Tax Rates...

[Lightbringer]

(and other stuff you probably shouldn't adjust on a daily basis)

As posted in the 2010 Econ section, I'd like to discuss what the real world reaction would be to some of the adjustments possible within the game engine.

I'll reiterate, I don't believe a region's population would stand for monthly, weekly, daily fluctuations in their taxes. People gripe enough about them if they are changed on a yearly basis. If (as is possible in 2010) my income tax took $100 out of my paycheck one week, then $200 the next, then fluctuated again (up OR down) the week after that. I would start to have very deleterious thoughts about those running the show in my region. I find it unrealistic to be able to play with government fee's, taxes etc. as easily as now is the case. I understand this gives the player flexibility within the game, but it is grossly overlooked as a source of unrest.

Thoughts about possible changes? (perhaps a quarterly tax rate change?) I'm not hellbent for leather on this, but it seemed discussion worthy to me.

[Feltan]

Indeed, this could be an issue worth discussing. However, I also believe it falls within a larger context as well.

Right now in 2010, you are basically running a command economy. It comes closest to modelling a communist or a fascist economic model. Someone in the central government says, "build an ore mine here," and poof! an ore mine construction is started.

This is not how Democracies and capitolist economies work at all. If you think George Bush is popular now, just imagine him deciding that agriculture output is too great and shutting down whole sections of the industry. Stalin and Mao could do that -- no Democratically elected leader would dare attempt to do it.

So, can playing slinky with tax rates have implications for popular support? I thing so beyond question. However, given that there is probably an infinite number of ways to cause ire among the public with economic decisions -- I am not so sure the tax issue stands out among them.

One way to address this (be you a communist or a capitolist) is to cap the rate-of-change allowed. Say, a tax rate change can only be implemented at a +/- 0.1% change per week. Just becuase a change is dictated, all the bean counters and grocery stores and service stations have to change their process to implement it, and the revenue stream adjustment will lag any decison.

Regards,
Feltan

[tkobo]

Actually, current subsidy programs in america do pay farmers NOT to grow certain crops.
But its congress who makes this decision,mostly.

And there is no congress in the game.

[Feltan]

Actually, current subsidy programs in america do pay farmers NOT to grow certain crops.
But its congress who makes this decision,mostly.

And there is no congress in the game.

True, but that would be covered by an efficiency subsidy. Simply deactivating areas of the industry is not something you are likely to see in a Democratic nation (i.e., by order of the President, all farms in Illinois are now deactivated).

Regards,
Feltan

[Lightbringer]

I've made mention of this before, referring to power plant production, and how simply throwing a dart at the map and building one where it hits isn't how it is done in my neck of the woods. Greedy rich SOBs see the demand and/or market, then begin applying for (read as bribing rich greedy elected SOBs) permits and such to build said plant. Then the Eco-terrorists protest til the project gets shut down....so they can protest power shortages at a later date.

I believe the upshot of the previous discussion was that, to fix it, the Goats would end up making Supreme Rich Guy 2010 instead of a war based game. I'm perfectly willing to play with things as they stand, but I don't think some sort of change inhibition or limits on econ functions would be hard to implement. Perhaps a "skill level" selection in options that turns such limits on and off?

(and if they put a "congress" in the game..they better put an option to line them all up against the nearest wall with blindfolds and cigarettes. I'd have to start playing Dictatorships.)

[tkobo]

(and if they put a "congress" in the game..they better put an option to line them all up against the nearest wall with blindfolds and cigarettes. I'd have to start playing Dictatorships.)

Hhahahhahaah. Yup.If congress was in the game, id have a select few of my own regions people id find as "expendable"
Perhaps BG could put landmines in the game than also, and than we could use the congress in the game to find them

[George Geczy]

Ignoring the merits of simulating Congress for now, the question of the reality of 'master control' in a democracy is of course one of the game elements that "just is".

It has come up in the discussions on the economic model that "everything is bought and sold by a central entity" is not the way capitalism works, but for our purposes we have to assume that the chaotic world events that create the world of 2010 & 2020 lead to a centralized system, sort of an 'emergency powers' kind of thing. Under such a premise you can give a lot of leeway. It is, after all, "Supreme Ruler", not "Supreme Compromise Consensus that Passed Committee of Both Houses and Avoided Veto".

-- George.

PS - I'm sure "Supreme Rich Guy 2010" would make a good companion product to "Supreme Gun-Toting Bimbo Racers"


Check out advance details of our next game at http://www.supremecompromiseconsensusthatpassedcommitteeofbothhousesandavoidedveto.com

[Feltan]

Ignoring the merits of simulating Congress for now, the question of the reality of 'master control' in a democracy is of course one of the game elements that "just is".

It has come up in the discussions on the economic model that "everything is bought and sold by a central entity" is not the way capitalism works, but for our purposes we have to assume that the chaotic world events that create the world of 2010 & 2020 lead to a centralized system, sort of an 'emergency powers' kind of thing. Under such a premise you can give a lot of leeway. It is, after all, "Supreme Ruler", not "Supreme Compromise Consensus that Passed Committee of Both Houses and Avoided Veto".

-- George.

PS - I'm sure "Supreme Rich Guy 2010" would make a good companion product to "Supreme Gun-Toting Bimbo Racers"


Check out advance details of our next game at http://www.supremecompromiseconsensusthatpassedcommitteeofbothhousesandavoidedveto.com

George,

I don't have an issue with the concept of having emergency powers instituted, and having central control. A lot of countries in WWII had something close to that.

Rather, the instantaneous nature of changes is what I was commenting upon. A major change in economic direction should not, in my opinion, be reflected within a day or two of game time (e.g., a tax rate change showing final results too quickly).

Regards,
Feltan

[Il Duce]

I am inclined to agree that adjustments to taxes - and possibly to other interior aspects - should have a certain latency. This is not so much to mimic a specific country's reality more closely, but to reflect the fact that even by decree, revenue inflow from a new tax would take some time to develop a meaningful gain. The latency should reflect the severity. For instance a 1% adjustment to income tax should take a 2 weeks [a typical pay cycle for most businesses, and that long until the withholding taxes hit the books]. 5% adjustments should take 4-6 weeks. Sales/Use taxes should also have similar lag to effect. The idea is that the supreme ruler should have anticipated an extraordinary outflow and planned for it - you can't just wander down to the vault and stuff your pockets with cash.

Bonds/debt/international subsidies and loans would then play a much more meaningful role - not just micromanagement, but a truly effective way to pressure or favor peer regions. It seems to me that 2010 began with some of this in mind -for instance, the use of a credit rating [still not clear how that affected other stats]. This is an area that could profit from some development.

[red]

Has there been any enthusiasm for the idea of consequences for sudden, massive changes? tkobo talked about it before, I know. Essentially, there should be an economic meltdown if taxes or commodity prices are raised (e.g.) 30% in a month.

[Lightbringer]

Yes, that was the main thrust of my OP. I aimed a little more towards the ability to adjust that much, that quickly, but the base "problem" is the same. Populations don't like change, period. So the more rapid and noticeable such change is, the less they like it.

I would guess that if a certain government were to breach the "change threshold" of it's population, then the population would react by trying to impose some changes of it's own upon the authors of it's discomfort.