Criminal extradition treaties, free trade etc

[BigStone]

Hahaha...

Unexpected, but then, not unexpected....
Delayed and incremental effects are not unusual in SR2010.

IlDuce ... could you please place that statement in your sign ...
Its better then cooking fish ...

[Il Duce]

Perhaps - maybe if you change yours to NO MORE FISH!

[BigStone]

[Il Duce]

If wishes were horses, I'd corner the market on hay.

[tkobo]

Well, having trouble falling asleep, so i checked the game.

Its not only stopped going down, it seems to be going up now.

While only one test (hardly conclusive), it seems to show that currently the free trade treaty will NOT eliminate the tax income derived from tariffs on trades.

It (the tax income) stopped somewhere around the 1/2 mark of what it originally was.

The fact that the figure is now rising makes me think that other factors are affecting this tax total.

I no longer have an update 2 install running as well. I think tommorow i will create one and run the same test.

I think i will also run a test by boycotting every region and seeing if that zeros the tariffs.
The fact that i do not import anything at the moment and still am collecting taxes from import tariffs seems very odd.

[Il Duce]

curiouser and curiouser...

just glancing at a game just starting [4.4.2] -

with im duty @ 51.2%,
ex duty @ 49.0%,
total imports of $10.26M
total exports of $24,000 [that's thousands],
[previous day's amounts were similar, with no exports]

I am seeing im tariff income of $34.93M [???]
and ex tariff income of $27.86M [???]

There is NO commerce minister activity [locked out and no directive],
and NO auto purchase either.

On the face of it these numbers are puzzling because the revenues absolutely exceed the total values of trade activity.

It would seem like the books are cooked here.
There are also NO trade treaties in effect at all.
So, it seems that this issue may be independent of trade treaties.
Think this must be a case for the goats.

[Balthagor]

FYI, I have asked George to take a look at this thread at some point, I'm not familiar with the precise effects (intended or nor) of the individual treaties.

[Il Duce]

Thanx!

15 gamedays deeper into it, with NO exports, I am seeing about $30M of export tariff revenue. Definitely not plumb.

[tkobo]

Okay, even boycotting all trade did not effect the tarriffs as i would have expected. No noticable change.

I did notice one thing though,the tarriffs rose and fell at the same time the gdp/c did.

In the first test the gdp/c fell from circa29K to 24k.During this time the tarriffs also fell.The tarriffs fell to roughly 1/2.

Than when the gdp/c started to rebound and rise,the tarriffs also started to rise.

Now im almost positive ive seen the tarriffs at zero,so im going to keep looking for how to get them there.

But as its stands, id say im wrong about the trade treaty effects, and that
Seydlitz is correct .

Good to hear that BG is gonna look at it.

I begin to think that the tarriffs income are decided by the tax percentage set used against the estimated trade figure.
That number that never quite reflects the actual trade,that sits right above the yesterdays actual trade number and is further affected by the gdp/c.

[red]

Perhaps it's taxing the service sector.

[George Geczy]

Chris asked me to look at this thread for some reason, so here's the internal wisdom on this topic:

The issue of Tarrifs (ie import/export duties & excise taxes etc) is a bit tricky in the SR2010 model, because in our design the state controls all commodity transactions. So, in effect, when a region sells agriculture the government would end up 'taxing itself'. And since the government also sets the domestic consumer prices, as well as the export prices, it's all a wash - it would either pay itself (or collect from itself, etc).

The result of this is that:
- Free Trade is a diplomatic type treaty, and does not have any significant treasury effect (note that we can look at this further though).
- The tax levels related to trade instead simulate a "personal use" type of value - ie collecting from citizens for their eBay orders delivered by mail, or businesses that order parts & stuff from other regions, but not trade that is simulated as one of the eleven core resources.

So the trade taxes are in effect a "fuzzy bit", not as useful as they were originally envisaged.

-- George.

[Il Duce]

well...
I can deal with that - except the info we were operating under is that the free trade treaty is defined as one which allows partners to avoid im/ex tarrifing that would otherwise apply.

I suppose a strongly worded and goat-official redefinition would solve the whole question nicely.
Or maybe I'm just in a good mood today.

[tkobo]

but not trade that is simulated as one of the eleven core resources.

I think that explains it perfectly.

[Il Duce]

Clear as mud, I guess. My original addition to this thread was an Eric Larsen-like look at the numbers, which still didn't balance. In any case, perpetuating my good mood, most of the fine points don't matter to me much - the game plays along nicely, and I am generally able to keep a positive cashflow - which in addition to a high gdp, good research, a healthy tax-rate, and lots of tech trade-ups is all I need.

Y'know, my worst problem with this game is that I can generally bring my region to a certain peaceful stasis - with few interrregional conflicts and not enough belli on my part to really justify major conquest. Maybe I just play it wrong. In this sense, like berg, I could just let it run on [without cheats] for thrity or forty years - no problem.

Guess I need to look into testosterone booster shots or something.