Get rid of countrys resources used

get rid of this function

i have 25 corps FINALLY making a profit altogethor making 1-2 billion this is after investing 5T and being 4T in debt the ammount of time it will take to pay off this debt so i can continue playing (gameplay includes buying up corps and participating in share market) i do not even want to calculate my corps pay about 1 billion in resources used that is about 18 billion total equal almost exactly to the ammount i pay in all my employees salarys

why do my expenses include an imaginary figure that equals the entire salarys i pay to employees how is this a simulation

basically

resources used does not exist in real life therefore whoever came up with this feature for a simulation is a dud

it takes up to much income making profits from a CEO neglible and unrealistic

what is the point of taxes when private corps already pay the equivalent of there employees salarys directly to the government what more could a country possibly need in taxes

how is a tax rate even a useful function when corps pay huge ammounts of cash directly to the state with ZERO tax

can i get some plus ones?

I won't give you a +1. But I'll definetely support some consideration.

I don't allow CEO's in, and so the CRU has 0 positive effect on me, but I'm still skeptical of this. This will inevitably lead to a situation of not enough incentive for countries to take in CEO's. And it is currently possible to secure profits with CEO's as it is.

See with a country you're limited to your population with a CEO your limited to money +14T$ in debt. Taking away the CRU will leave the only benefits to CEO's (in reference to presidents) is that the collectable amount on taxes should rise with less expenses, utilization of back to work schools, and health clinics, and a higher effieciency rate that can be used to increase your average salary for workers and increase population utilization.

But if you think about it those benefits are in many respects similiar to what you lose. In state ownership you are entitled to direct corporate profits, and you have control over the companies salary level to eliminate the efficiency gain. And you can place what type of corp you want in your country specifically. The only bullet the president would have to bite is the lack of special clinics, and back to work schools. The very thing I'd like to see change as it makes no sense, a stronger nationalized country would care moreso about their population control then some self servicing enterprise. However that's off base so....

Really it comes down to their has to be incentive to both parties otherwise no one would play as a CEO, or no one would let in a CEO. I suggest you develop a more solid plan for your CEO to get out of debt more quickly. =) Good luck to you.

In terms of being a simulation there are many things you can view, hidden costs if you will. Now understandably they are two high to really reference these expenses but... eh...

I would give a +1 to lowering the costs of country resources paid, it would surely help my enterprise.

There are MANY benifts for a country to have a CEO but not enough for the CEO.

Countries gain
(the factory)= in war its unable to be targeted lowering the amount of population/assets damage that can be done. Difference of a country with 10 states vs 10 CEO is that i get about 5-6 more war index points if there states that i can destroy.

Lowering of housewives and disabled- CEO allow up to 50% disabled/40% of housewives, This allows millions to go bad to work and lower the cost of SS a country pays on top that's easily 3-5corps= several billion in EXTRA income on top of the reduced Social Security costs.

Plus many more.

----------------------------------------------
Id like to hear the benefits CEO gain?(besides having corps which = money)
We get high Country Fees, Taxes, Huge relocation/closure fees?... The GM needs to do something for CEO

I still vote that lowering country resource fee to be = to the salaries paid and giving CEO i higher baseline production would be fair in giving CEO more of a "fighting chance"

So that seems to be 2 votes for lowering CRU and 1 to eradicate it.

But SuperSoldier with a CEO you have a soft limitation of like 600 corps I think, and no real limitation at all. With a country you can only build what your population can support, with an enterprise you may have a smaller ROI but you still have infinite expansion.

But I do think it is too high.

I could expand my enterprise but it would take ages to pay off the debts accumulated so I could participate in actual gameplay by the time I pay off these debts ill be retired (in real life) anyways it should atleast be lowered atleast cut in half what rellife Corp pays 1 billion to employees then turns around and gives 1 billion to the government with supposed zero percent tax its absurd

and all my corps are in good country's and I pay below average salarys which ticks them off I'm making miniscule profits especially co.pared to the countrys I'm in

From a9fc8yt3kd1:

I have previously advocated eliminating country resource payments and replacing them with an adjustable payroll tax. The corporate profits tax is fundamentally unfair to the more successful CEOs, because the most profitable corporations end up paying the bulk of the corporate profit taxes and the most badly managed corporations pay hardly anything in corporate profit taxes.

Country resource payments are better than corporate profits taxes, because country resource payments affect all corporations equally regardless of how profitable or unprofitable they may be. This forces even the most unprofitable of corporations to pull their own weight, thus partially alleviating the financial burden on the corporations of more responsible CEOs.

However, I am convinced that a payroll tax would be even better, because it would encourage CEOs to upgrade their corporations as much as possible so that they would require as few workers as possible in order to reduce the tax burden. When there are fewer workers required in each corporation, it becomes possible to fit more corporations into a single country.

This means that there are more corporations available to bear the tax burden, and this allows the tax burden on each individual corporation to be reduced without decreasing the total tax income of the country, thus further benefiting the corporations without harming their host nation. That's why I think that a payroll tax would be better than country resource payments.

Importantly, I would also argue that any payroll tax should be adjustable by the president of a country, rather than being set at a fixed level. That way, presidents and CEOs could negotiate to raise or lower the tax based on the needs of corporations, the needs of the country, and the economic situation of the virtual world at any given time. For that matter, if there are going to be country resource payments, I think that they also should be adjustable by the president for the same reason.

My country on Fearless Blue has never once had a corporate profits tax since I registered it, and if the country resource payments were adjustable, I would easily consider cutting government spending and decreasing those payments, if it were necessary to help struggling corporations during difficult economic times.

i like that idea

Yeah not bad

@Jansen- Using the stock market can reduce your debt, paying below average salaries DOES NOT neccessarily decrease expenses moreso than revenue. There is a point of diminishing returns with salaries and if you have not hit it, then you have money left on the table. Furthermore interest on taxes is like only 2.5M but every 30B. Hardly a reason to stop investing. If the problem is paying off debt to slowly, you can speed up your rate of return by buying cheap cheap corps on the stock market making them profitable, to pay off your debt quicker. Not that debt should stop you.

hmmmmm i started out buying state corps and someone told me that was bad because it is cheaper to upgrade a corp yourself

your telling me that taking over public corps on the sharemarket is profitable? its kinda the same thing but it does make sense since public corps are often very profitable ill look into the share market a little...should i go for minority shareholding or get 20%

and should i go for dividends or corps who have low stock prices and will eventually rebound

2 points simceo, CRU do very between corps depending on their turnover, or in other words, how well they are run.

I have several ceo corps in my countries that haven't paid CRU in donkeys years, (eventually they will be worth nationalising).

Also, fully upgrading the efficiency of a corp may use less workers but may well increase the payroll. Less cheap workers and more high paid skilled. So the country is benefitting there, I agree and dont like un-upgrade eff corps though I can see the logic in ceos doing so. It's just never seemed something many do. Could be a saving for a ceo...

So it seems you are saying more corps wouldn't mean a greater tax income (corp or payroll) for the country, just spread a fixed amount over more corps??? or am I misreading that?

Turned into 2 convos, so Crafty and a9fc8yt3kd1's proxy please continue:

The trick is not to look at Share Price, but look at MV. For the most part but not entirely all corps have similiar profitability potential. So there are corps out there that are valued at ~300k that have the same potential as a corp valued at 2T. So there are a few ways to go about this. Set a figure you think you can afford, it can be slow and stick to those under 1Million but then you are not likely to progress to fast, I number such as 5B might be more reasonable, but you can go higher or lower.

Now once you have this parameter set, you should set the other parameters. Q LVL, E LVL, ability to hostily take over a corp. Pending these, decides how you should go about your next actions. If your intent is to take over a corp don't buy corps with debt, buy the corp low enough so you can move it with limited risk. If you want a quick flip buy one's with upgrades, if you don't mind sitting on the corp for a little while you can upgrade it yourself, as it's public you won't have to transfer money into it, it will obtain debt but that's no big deal because you are going to flip it. Pick a realistic figure like 100B, it's what I use, and that will give you an ROI of 10000%. Take somewhere between 6-60months depending on where it is its cycle. But the corp was bought for pennies. You can also just play the share market. IF's sell low and buy high so it should be easy. You can pick sort for shares in the 80-200 P/E ranges look at their Long Term share prices if the current month is moving into the increases you can buy low, then sell high. If you want to hold on to shares and collect dividends CCPC (unless you takeover) tend to have much higher profits and so long term tend to pay more in dividends. So just find them in good countries try to buy low and without even owning them you can profit very heavily. But I'd ignore share price and focus more on 'How much does it cost to own x% of the corp?' If you can't keep it truly public oh well, it is more important to make your investments pay off. You can buy lets say 50.1% sell down to 24.9% at 100B let upgrades continue then sell at 700B the rest. As for Upgrades Efficiency could turn into a double edged sword, its win win to countries as their are benefits to a more highly paid pop but i still think you shouldn't worry about that and just buy em, make your partners happy and whatnot. Hope that helps.

thanks this has opened up a whole new side of the game that could get me some good cash injections

From a9fc8yt3kd1:

@Crafty:

I know that not all corporations pay for country resources used. Corporations which are completely non-functional don't pay anything. However, in general, all corporations which are functioning pay for country resources used, regardless of whether or not they are making a profit.

Thus, although there are some exceptions, the MAJORITY of corporations all pay more-or-less the same amount of money in country resource payments, regardless of whether or not they are making a profit. In contrast, corporate profit taxes only affect corporations which are making a profit, and not those which are making losses. Not only that, but also, corporate profit taxes disproportionately burden the most successful corporations.

This unfairly penalizes the owners of successful corporations for their success, while simultaneously rewarding the owners of failing corporations for their failure, whereas country resource payments affect all corporations more-or-less equally, except for those few corporations which are failing extremely badly. That's why I consider country resource payments to be better than corporate profit taxes.

Also, the number of available workers in a country can change over time. However, at any given time, there is nonetheless a fixed number of available workers in the country. Consequently, when any one corporation employs a greater number of workers, there are then fewer workers available to be employed by other corporations.

If a CEO wants their corporation to employ large numbers of low-skilled, low-paid workers, that's their prerogative. However, by employing a large number of low-skilled workers rather than a small number of high-skilled workers, they leave fewer workers available to be employed in other corporations, and so incur an increased burden on the country which hosts them.

Therefore, I believe that the taxes a corporation pays should be directly proportional to the number of workers which it employs, and not to the corporation's profits or to the wages of those employees. The type of payroll tax which I was advocating was one which would be directly proportional to the number of workers employed in any given corporation, without regard to those worker's wages. I was not advocating a tax based on a percentage of the wages which a corporation pays to its workers. Perhaps the tax which I am proposing would be better termed an "employment tax", rather than a "payroll tax.

The citizens of a country are by far its most valuable asset, and there is always a limited supply of them. If any one corporation employs a greater number of workers, it prevents other corporations, which would also pay taxes, from employing those same workers. Therefore, any corporation which employs more workers than necessary inevitably incurs an unnecessary burden on the country which hosts it, and should therefore pay higher taxes in order to offset this increased burden.

A direct tax based solely on the number of persons employed in any corporation, and not based either on the wages which that corporation pays or on the profitability of that corporation, would accomplish this perfectly. Such a tax would force every corporation to pay EXACTLY the same amount in taxes as every other corporation, in direct proportion to the burden which it incurred on its host nation.

No longer would more successful corporations be penalized for being successful, and no longer would failing corporations be rewarded for failure. With such a tax, even those horribly failing corporations which don’t even pay country resource payments, would still be forced to pull their own weight just as much as the most successful of corporations.

The only thing which corporations would ever be penalized for would be for using up a larger number of valuable workers than necessary, which is a burden upon the nation and upon the other corporations therein; and the only thing which corporations would ever be rewarded for, other than being run in a profitable manner, would be for using up a smaller number of valuable workers, which lessens the burden upon the nation and upon the other corporations therein. I can’t imagine how the taxation system in Simcountry could possibly be any more fair than that.

Crafty, if a corporation employs a large number of un-skilled workers, it has to pay wages to a large number of employees, but those wages are relatively low per-capita, thus offsetting the high number of workers on the payroll. At the same time, if a corporation employs a small number of high-skilled workers, it has to pay relatively high wages per-capita, but the number of employees to whom it must pay wages is relatively small, thus offsetting the higher per-capita wages.

Likewise, if there are a small number of corporations in a nation, and they each employ a large number of workers, each corporation being taxed in direct proportion to the number of workers which it employs, there may not be many corporations to be taxed, but each corporation pays proportionally high taxes. From the viewpoint of the president, the higher taxes per corporation offset the smaller number of corporations which are paying taxes.

At the same time, if there are a large number of corporations in a nation, and they each employ a small number of workers, each corporation being taxed in direct proportion to the number of workers which it employs, the tax which each individual corporation pays may be relatively low, but there will be more corporations paying taxes. From the viewpoint of the president, the larger number of corporations being taxed offsets the lower taxes per corporation.

Think of it this way: If one corporation employs ten people and pays each of them one dollar, its total labor expenses amount to ten dollars. Likewise, if another corporation employs only five people but pays each of them two dollars, its total labor expenses still only amount to ten dollars.

At the same time, if there are five corporations which each employ two people, and each corporation pays one dollar in taxes for each person which it employs, the total tax income of the nation is ten dollars. Likewise, if there are ten corporations which each employ one person, and each corporation pays one dollar in taxes for each person which it employs, the total tax income of the nation is still ten dollars.

Of course, for a corporation to operate with a minimal number of workers, it needs to be highly upgraded, and it therefore requires workers which are highly educated. This necessitates increased educational expenditures by the government of the nation. However, because those more educated workers earn higher salaries, they themselves also pay higher taxes to the nation, (income taxes, sales taxes, etc) which offsets the cost of increased education.

Thus, you see that all of the increased costs which are incurred either to CEOs or to presidents, by relying on smaller numbers of more educated workers in each corporation rather than on larger numbers of less educated workers in each corporation, are offset either by increased revenues, or by decreased costs in other areas.

On top of that, there are also two huge advantages to operating a large number of highly upgraded corporations in a given country, each using a comparatively small number of workers in that country, as opposed to operating a small number of un-upgraded corporations in a given country, each using a comparatively large number of workers in that country.

The first advantage is that the average profits per corporation remain the same, but you can now fit a larger number of corporations into a given country. This means greater profits total, which benefits CEOs. The second advantage is that because effectivity upgrades decrease the number of workers necessary in a given corporation without decreasing the level of production of which that corporation is capable, increasing the number of corporations in a country and decreasing the number of workers needed in each corporation serves to increase the number of corporations which contribute to economic production in a given country, but at the same time does not decrease the level of production per corporation.

This means that as the number of corporations increases, the total production of goods and services also increases. This increased production of goods and services offsets the increased consumption of goods and services which results from the increased number of corporations, and from the increased national expenditures on education, thus preventing an increase in the cost of those goods and services.

Thus, a larger number of corporations in a given country, each employing a smaller number of people but employing them more efficiently, benefits CEOs because they can build more corporations while at the same time the average profits per corporation remain the same, thus resulting in higher total profits for the CEOs’ enterprises. This is very beneficial to CEOs, as the increased profits enable CEOs to build yet more corporations.

At the same time, the increased production of goods and services which results from the increased number of corporations, suppresses the increased cost of goods and services which would otherwise result from the increased consumption of goods and services by corporations and from the increased national expenditures on education.

Thus, a higher level of education among the people of a nation enables the building of a larger number of corporations in that nation, each employing fewer people per capita but producing on average the same volume of goods and resources per corporation and earning on average the same level of profit per corporation.

The increased number of corporations, each earning on average the same level of profit per corporation, increases the revenue of CEOs, enabling them to fund the building of more corporations. The increased number of corporations, each producing on average the same volume of goods and services per corporation, provides increased volumes of goods and resources to supply those new corporations, and also to facilitate improvements in the educational infrastructure of nations.

This increased level of education enables yet more corporations to operate with a given number of workers, enabling yet more corporations to fit in a given nation, creating yet more profits for CEOs and yet greater production of goods and resources, and enabling yet more education and yet more corporations ... etcetera, etcetera.

One reason why I am advocating a direct tax based solely on the number of workers employed in a given corporation, irrespective of the average per-capita wages of the workers or of the profits of the corporation, is that it would incentivize this improvement in the efficiency of corporations, which fuels this increase in wealth and profits which does not need to end until every single virtual citizen in every single virtual country in Simcountry is employed, and until every single corporation in Simcountry is privately owned and is upgraded to the fullest possible extent.

The other reason why I am advocating such a tax, is that such a tax would distribute the taxation burden evenly across all corporations in direct proportion to the number of people which they employed, irrespective of how profitable or unprofitable those corporations were. That would seem much more fair than the current taxation system which unfairly rewards corporations for failure and penalizes them for success.

In any case, I also believe that all taxes should be adjustable by the presidents of countries, rather than being set at a fixed level, such as are the country resource payments. That way, presidents could raise whatever taxes they wished when necessary in order to cover the costs of improvements in infrastructure or other necessary expenses, and could also lower whatever taxes they wished when necessary in order to alleviate the financial burden on corporations during difficult economic times.

your welcome jansen

@ a9fc8yt3kd1

There are so many major flaws in this. I think I can benefit from it, I'm positive you can, but the ow so "delicate" market would be shaken dramatically from this.

1. You are introducing a situation in which one type of corp is more heavily rewarded by one party, and negatively by another. Profits too country will be higher with soybeans, and lower with Ammunition Components. The reverse is true in regards to savings on expenses to CEOs. CEOs are already at the disposal of Countries by so much, in regards to the decreased profitibility of CEO's and a high welfare floor for Corps to be successful if the incentive of building education goes as the demand for let's just say Soybean corps goes up, we will have a very peculiar problem on our hands where only countries immune to CEO's will bring up their education, or Countries that also run CEO's. Which undeniably can be good by cutting supply of more desirable corporation types. But in short lead to a more miserable time for CEO's.

2. If point 1 is ignored, you will see a greater pull away from market demand principles. Quite honestly there should be no added incentive for going against the free market. If Corn is in high demand, it shouldn't be more feasible to build Ammunition Corponents that are near saturation. But to your logic the CEO can benefit closer to evenly. In reality much more then evenly. Those reasons are two-fold. You are making this tax a static tax, independent of any variable. So the cost assosiated with payroll tax in corn will always be higher then the Ammo. This one is obvious, but the other is the varible trait. When all things are held constant except one varible the % of cost of that variable becomes increasingly important. While you can potentially pull a greater profit from corn ATM fluctuation will become more daunting on corn then Ammo. The risk to the operator becomes much higher, and much lower for ammo. This inconsistency will, well I guess I should say should, as many SC players are not number people like me, have a detrimental effect on exasberrating shortages in certain areas of the market place. We need corn, we need soybeans, the added competition of high tech products will kill those markets, until a market bubble builds and bursts.

3. This also seems to go against a real life simulation goal. Now ideally CRU's will disapear countries will utilize Corporate tax rate as THAT makes sense. But the majority of the good should come in the form of allowing foreign companies to distribute high salaries to the population. That should be the goal, and it is represented minusculy but is still represented. CRU, and the proposed payroll tax both don't actually make any sense. Corporate tax does. That is the factor that you advocate dismissing. I don't see logic in that.

Too summarize the real point to this, now that I have reread it, I feel there are some things you didn't account for, or possibly loopholes you'd like to take advantage of (no judgement). And though I don't feel CRU's are a proper solution until a replacement system is built it is needed, and corporate taxes shouldn't be done away with.

Now to improve your idea, well to make it more viable. Would be the allowance of corporations to build private schools. Private schools then should be a responsibility of the CEO, and the rights to control priorites with them. They'd also have to have a larger profitability then state run schools and immune to government expenses. This idea would allow CEO' to perform an additional benefit to a country (in the form of ed index) and also help the country service their needs better, possibly make a mil or so on the side.

Anyways that's what I got for you, the intent isn't to shoot down your suggestions but to fix the problem. CRU needs to be replaced but it would be best if we didn't replace it with something that will just be argued about later.

PRIVATE EDUCATION GENIUS!!

From a9fc8yt3kd1:

@Drew:

#1: "You are introducing a situation in which one type of corp is more heavily rewarded by one party, and negatively by another. Profits too country will be higher with soybeans, and lower with Ammunition Components."

First of all, under the system which I have proposed, the profits which a country earns from having any one type of corporation will never by any different than the profits which it would earn from having any other type of corporation.

Although corporations which are more labor intensive would pay higher taxes to a country per capita, a country would not be able to sustain as many of them. Likewise, although corporations which are less labor intensive would pay lower taxes to a country per capita, a country would be able to sustain more of them.

Thus, no matter what type of corporations were built in a country, the net tax income to the country would be exactly the same. There would therefore be no incentive whatsoever for presidents to favor one type of corporation over another.

#2: "The reverse is true in regards to savings on expenses to CEOs."

No its not. You probably think that the increased taxes paid by corporations in more labor intensive industries would deter CEOs from building those types of corporations, and cause them to instead favor corporations in less labor intensive industries, in order to avoid the high taxes. However, this is not true either.

Although my system would increase the expenses of more labor intensive industries, this would not harm those industries at all, because they could simply raise the prices for their products to offset the increased cost. My system would increase the costs for any given labor-intensive industry relatively evenly across the entire industry. Therefore, all corporations in that industry would be able to raise their prices without fear of being undersold by other corporations. Thus, there would be nothing to stop them from raising their prices, and these increased prices would result in increased income for the corporations, which would offset the increased taxes paid by more labor intensive corporations.

At the same time, although my system would decrease the expenses of less labor intensive industries, that would not cause those industries to be any more profitable than they otherwise would be. You see, as costs in any given industry were reduced, corporations in that industry would be obliged to lower the prices of their products in order to avoid being undersold by competing corporations in that same industry.

What is more, this decreased price of some commodities would enable presidents and CEOs to save more money on purchases of those commodities, and these extra savings would then offset the increased expenses of purchasing those commodities the price of which was increased.

So you see, my plan would not in any way influence the relative balance of profitability between different industries. In those industries in which costs were increased, the increased costs would be offset by increased revenue, and in those industries in which costs were decreased, the decreased costs would be offset by decreased revenue.

#3: "if the incentive of building education goes as the demand for let's just say Soybean corps goes up, we will have a very peculiar problem on our hands where only countries immune to CEO's will bring up their education, or Countries that also run CEO's."

As I just explained, my system will not in any way influence the relative desirability or undesirability of any one type of corporation over any other, for either presidents or CEOs. For a president, the increased tax income per corporation which will be associated with more labor intensive corporations, will be offset by being limited to a smaller number of corporations. At the same time, the increased number of corporations which will be associated with less labor intensive corporations, will be offset by decreased tax income per corporation.

Likewise, for CEOs, the increased costs associated with more labor intensive corporations will be offset by the ability to sell the products of those corporations at higher prices. At the same time, the decreased costs associated with less labor intensive corporations will be offset by a need to sell the products of those corporations at lower prices.

At the same time, if the labor market in a given nation requires a highly educated work force, the cost to the nation of educating those workers will be offset by the increased income taxes and other taxes paid by those more educated (and therefore more highly paid) workers.

#4: If point 1 is ignored, you will see a greater pull away from market demand principles.

No we won't see that. I just explained how market demand principles will automatically adjust to counter-balance the harmful effects which you believe that my plan would have.

#5: "If Corn is in high demand, it shouldn't be more feasible to build Ammunition Corponents that are near saturation."

… and it won’t be. I just explained why.

#6: “But to your logic the CEO can benefit closer to evenly. In reality much more then evenly. Those reasons are two-fold. You are making this tax a static tax, independent of any variable. So the cost assosiated with payroll tax in corn will always be higher then the Ammo.�

You’re right about that. The payroll tax in corn WILL always be higher than that in ammo, but the increased cost of growing corn will be offset by an increased price of corn, which will in turn be offset by decreasing prices of other commodities.

#7: “When all things are held constant except one varible the % of cost of that variable becomes increasingly important.�

Yes it does, but the effects of the one specific variable which my plan would directly change, would be counter-balanced by natural changes which would automatically occur in other variables.

#8: “While you can potentially pull a greater profit from corn ATM fluctuation will become more daunting on corn then Ammo. The risk to the operator becomes much higher, and much lower for ammo.�

First, as I already explained, my plan would not enable me to make any more money from any one type of corporation than from any other type. Second, why would there be any more fluctuation in corn than in ammo?

If my plan were to be put into effect, there would at that time be a single, rapid increase in the cost of growing corn, which would be offset by a simultaneous increase in the income from growing corn. Likewise, there would be a single, rapid decrease in the cost of manufacturing ammo, which would be offset by a simultaneous decrease in the income from manufacturing ammo. Once the initial changes, which would all cancel each other out anyway, took place, I don’t see why there would be any more volatility in any part of the economy than there would otherwise be.

#9: “This inconsistency will, well I guess I should say should, as many SC players are not number people like me, have a detrimental effect on exasberrating shortages in certain areas of the market place. We need corn, we need soybeans, the added competition of high tech products will kill those markets, until a market bubble builds and bursts.�

Where would that inconsistency come from, if market forces only had to adjust themselves once, and if all of the changes together cancelled each other out?

#10: “This also seems to go against a real life simulation goal.�

How? Could not a real-world government enact the same policy which I am proposing. Remember: I am advocating that country resource payments be replaced with an ADJUSTABLE tax on the number of persons employed in corporations. A president could merely set that tax to zero if he or she wanted to, and rely entirely on corporate profit taxes instead. I am merely advocating that presidents be given the option of levying such a tax if they wish to, just as a real-world government could if it wished to. How would that make Simcountry less of a simulation?

#11: “Now ideally CRU's will disapear countries will utilize Corporate tax rate as THAT makes sense.�

I don’t believe that corporate profit taxes make any sense at all. There are plenty of corporations out there which make no profits at all and therefore pay no corporate profit taxes. However, they survive because the enterprise which owns them automatically bails them out whenever they need money, and the CEO which owns the enterprise doesn’t bother to fix them.

In the real world, no person would do this because it would cost them too much money, but in Simcountry, it doesn’t cost you any real money whatsoever if your enterprise loses money, and so many people who don’t feel like either taking care of their enterprise or else canceling their account, merely allow their corporations to sit there losing money badly and not contributing to the country which hosts them.

This is a burden on the host country because they use up resources without contributing, and it is a burden on CEOs because they tie up valuable workers and thus prevent more active CEOs from building corporations in that same country. Unfortunately, whenever a country has a corporation like this, it costs the country money to nationalize it in order to eliminate it.

Country resource payments help to force these corporations to contribute their fair share, but the tax which I am proposing would do it even better.

#12: “But the majority of the good should come in the form of allowing foreign companies to distribute high salaries to the population. That should be the goal, and it is represented minusculy but is still represented.�

In the real world, I agree with that. However, in order to provide a beneficial environment for corporations, countries in Simcountry must provide certain services to the population, such as education, transportation, healthcare and social security, and those services cost money to provide.

In the real world, such money does not need to be acquired through direct taxes on corporations. It can be acquired through income taxes, sales taxes, consumption taxes, and so forth. For that matter, in the real world, services such as education, healthcare and social security, can be privatized.

Unfortunately, Simcountry does not currently allow presidents to lay direct taxes on the citizens of their countries or on their financial transactions, and also does not allow any of the aforementioned services to be privatized. However, you have to remember that there are a very large number of virtual countries in Simcountry, and there are millions of virtual people in each of those countries.

I'm not sure, but I suspect that it would be far too difficult for the Simcountry server/s to calculate the exact incomes and spending habits of all of those many, many virtual people. In the absence of that ability, the primary source of tax revenue must come directly from corporations themselves, and I believe that the tax which I have here proposed would be, for most virtual nations and corporations, the most beneficial such tax.

#13: "CRU, and the proposed payroll tax both don't actually make any sense. Corporate tax does. That is the factor that you advocate dismissing. I don't see logic in that."

I just explained my logic.

#14: "Too summarize the real point to this, now that I have reread it, I feel there are some things you didn't account for, or possibly loopholes you'd like to take advantage of (no judgement)."

Hopefully I have now accounted for them.

#15: "And though I don't feel CRU's are a proper solution until a replacement system is built it is needed, and corporate taxes shouldn't be done away with."

I never said that country resource payments were ideal. I merely said that I considered them to be superior to corporate profit taxes. Also, I never advocated removing the feature of corporate profit taxes from the game. I merely suggested that an optional direct tax on the number of workers should be included in Simcountry, which presidents could either increase, decrease, or eliminate altogether, just as they currently can with corporate profit taxes. That way, players could experiment to discover which form of tax worked better.

#16: "Now to improve your idea, well to make it more viable. Would be the allowance of corporations to build private schools. Private schools then should be a responsibility of the CEO, and the rights to control priorites with them. They'd also have to have a larger profitability then state run schools and immune to government expenses. This idea would allow CEO' to perform an additional benefit to a country (in the form of ed index) and also help the country service their needs better, possibly make a mil or so on the side."

Actually, I like that idea. I've been thinking about suggesting the same thing, but I haven't gotten around to it. If the education system were privatized, government expenditures on education could be cut dramatically, and this would enable the president of the country to lower taxes on corporations. This would enable corporations in the country to pay higher wages to their workers, which would in turn enable those workers to pay the necessary tuition for their children to attend those private schools. This tuition would then offset the cost of CEOs running the private schools, and perhaps even provide them with some profit.

If the rules of Simcountry made private education more efficient than public education, which to my knowledge, it generally is in the real world, that would then be of a great benefit both to presidents and CEOs, and would encourage further cooperation between the two.

#17: "Anyways that's what I got for you, the intent isn't to shoot down your suggestions but to fix the problem. CRU needs to be replaced but it would be best if we didn't replace it with something that will just be argued about later."

I always love criticism. Even if it doesn't change my mind about something, at least it makes me think about it more thoroughly.

Good grief.

Can you guys try to be more concise please. These posts are becoming essays.

My feeble old mind doesn't have much of an attention span nowadays.

my young mind barely has the attention span to read these

I like the idea of an adjustable payroll tax plus 1

Wow if your anything it is a thorough responder. Most of my inquiries/criticisms are answered with your first response on the list. Also I was unaware that this tax was slideable either, changes quite a lot actually, and also the fact that this suggestions intent or heart of the intent was to cope with an unrealistic piece of the game, also changes my level of antipathy as well(unattentive CEO's).

So I'd like to withdrawl my original ummm... I guess cynacism. But that doesn't mean I still don't have reserves about this topic. And one piece of this is still unanswered for. So I realize I am just one person, one voice here. The suggestion is good, viable, and worthy of consideration but I'd like to at least point out the potential red flags with the system.

1. This whole idea seems to be dependant on refiguring costs of many corporations. You have outlined this several times with your response so I don't feel it neccessary to cite you. But given the current priorities of SC and it's devs I find this as a very large undertaking, with a large amount of potentially pissed off players.

2. This is the point that I think you found difficult to rationalize, though hard to explain, so I'll try to remember how my undergraduate Investments instructor put it. So in regards to risk aversion; The larger the risk the larger the payout needs to be. That's nice and simple. You have successfully explained how market volitility can be avoided with base price changes. Yet the level of functional risk in each corporation will not be set to the same proportion of revenues as each other. With a sliding payroll tax I suppose it is possible to offset this, but as its at the president's discretion it would be impossible to plan for this. Yet because the base prices will change this becomes minor. Corporations with a smaller labor-driven affiliation will still have a larger proportion of their profits be variable compared to constant. This means DURING large fluctuations in supply/demand they will see larger swings in profitability. But I do not see this as a major problem. I do wish to point out this flaw though. Not even flaw really in truth more realistic.

So I'll give this a +1, with reserves. Heck I'll give it a +5 with reserves.

I am against private education personally, but this suggestion would make private education an incredible additionn to the game. I'd for sure give private education a +1, but only if the payroll tax is to be inserted.

Thanks for responding to my post. Sorry for making it a chore everyone

From a9fc8yt3kd1:

@Drew:

#1: As I already pointed out, of course there will be a reshuffling of costs of different types of corporations, but it will be counter-balanced by a parallel reshuffling of their profits. Players might have to make some adjustments to their corporations' trade strategies, but those adjustments would only need to be made once, and the net profitability of corporations would not be affected.

#2: "Yet the level of functional risk in each corporation will not be set to the same proportion of revenues as each other."

Why? Let's say one corporation earned only 10.00 SC$ monthly, and its monthly expenses were also exactly 10.00 SC$. Lets say another corporation earned 10,000,000.00 SC$ monthly, and its monthly expenses were also exactly10,000,000.00 SC$. Currently, each corporation's net profits are exactly zero.

Now, let's say each corporation's earnings decreased by 10%. Now, the first corporation still pays 10.00 SC$ each month to cover its expenses, but it only earns 9.00 SC$ in that same month. It therefore suffers a net loss of 1.00 SC$ each month, a very trivial loss.

Likewise, the second corporation still pays 10,000,000 SC$ each month to cover its expenses, but it only earns 9,000,000.00 SC$ in that same month. It therefore suffers a net loss of 1,000,000.00 SC$ each month, a much larger loss. Therefore, you could say that the second corporation is a more risky corporation to own than is the first, because its losses during difficult times would be much greater.

However, suppose that instead of both corporation's earnings decreasing by 10%, they both increased by 10%. Now, the first corporation earns 11.00 SC$ monthly, and only pays 10.00 SC$ monthly. It therefore produces a net gain of 1.00 SC$ each month, a relatively small gain. In contrast, the second corporation earns 11,000,000.00 SC$ monthly, and only pays 10,000,000.00 SC$ monthly. It therefore produces a net gain of 1,000,000.00 SC$ each month, a much larger gain than was produced by the first corporation.

The same thing would happen with fluctuations in the corporations' operating costs. If the first corporation earned only 10.00 SC$ monthly but paid 11.00 SC$ monthly, it would lose 1.00 SC$ each month; whereas if the second corporation earned only 10,000,000.00 SC$ monthly but paid 11,000,000.00 SC$ monthly, it would lose 1,000,000.00 SC$ monthly.

Likewise, if the first corporation earned 10.00 SC$ monthly but paid only 9.00 SC$ monthly, it would gain 1.00 SC$ each month; whereas if the second corporation earned 10,000,000.00 SC$ monthly but paid only 9,000,000.00 SC$ monthly, it would gain 1,000,000.00 SC$ monthly.

In short, a corporation with low costs and low earnings would suffer only a small harm during bad economic times, but would also gain only a small benefit during good economic times. Likewise, a corporation with high costs and high earnings would suffer a very significant harm during bad economic times, but would also gain a very great benefit during good economic times. Thus, once again, things naturally would balance themselves out.

Furthermore, I would also argue that the current system of country resource payments actually contributes far more to market volatility than would the system which I am proposing. Most people are familiar with the regular up-and-down fluctuations in the prices of products and services which occurs in Simcountry.

However, these fluctuations always naturally tend to reverse themselves in time. Whenever the supply of a particular product or service is too small to meet demand, the price of that same product or service inevitably becomes rather high. Consequently, the profits made by corporations which produce that product are also high. These high profits then encourage more players to build corporations producing that same product or service. The supply of that product or service is therefore increased in proportion to demand, and this brings the cost down.

In contrast, whenever the supply of a particular product or service is larger than necessary to meet demand, the price of that product or service inevitably becomes rather low. Consequently, the profits made by corporations which produce that product are also low. These low profits then deter players from building more corporations producing that same product or service. The supply of that product or service is therefore reduced in proportion to demand, and this brings the cost back up again. Consequently, there are natural, cyclical fluctuations in the prices of various goods and serviced, and in the profits made by the corporations which produce them.

Now, I don't personally believe that those cyclical fluctuations are much of a concern, because a large enterprise with a wide variety of corporations producing a wide variety of different products can easily weather occasional fluctuations in the profitability of some of its corporations.

However, fluctuations in the supply and demand of various products and services are not the only fluctuations which regularly occur in the Simcountry economy. Simcountry also experiences fluctuations in the money supply, as a result of changes in the volume of money which is borrowed from the Simcountry World Bank at any given time.

When a country or enterprise in Simcountry runs out of money and fails to get a loan from another country or enterprise, new money is instead created out of nothing by the Simcountry World Bank and then loaned to that country or enterprise. When this country or enterprise spends that money, it is thus injected into the Simcountry economy, thus increasing the supply of money in the Simcountry economy.

When that same country or enterprise earns enough money and pays back its debt to the World Bank, that money is then artificially destroyed by the World Bank, thus removing it from circulation. This then decreases the supply of money in the Simcountry economy.

Consequently, when the total volume of debt carried by countries and enterprises in Simcountry increases, the money supply also increases. This results in increasing prices for all goods and services, which in turn results in increasing costs for countries and enterprises, and also results in increased corporate profits.

Under such circumstances, taxes should be increased, because countries need the extra income in order to cover the increased costs of government services, and because the increased earnings of corporations allow them to bear the increased taxes.

In contrast, when the total volume of debt carried by countries and enterprises in Simcountry decreases, the money supply also decreases. This results in decreasing prices for all goods and services, which in turn results in decreasing costs for countries and enterprises, and also results in decreased corporate profits.

Under such circumstances, taxes should be decreased, because countries no longer need the extra income in order to cover the now decreased costs of government services, and because the now decreased earnings of corporations no longer allow them to bear such high taxes.

Unfortunately, Simcountry does not allow country resource payments to be either increased or decreased by the presidents of countries. Instead, country resource payments are set at a fixed quantity of money which is the same for all corporations and which does not change in response to changes in the supply of money.

Consequently, if the money and the associated costs of running a country both increase too much and a country needs to increase its taxes to cover the increased costs, the president has no means of increasing country resource payments to cover those increased costs. Instead, the only way for the president to increase revenue under those circumstances is to levy a corporate profits tax. That can of course be done, but as I have already said, it is fundamentally unfair because it punishes corporations for success and rewards them for failure.

In contrast, if the money supply and the revenue of corporations both decrease too much and corporations are no longer able to bear the burden of paying country resource payments, there is no option for the president of a country to reduce those payments. If the country's corporate profits tax is already at zero, then there is nothing the president can do other than sit back and watch all of the corporations in his/her country slowly bleed dry, and hope that the money supply increases again before all of those corporations close down.

This problem is further exacerbated because the increases and decreases in the money supply tend to occur very slowly over a very long period of time, and do not to my knowledge occur on a predictable cycle. This means that you can't really predict what will happen to the Simcountry money supply in the future. It also means that if ever the money supply happens to be at a level which is inconvenient either for corporations or for countries, there is no telling how long it may be before the money supply changes, no telling whether the eventual changes will be for better or for worse, or even if it will ever change.

Unfortunately, the unpredictability of changes in the money supply, and the extremely long time which is often required for the money supply to change from an inconvenient level to a convenient level, makes these fluctuations much more troublesome in the long term for corporations and for countries than the more rapid but less important fluctuations in the supply and demand of various products and services.

In contrast, with the tax which I am proposing, or with any adjustable tax for that matter, this would be less of a problem, because the tax rate could be increased or decreased as necessary to counter either a decrease in the earnings of corporations or an increase in a country's expenses. In this way, I expect that my proposed system would significantly decrease the long-term financial risks for any corporations in a country which used this system.

The only way in which I can think of in which this system could possibly increase the risk to any given corporation would be if some moron who was the president of a country foolishly raised taxes to a level higher than what any of the corporations in that country could bear. This would of course be a problem. However, this would only be a problem with inexperienced presidents, and any CEOs who encountered such a problem could merely relocate their corporations to countries with more responsible presidents.

Boring,

I cant even be bothered to read this long winded dissertation.

apparently neither can the gm