Nominal Taxation Rates

Laserlight spake thus:

I covered this in mid December too.

** Sorry, I didn't see that post when I reviewed the archives. 

  Going off memory, most
Third World countries without an immediate threat are in the
1-2% range.  Most Western Bloc countries are in the 5% range.
Russia in the Cold War was around 19% as was Israel.  I think
the winner of the "Militarize Your Economy Into the Stone Age"
was Angola at 37%.  The lowest I recall seeing listed was 0.8%.

** It struck me that the % of GDP is only a partial measure. Does it
correspond directly with nominal tax rate? That is to say, % of GDP
represents percentage of your whole economy (personal, business,
financial,
other sectors). % of personal taxation is probably another indicator,
related but not directly correlated in all cases. I'm sure from economy
to
economy, the % of GDP made up by different sectors varies, and how much
of
the military budget comes from perosnal taxes does too - or at least I
suspect so. 

** But, % GDP is good enough for the purposes we probably care about.
You
quoted most Western Block countries as around 5%. That was, I assume,
through the Cold War. However, these same countries (NAC, NSL, FSE) have
been involved in several major shooting wars in the last hundred years
or so
and one recently (by 2180's). I think they might actually be a tad
higher in
their defence budgets (say 6-8%) especially given an unknown potential
alien
threat. 

** I get the impression from relative equality of tech in FT/FB that the
ESU, IC, IF, etc have come up so there is at least a near parity of
technology. The size of the ESU fleet suggests they have probably
increased
their per capita GDP (relative to their position vis a vis the NAC in
1988-90) and the NSL are likely also to increase their GDP per capita.
(In
fact, if the figures you originally used were 1988, you'd find their GDP
has
grown and will probably grow a lot more - Germany can be quite a
powerhouse
once it gets rolling). Now, how we account for the various crises of the
2000's and 2100's ... well that's still open for conjecture. 

** Now, the UN is an interesting entity to envision from a funding
perspective. There are some clear indications in canon that they hold
some
land and entertain some independence from their conventional funding
(maybe
owning patents, licensing companies for some exploration ventures, etc).
However, do we suspect they get NO money from the governments that
formerly
composed the UN? Are the UN in effect just the same as all the other
powers?
Or do they receive some percentage of their funding either voluntarily
or by
enforcable tarrif from their member states? And does this come out of
the
member states military GDP? A UN that gets even 1% from each of its
member
state-blocks is quite impressive, even without adding in its own
independent
revenues. A UN that no longer gets any contributions and must rely
solely on
its own revenues is far less so, and begs the question of what they
exist
for. If the UN is still a representative body for the mass of humanity
(most
or all countries would have some representation) with some limited
independence of action and command, then they likely still get funding
from
their member countries in some measure. Though, as always, some states
may
pay up.... reluctantly.... (and how would the NAC go? I don't think
Canada
and Britain are slow with the payments usually, but the US has been
known to
drag heels when it had motivation...). 

Just some thoughts. 
Tom.