the idea of a new player receiving a year’s worth of taxes is objectively genius and a big-brain move, as Jay suggested. This approach would help level the playing field and give newcomers a fair shot at keeping pace, although I believe it shouldn’t apply to full transfers.

IF WE IMPLEMENT THIS, WE WILL GET RICHER!

 

[Owen]

I understand the reasons for the change from going from 2 weeks to 6 weeks in order to reduce workload, but the fact that wasn't replicated as a 6 weeks worth of income and instead we just stayed at 2 weeks worth of income is ridiculous.

For example, the last time I made a purchase order was the 21st of June. Besides from having a couple of low-cost military operations, it is now the 26th of October and I'm still $3.8 billion in debt (going into debt partially because I was unaware of the change when I rejoined that we switched from 2 weeks to 6 weeks and yet still receiving the same amount we did before). That's not the MN I remember.

 

[Basedcnt]

Considering that I am extremely new compared to anyone else who may comment, I like money and agree with Jay and Bossza. Esp. Jay's second point. And taking from what Owen and Bossza have said, it is my opinion that increasing income will improve MN.

 

[Tokugawa]

For reasons much better explained in the previous posts, I would also support this change.