| a9fc8yt3kd1 | Friday, January 6, 2012 - 11:19 pm 
I recently examined the privately owned corporations in my country, and I realized than many of them hadn't made any money in a long time, and were hardly contributing anything to my country in the form of country resource payments. These corporations should have closed down a long time ago because they were failing, but instead, many of them were receiving regular financial bailouts from the enterprises which controlled them, and were still not contributing anything to my country in the form of country resource payments. I examined the financial information of all of the private corporations in my country, and I saw that only about half of them were making a profit. However, because the size of a private corporation's country resource payments are relative to the profitability of that corporations, the fifty-percent of the corporations which were producing a profit accounted for nearly one-hundred percent of my government's monthly income, and the fifty percent of the corporations which were not producing a profit were barely contributing anything, even though they were using up just as many workers as the more profitable corporations, thus preventing more profitable corporations from being established in my country. I believe that this system unfairly penalizes successful corporations and unfairly subsidizes failing corporations. I am currently in the process of nationalizing many of those failing corporations so that I can close them down and make room for other CEOs to come into my country and establish more profitable corporations. However, this is an expensive undertaking which my country can ill afford, and I don't think I ought to be obliged to spend massive amounts of the people's money just to pay for the removal of failing private corporations which are harming my country, merely because the owners of those corporations are too neglectful to fix them. I propose that simcountry abolish country resource payments and replace them with an adjustable labor tax where presidents will be able to tax corporations a fixed amount of money each month based upon the total number of workers which that corporation employs that month. I don't mean an income tax, calculated as a given percentage of each worker's salary, but rather, a labor tax where a corporation is forced to pay a fixed amount of money in proportion to the number of workers which it employs, regardless of the average salaries of those workers. This would force each corporation in a country to contribute an equal amount of money in proportion to the number of workers which it employed, regardless of how successful or unsuccessful that corporation might be. I believe that would help poorly run corporations to fail more easily, and make better run corporations much more profitable for their owners, because the more profitable corporations would no longer bear any more of a burden of supporting the state than would the poorly run corporations. Also, it would no longer be a president's problem if a private corporation was failing, because that corporation would still be forced to pay taxes on its workers no matter how badly that corporation was failing. I believe this would be a much more fair and balance means of raising revenue, because corporations would all be forced to contribute roughly the same amount of money regardless of how well or how poorly they were being run, as opposed to our current system which artificially penalizes well-run corporations and artificially subsidizes poorly run corporations. Also, I believe that forcing corporations to pay a flat tax based solely upon the number of workers they employ, regardless of the average wages of those workers, would help to compel CEOs to upgrade their corporations so that they would no longer require so many workers. In the long run, I believe that this would help to create room for many more corporations in any given country. That is why I propose that Simcountry abolish country resource payments and replace them with an adjustable labor tax. Does anyone else support this? |
| Keto (Little Upsilon) | Friday, January 6, 2012 - 11:52 pm
I agree +1 |
| Azyren1 (White Giant) | Saturday, January 7, 2012 - 01:28 am
It's based on production. Not Profit. |
| Blueserpent (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, January 7, 2012 - 01:38 am
correct, mr new guy  |
| a9fc8yt3kd1 (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, January 7, 2012 - 03:30 pm
"It's based on production. Not Profit."
Well, for whatever reason, whenever I look at a private corporation in my country which isn't earning a profit, it usually isn't contributing anything in the form of country resource payments either. The advantage to a labor tax is that it will affect all corporations equally in proportion to the number of workers they use, regardless of how well or poorly those corporations are being managed, whereas country resource payments place the greatest burden on the corporations which are being managed the best, and place little to no burden on the corporations which are being managed the worst. |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 7, 2012 - 06:32 pm
just cuz the CEO not making profit dont mean u arnt.
You get salaries, taxes, country res. In the hole plot you make over 50% his/her total income. I personally dont see the point in punishing them more with another tax. CEO are working hard as it is on FB |
| Crafty (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 7, 2012 - 09:33 pm
Shut the f*&K up and learn to play the game.
(thats not aimed specifically at you SS). |
| Jiang Hu Warrior (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, January 8, 2012 - 01:17 am
crafty this player does have some small valid agurments that do need looking into, but like most things in this game you have 2 options accept and move on and HOPE things will get better, or b@@@ch and moan wanting change as the norm now! |
| a9fc8yt3kd1 (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, January 8, 2012 - 01:25 am
@ SuperSoldierRCP & Crafty: I wasn't suggesting that simcountry add another tax to the game. I was merely suggesting that simcountry discontinue a form of tax which disproportionately affects the most well managed corporations, and replace it with one which will affect all corporations more or less equally. |
| Azyren1 (White Giant) | Sunday, January 8, 2012 - 03:20 am
Think about it: Your enterprise corps in your country CAN HAVE THAT 2 BILLION OFF THEIR INCOME REMOVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| a9fc8yt3kd1 (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, January 8, 2012 - 04:36 am
@ Azyren1: I already know that getting rid of country resource payments would take a huge bite out of my country's income. However, I believe that replacing country resource payments with a labor tax which can be adjusted by the president, would serve the same purpose for the country. The only difference is that a labor tax would tax enterprises based upon the number of workers which they use, rather than based upon the production and/or profitability of the corporation. This would merely distribute the burden more evenly among all private corporations, whereas country resource payments unfairly penalize the more successful corporations while at the same time subsidizing the less successful corporations. |
| Kitsune | Sunday, January 8, 2012 - 04:36 am
I see what you're saying, but this also adds a further punishment to corporations in industries that have taken a downturn.
Like, I've had seen an industry go green for a while and the corporations in it lose 1B a month and quickly bleeds cash out of the enterprise.
If you increase the amount that such a corporation must pay to its host country every month, it becomes even more dangerous to the enterprise that owns it. |
| a9fc8yt3kd1 (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, January 8, 2012 - 03:19 pm
@ Kitsune: I agree that replacing country resource payments with a labor tax would make business more risky when the market is down, but it would also make business more profitable when the market is up. Nonetheless, I see your point. However, if the proposed labor tax could be set for each country by the country's president, CEOs could negotiate with the president over whether the country should rely more on a labor tax which would affect all corporations more-or-less equally, or else rely more on a corporate profits tax which would only affect corporations when they were making money. What I am proposing is replacing country resource payments with a labor tax which is ADJUSTABLE by the president of a country. I a president wanted to, they could theoretically set their country's labor tax to ZERO, and rely instead on corporate profit payments for their national income. My proposal would merely give presidents the ability to choose between taxing corporations more when they are more profitable, or else taxing them all equally regardless of how profitable they are. No president would necessarily be forced to choose one or they other. They would simply have more options than they do under the current system. |
| SuperSoldierRCP (White Giant) | Sunday, January 8, 2012 - 08:18 pm
it may seem good to you but
Now many news would take a C3 and max it out? Raise the taxes without knowing?
When it comes to new players and issues like this dont change it something set limits are important |
| Gothamloki (Fearless Blue) | Monday, January 9, 2012 - 12:29 am
If The Republic of Kachtka improved it's welfare, the corps in your country would do better. It's not easy making money in a country with such low infrastructure and social security. Worry more about making your country a better place to invest in than micromanaging the corps already there. The welfare of your country adversly affects the productivity of the corps, which is why they're underperforming... Not to mention youre worried about profitability when you have 0% tax? You wont see an extra dime from a profitable corp vs an unprofitable one with 0% tax.... they pay you the same country resources. How many private corps did you lose with your mass msg threatening nationalization of all those corps? Looks like it was about 15. Ouch...
You're on Fearless Blue. You have to have some sense about the horrible state of the FB economy. It's difficult enough to make profit due to the gluttony of automated C3 over-production. And now CEOs need to contend with micromanagers who refuse to micromanage their own affairs before getting into those of others. |
| Drew | Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 08:44 pm
if a corp is losing money continously it's market value drops, this is a good thing for you. Buy the corp when it has more cash then market value and money off the inquisition.
You can take your employees back by increasing your corps salaries. If you don't have any. you can make some for that purpose and IPO them later if you want the benefits of a CEO. This is simple really, i'm not saying the suggestion is bad really, I'm saying your reasoning is.
What you need to do is develop a sense of competition. In the business world there are only enemies or friends. If the CEO is neglectful he will either not compete with you for labor costs (which can lead to a stronger welfare index) or his salaries are too high and he fall of the edge with no market value and bankruptcy if they are too high to compete with.
I kind of like the suggestion though, my enterprise sucks right now, and I think I can spin the employment a little better like this too control my investments as supply costs change or as I finish my upgrades. Don't think I'm sold though on the idea hmmm... |
| Andy | Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 09:22 pm
Private corporations always contribute to the countries where they reside and they pay very large amounts of money. Countries with many private corporations are making very large profits.
first they pay a percentage of their revenue, profitable or not.
There is always revenue and they pay part of it.
then, if they are profitable, they pay taxes.
In addition, they pay salaries to many workers and these workers pay part of their salary in taxes to the country.
even if an enterprise is making a loss, it remains a net large contributor to the countries where the corporations are.
I just saw a large enterprise with 8T in revenue per game month, making a small profit only but the total contribution was 1.8T per game month.
In addition, another 1T per game month was paid in taxes, directly and indirectly by the workers.
This is a total of 16.8T per day, shared by all the countries where the corporations reside. |
| Crafty | Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - 10:17 pm
"There is always revenue..."
I'm not sure that is 100% accurate. I have CEO corps that pay NO country resource fees at all, for several months in a row, if not making profit. So its not regardless of profit. I'm sure it still pays income tax from the workers and corp tax (if I had any rate set).
So, if there is NO revenue, i.e. NO sales made at all, then I presume the corp pays NO CRU either? Should a president not be able to claim some income from such corps? After all, they are still using country resources regardless of if they sell their product or not. Just taxing the workers is not right.
Or am I missing something here, is there a less obvious revenue that they pay part of? Is this the fixed property costs? Thats not revenue based, a corp doesnt pay different rents or sewage treatment or waste collection etc depending on its revenue, it's a fixed cost.
Can I get enlightened on this one please. |
| a9fc8yt3kd1 | Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 03:03 am
CEO corporations usually do continue to pay country resource payments even if they are making minor losses. However, as you said Crafty, if a CEO-owned corporation is failing seriously, it may not pay anything at all in terms of country resource payments. That's why I am suggesting that country resource payments be abolished, and that presidents should instead be given the option of taxing corporations in direct proportion to the number of people whom they employ, irrespective of how profitable that corporation may be. I don't mean taxing a fixed percentage of a corporation's profits or a fixed percentage of worker's wages. I am literally suggesting that presidents should be able to tax each corporation in their country a fixed amount of money for each person which that corporation employes, irrespective the that person's wages or the profits of that corporation. For instance, let's say a corporation employed 200,000 people, and a president set the labor tax at 50.00SC$ for every 10,000 workers. That would equal 10,000.00SC$ in taxes, which is approximately what a corporation of that size would pay in country resource payments if it is running properly. The system which I am proposing would not necessarily increase or decrease the financial burden on private and public corporations. The important difference between the system which I am proposing here and the system which the game currently uses, is that the system which I am proposing would distribute the financial burden equally across all corporations in direct proportion to the number of laborers which those corporation employ, whereas the current system of country resource payments burden all corporations which are managed properly, but does not always burden those corporations which are managed poorly. I believe that this unfairly punishes CEOs for managing their corporations well, while at the same time unfairly excusing CEOs for managing their corporations poorly. I try to make my country as good a place to do business as possible. However, at any given time in my country, there always seems to be one or two corporations which are failing very badly, and contributing little to nothing to my country in the form of country resource payments, yet they continue to keep large numbers of workers occupied, thus preventing those workers from being available to staff other, more profitable private corporations. If country resource payments were abolished and replaced with a direct, adjustable tax on the number of people employed in any corporation, then no corporation would be able to escape taxation no matter how badly it was failing. By replacing country resource payments with a tax which would be distributed equally among every corporation no matter how badly it was failing, rather than a tax which only took money from corporations which were succeeding, and by making that tax adjustable by the president, the financial burden on more successful corporations COULD ACTUALLY BE REDUCED, because those horribly failing corporations which don't currently pull their own weight, would suddenly be forced to pull their own weight anyway, no matter how badly they were failing. |
| Andy | Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 10:31 am
The contributions are an incentive for the president to invite corporations to the country.
countries make a fortune out of these private corporations and many players now understand this and invite them.
taxes can be changed to very low percentages and income for the country will diminish.
corporations have revenue. There could be a month without revenue but is rarely happens.
if they make HUGE losses, the contribution is reduced but this is also rare.
it is essential that they contribute to the country independent of what their owner wants.
in the past they did not and the corporations were not welcome.
we could redesign the entire thing and make a different game but currently, it works just fine and we will fix other functions that need fixing and have a lot of urgent work to do. |
| Crafty | Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 01:13 pm
Quote:corporations have revenue. There could be a month without revenue but is rarely happens.
if they make HUGE losses, the contribution is reduced but this is also rare.
This is the bit I'm not happy with.
With high bad trade strategies corps often have no revenue, not 'rarely'.
Huge losses (2-3T) cause a zero contribution and again this is not rare.
But, yeah, I understand you have greater priorities, this is something I have lived with a long time. There are ways of persuading CEOs to repair or remove their bad corps or you can just buy and repair them. |
| Andy | Friday, May 18, 2012 - 09:12 am
A corporation with frequent periods of no revenue?
close it immediately and start one that produce a product with a shortage on the market.
such corporations also bankrupt quickly.
I hope that a bad trade strategy is quickly corrected. We have clear advise and if it is followed and the market is not flooded, the corporation always sells. We see this with all beginners and with many C3 countries. they sell everything. |
| Crafty | Friday, May 18, 2012 - 11:50 am
I wish I could
But I'm talking about other CEOs corps, so I cant just do that. If it were my own I would fix it. |
| Andy | Friday, May 18, 2012 - 11:12 pm
Can you please give me the name of such a corporation, country and world and the enterprise name.
I would like to see one. |
| Crafty | Saturday, May 19, 2012 - 03:49 pm
You could try 'Virgin GG NFPM' in Gallant Gesture on FB, ent: 'Virgin' for one, or 'NOP Gallant OATA' ent: 'Fearless factors' same country, same world.
I can go through them all if you must, but rest assured that this is a small selection of them. |
| a9fc8yt3kd1 | Saturday, May 19, 2012 - 11:42 pm
Crafty ~ "But I'm talking about other CEOs corps, so I cant just do that. If it were my own I would fix it."
Those are the types of corporations which I am talking about as well. If country resource payments were abolished and replaced with an adjustable tax in proportion to the number of people employed in any given corporation, whether that corporation be controlled by an enterprise or by a president, corporations would then not be able to escape taxation no matter how badly they were failing. Forcing badly failing corporations to pay the same amount of money to the state as more successful corporations would help to force failing corporations to close down more quickly, while at the same time reducing the financial burden on more successful corporations and thus helping them to prosper. |
| Gunther Shamus | Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 12:39 am
you are a capitalist bastard |
| Marshal Ney | Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 05:40 am
Country resource payment - tie it into production, instead of a fixed amount? Makes a kind of sense, you use more of X, you pay more. And in a down market if you continue to overamp production it stays. If you lower production, your costs also decline - and free up workers for other coporations.
As a president, I'm relying heavily on private corporations - enough to put just about everything I can back into infrastructure to make it more appealing. (Currently getting close to 30 bil/month over beginner income.)
I am a beginner, and am selling everything (though I am getting particular where I sell those products that aren't in demand. I find I'm a good customer).
Sorry for chiming in since I am new. |
| a9fc8yt3kd1 | Monday, May 21, 2012 - 02:10 am
Gunther Shamus ~ "you are a capitalist bastard"
You're absolutely right about that: I'm totally a capitalist bastard. I see no reason why intelligent, responsible CEOs should have to bear the burden for any stupid CEO whose corporations fail miserable. I'll do everything I can to make my country a place where private corporations can make a profit, but if after everything I do, they still fail anyway, I see no reason why they should be let off the hook. As far as I'm concerned, they can pull their own weight or "GTFO"! |
| Drew | Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 08:25 pm
I think there might be a better solution than country resources paid but I also agree with Andy somewhat. I mean really failing corps go bankrupt if it's too slow you can build state corps and raise their salaries to take employment from them. If they start to fail their market value will drop and you can nationalize them much cheaper and send em back out when their profitible again, or close them, or let them go bankrupt. In fact that isn't too shabby because you don't have too pay startup fees or some of them have upgrades in them already. There are ways to speed a corp into bankruptcy, failing that at least taking them cheaply. |
