Preamble:
Growth and Decline is an Equilibrium which is usually an equal ratio, 1:1. (Equilibrium after all is “Balance”)
If two objects weighing the same are placed on opposite pans of a scale, it can be suggested that initially there is movement caused by placing them, as the scales find “Balance” between the two equal but opposing weights. Once they find balance the scales cease to move.
This is a great way of explaining Economic Stagnation, whereby should an economy be too “Balanced”, stagnation occurs (which is like an Economic Apathy)
Businessmen the world over know that a Balanced Economy isn’t one they can function in, so for the most part they attempt to throw the proverbial “Curve ball” just to keep things a little interesting. This of course has serious consequences as while their emphasis might well be a Growth on Returns, their actual pitch is an Increased Decline as their gain is someone elses loss.
What does this have to do with “Leap Taxes”?
The entire quandary is about identifying how to create a Buoyant economic system, which has proposed Growth and Decline stages but doesn’t allow an absolute balance to occur to keep away from stagnation. The method posed to do this is “Leap Taxes”.
“Leap Years” are historically a way where extra time from each year is compounded into one day every four. There are other forms of Leaps that have been mentioned recently in the press like the “Leap Second”, but nobody has seemingly considered a “Leap Tax”.
The idea is that One year is given a Low taxation, while the other years of it’s period are Taxed at “Normal” rates. This is somewhat different from the Fixed Tax system which induce balance to the point of stagnation.
Leap Taxes can be done in varying ratios;
- One year every Three (1:2)
- One year every Four (1:3)
- One year every Five(1:4)
The ratio’s are not Balanced, that’s because it’s implied that during the one year where taxes are lower, individuals and companies alike will attempt to use that year for buying products they would otherwise see highly taxed. This generates an increase in sales of those particular products during that year, while the other years are potentially used by such companies to produce the products they are going to sell, so as to keep up with demand.
Global Economics
If used by other countries they don’t all have to fall on the same year, in fact for a decent global economic model it would be suggested they didn’t, this means a number of countries will gain tax breaks while others are being taxed at the normal rate.
The shortest ratio (1:2) is the best for this particular model, however due to it being an odd number the tax break will end up moving between both odd and even years. This isn’t a problem with thinking of just one countries economy, but when applied to a global economy with other countries also potentially applying a similar strategy, some years one country might have tax relief while the other does not, other years both might have either tax relief or no tax relief (A Collision). The more countries that use the system the less these “Collisions” matter.
The 1:3 ratio is obviously likely to fit with peoples ideals, since it can work in with the current “Leap Year” method, however if a Global Economic model was to use it, it would be suggested that not everyone picks the “Leap Year” for their “Leap Tax” year, this stops every country having the problem that the one year where their economy might gain trade, is the same year that those other countries are also trying to gain trade due to tax relief.
An Example Leap Tax Year (1:3)
(This example converts a 15% Fixed Rate tax to a Variable Tax structure)
Leap Year
- Tax: 12%
Next Three Years
- Tax: 16%
At this point it should be considered that Tax Revenue isn’t absolutely the same each year, changes in peoples incomes, expenditures, employment etc can actually mean that the variable percentage doesn’t equal the same as the projected Fixed Rate, some Leap Tax periods revenue will be greater and others less, this just aids to maintaining “Economic Buoyancy”.
Leap Tax Inversion (The “Why not!”)
It is implied that it’s only “One Leap Tax year” in a period and not to operate the ratio’s the other way around (2:1 or 3:1), while it might seem an interesting way to cause an economic change with people having more relief and the occasional year of high tax, it would induce an equilibrium where people feel complacency during those tax relief years and complete decline during the other high tax year.
After all the intention here is to keep the scale pans “Moving” but within a predefined range that people are happy with rather than suffering the vast shocks of both Growth or Decline, but without absolute Stagnation.
It also works well with the concept of a “Reward” system, having “One tax relief year in three or four” is a reward (A positive taxis) for the overall Economy and all who are apart of it, giving them ”One Tax high year in three or four” generates a negative taxis which is obviously something that people and companies respond to negatively.