Progressive Taxation / Econ Suggestions

[Anneal]

I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been added yet, and I believe someone has suggested this already, but alliances in its current form can only universally tax all its members a certain percentage. While this is fine and all, I was thinking alliance economy could be a bit more dynamic if an alliance government can modify taxes to certain groups, or in other words set up tax brackets. 

 

These brackets could be based off either city count or score. For example, you can tax >16 city nations at 35%, then 12-16 nations at 30%, then 6-12 cities at 25%, then put no taxes below that. Or you could tax based off a nation's score, though I have more concerns about this, since it is relatively easy to use military as a way to manipulate one's score to try to receive less taxes. Another option could be the length of duration in the alliance. This could allow for more interesting and complex economic plans and can potentially allow for alliances to run their economy more efficiently. 

 

Some more minor suggestions are for allowing alliances to pay for certain alliance member expenses automatically. As of now, alliance gov members will have to know how much money is being lost from each nation through self-report or estimating from GDP and city info or using shared information, which requires a bit of spreadsheet work. Through this automated paying system, alliance gov members can now choose how much percent of certain expenses, such as military or city improvements, and help them pay the expenses, which deducts from the alliance bank. This can be set to certain score ranges, city count, or duration in an alliance. If there is a blockade on a certain nation, however, the alliance will stop paying for that nations' expenses and will resume paying for it once the blockade is removed. 

 

 

[Ripper]

[ComradeMilton]

universal tax rates are much more effective

[Buorhann]

Somebody had suggested this a lot in the past.  Trying to remember who it was.  Think it was somebody from Rose, or was from Rose.

[durmij]

universal tax rates are much more effective

 

No, and also not the point. There is no reason for the feature not to be in the game.

[Dio Brando]

Somebody had suggested this a lot in the past.  Trying to remember who it was.  Think it was somebody from Rose, or was from Rose.

 

Sketchy.

 

I've suggested this in the past too, Alex doesn't seem to care too much.

[hope]

i suggest it should be based off of gross income per turn. such as members who make less than 100,000 per turn have 10% taxes, those who make between 100,000-200,000 are taxed 20%, etc. that way alliances aren't taxing their whales and their newer members the same amount.

 

edit: you could also just set it to where you can tax individuals certain amounts, as i know certain members in my AA who don't mind being taxed super high and others who don't want to be taxed that much at all, but i suppose that could be interpreted as more of a personal problem. but if someone wants to tax themselves ridiculously high they should be allowed to do so without taxing the rest of their AA

Edited June 16, 2017 by Hope

[Dio Brando]

Let the placement of taxes at certain levels/upon certain factors be something the alliance's policy dictates, rather than an arbitrary tax setting.

 

Simply introduce tax brackets, and the ideas already presented, alongside a multitude of other Economic policies, can be implemented. They can be implemented right now, but with a load of spreadsheet work, and continuous withdrawals/deposits. Tax brackets would simply streamline the process, and add an extra tangent to intra-alliance politics.... all things I'm in favour of.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

just know, if this happens, and your alliance tries to rip off you 20 city plus nations with stupid high taxes, Grumpy will always have a tax rate of 0.

[ComradeMilton]

No, and also not the point. There is no reason for the feature not to be in the game.

If it's included as an option that's entirely different. If it's a replacement of existing taxation it's a terrible idea and has no place as a mandatory aspect of the game.

[Azkar]

If it's included as an option that's entirely different. If it's a replacement of existing taxation it's a terrible idea and has no place as a mandatory aspect of the game.

 

If an alliance doesn't want a progressive tax rate, they wouldn't set up more than one taxation bracket. Just like how alliances that don't want to tax their members can set the tax rate to 0%.

[ComradeMilton]

Previous suggestions like this have also included it forcibly and limited the amount of tax charged. If it's just an alternative method of taxation and alliances that want to charge much more than usual and it'll be permitted it works for me.

[Sketchy]

Somebody had suggested this a lot in the past.  Trying to remember who it was.  Think it was somebody from Rose, or was from Rose.

I've been on sheepy's case about this awhile: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17699-how-to-add-tax-brackets-a-picture-tutorial-for-sheepy/

 

He said he'd add them in a future update and then he never spoke about em again.

 

Previous suggestions like this have also included it forcibly and limited the amount of tax charged. If it's just an alternative method of taxation and alliances that want to charge much more than usual and it'll be permitted it works for me.

A default tax rate could be applied and then tax brackets could override them. Not really hard.

[Dubayoo]

To be fair, you can always found protectorate alliances, tax them at different rates, and have the banks transfer funds between them.

[ComradeMilton]

As long as it's not something that disallows how some people play by limiting the choice of the alliance in how much to tax or not tax idk why it'd be useful, but go nuts, imo.

[Felkey]

Would actually prefer regressive taxes

[hope]

Sheepy pls pls pls do this

 

edit: I can assure you as a newer nation it was very hard to grow at the high taxes my AA was running, even though my taxes hardly meant anything to them as they were so little

Edited June 22, 2017 by Hope

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Sheepy pls pls pls do this

 

edit: I can assure you as a newer nation it was very hard to grow at the high taxes my AA was running, even though my taxes hardly meant anything to them as they were so little

sounds like you were in a terrible alliance then, since the biggest reason for alliance taxes is to help quickly build little crap nations like yours. 

 

The reason it has to stay high is because people like you that take that tax money and jump to another alliance, which is basically a huge waste of funds for the original alliance that invested in your growth.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Sweeeeet Ronny D

[Dubayoo]

Would actually prefer regressive taxes

 

Would actually prefer estate and sale taxes.  

[Felkey]

Would actually prefer estate and sale taxes.  

In game, regressive actually makes more sense

[Dubayoo]

What makes you prefer regressive in game?

 

In real life, regressive makes sense, but here, there isn't much point.  That would just make it more difficult for new players to get started such that you're reducing the player base in making the game less competitive.

 

If anything, you want progressive taxes in game while giving city grants to new players so they get started faster.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Argotitan

[ComradeMilton]

Regressive IRL is silly and just shifts the burden onto the people least able to pay it. Progressive rates or simply a standard rate across all members makes a lot more sense. Though I think any of the variations should ultimately be up to the alliances who choose to do things however they prefer.

[hope]

sounds like you were in a terrible alliance then, since the biggest reason for alliance taxes is to help quickly build little crap nations like yours.

 

The reason it has to stay high is because people like you that take that tax money and jump to another alliance, which is basically a huge waste of funds for the original alliance that invested in your growth.

They weren't crap by any means. But due to the hefty city grants offered, they ran 30-40% monetary taxes, which as a 7ish city nation means a lot. My point is is that smaller nation's tax revenue is minimal and thus, theoretically, they should be taxed less to improve growth compared to the whales

[Dubayoo]

Regressive IRL is silly and just shifts the burden onto the people least able to pay it. Progressive rates or simply a standard rate across all members makes a lot more sense. Though I think any of the variations should ultimately be up to the alliances who choose to do things however they prefer.

 

IRL, regressive taxes motivate people to become more wealthy by saying they pay less if they earn more.  

 

IG, that doesn't make sense because earnings only have extrinsic value in how you compare against other players' power.  If you're in an alliance, you're not supposed to be comparing extrinsic value against fellow alliance members.  You're supposed to be comparing it against other alliances.  

 

Hence, progressive taxes should be used IG instead to maximize cooperative extrinsic value against other alliances.

[Felkey]

What makes you prefer regressive in game?

 

In real life, regressive makes sense, but here, there isn't much point.  That would just make it more difficult for new players to get started such that you're reducing the player base in making the game less competitive.

 

If anything, you want progressive taxes in game while giving city grants to new players so they get started faster.

in most alliances a person's income generally comes from grants for cities, infra, and improvements early on, a regressive tax allows an alliance to more easily recoup their investment in new players, which is key especially in a style of game where many people go in active early on, this way the alliance could still let them sit on their aa while they recoup their investment. and when they become more self sufficient and less dependent on your alliance, you get less of your money being taken via taxes so you can fund yourself rather than other players who may or may not stick around

 

and this wouldnt affect money taken by raiding or trading on the market, which is fitting because it is money and resources the person has had to work for and gotten themselves.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Felkey