Cyprus-Forum.com

[Agios Amvrosios]

If a federal system is ever established, then who pays for what?

Will the TC state raise its own revenue and contribute to Federal expenses "equally" for their "political equality"?

Or is the situation TCs are proposing going to be a situation where GC refugees forfeit ancestral homes then pay for the majority of federal government expenses.

diladi me thn milan mas tiganizoun to vlangin mas.

See you in Court!

[insan]

Will the TC state raise its own revenue and contribute to Federal expenses "equally" for their "political equality"?

If you give us %50 of annual income, why the hell not!

[garbitsch]

See you in Court!

Come back to the table dude

[Piratis]

If you give us %50 of annual income, why the hell not!

The 50% of whose income?

[uzan]

If you give us %50 of annual income, why the hell not!

The 50% of whose income?

YOURS

[garbitsch]

If you give us %50 of annual income, why the hell not!

The 50% of whose income?

Annual income of the Federal government.

[erolz]

If you give us %50 of annual income, why the hell not!

The 50% of whose income?

As I understand it

If we are to contribute 50% of the federal states income (regardless of our smaller size) we should be entitled to 50% of the 'outcome' of the federal budget.

If we contribute a % related to out numerical numbers then we 5take out a % relative to our numerical numbers.

Personaly I would prefer a 'progressive' system (like that used in the EU) where those that are 'richer' pay in more than they take out and those that are 'poorer' take out more than they pay in - but then I will probably just be branded a theif for this view.

What I think AA is doing is to directly link political representation to how much is 'paid in'. His argument seems to be 'if you want political equality you should be prepared to pay equally as well (in absolute terms not relative terms).Personaly I do not like this linkage at least in its pure direct form. I do not think the UK should get political representation in the EU directly equal to its financial contibution - just as I do not think that indivduals that pay more in tax per anum (because they earn more) should get greater political representation to indivduals that earn less and pay less taxes. The rich have enpough power already without this extar political power imo. Thus as I do not agree with the idea for indivduals neither do I agree it for groups of indivduals (unions of nation states or unions of component states with a federal state)

[Othellos]

Personaly I would prefer a 'progressive' system (like that used in the EU) where those that are 'richer' pay in more than they take out and those that are 'poorer' take out more than they pay in ...

Of course you do.

O.

[erolz]

Personaly I would prefer a 'progressive' system (like that used in the EU) where those that are 'richer' pay in more than they take out and those that are 'poorer' take out more than they pay in ...

Of course you do.

O.

Do you not?

Do you also think political representation should be linked to 'financial contribtuion' with richer indivduals getting a bigger vote than poorer ones, or richer states (componenet or nation) getting more poltical representation that poorer ones. Would like such a senario for the RoC in the EU or the UN?

[Piratis]

Annual income of the Federal government.

If you have the 50% power, and since you obviously do not realize that a fair amount for 18% is the 18%, then I wouldn't be surprised if you ask for 50% of the income.

Actually I am sure that the reason you need that 50% power is to be able to grab a lot more than 18% in all kind of things, including income.

this is why I will personally never accept for the 18% to have an unlimited 50% power on everything.