#VI skill sales tax increase

247 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

main mauve
#

Note: This is a tax idea for next cycles government.

Vertical integration in WT still poses a problem for the economy, the purpose of this idea is to not solve it as per say, but to help mitigate part of the advantages.

So, the plan is to create a table of all the skills and which skills vertically integrate (significantly, not just one recipe), so for example Mining & Smelting would count, but basic engineering and mechanics would not (as only the iron wheels is from BE, and this is such a small part of the market). Some work would have to be done to decide what clashes and what doesn't.

This would then act as a sales tax multiplier. If a player or company has a VI skill set, they would pay 50% higher sales tax (example figure), than a non VI player.

The theory behind this is that the increase in tax revenue would offset slightly lower sales taxes overall, but those not VI would still result in similar or higher tax levels, as more trades occur.

#

Advantages:

  • A potential solution to VI that helps promote trade.
  • A potentially fairer way to raise tax revenue.
  • Promotes playstyle diversity, more options for unique skill sets to thrive.

Disadvantages:

  • Increasingly more complex tax system that can be difficult to understand, or implement via law.
  • It may potentially slow down progress as non-IV players are waiting for trades to happen.

Overall:

I think the biggest advantage in my opinion is playstyle diversity. I certainly don't intend to remove a specific playstyle, but promote new ones which adds variety. Special consideration should be given to the level of product transfer, so edge cases that might result in less than £1k total trade (just an example) aren't included.

The government may wish to allow some skill pairs that they may not wish to discourage, within reason.

Finally, the example could be expanded to a table, with a variable multiplier, giving a percentage of VI to increase taxes, just like company income scaling, but I think initially it's probably best to just have a binary option.

spice barn
#

I wish I wasn’t busy and could help make the tables for this idea

twin flare
#

Something that could also help with part of this is the branching out of the end game skills not making all their components. Gold Flakes should probably not be made by Electronics. And Basic Circuits being usable by skills other than Electronics and Industry to make some things. Because in the end, those 2 skills dominate as is.

spice barn
#

We would need Jens for that though and those type of adjustments are always extremely touchy

random hemlock
#

So if I understand right this is targeted at companies? So if I play in a company and we actually play the same skill set (let's say logging carpentry oil composites) we would still have to pay 50% more taxes even though we don't have extra skills?

main mauve
#

Also, skills like gathering & farming, you might consider not VI. Even though they are, it doesn't really serve the purpose to encourage players to deviate there.... But if you take milling, then VI tax

random hemlock
#

Ok you said it would do the same for solo players, I understand that then. Still think it would be kind of extreme to do this and kinda force people to play skills that don't work together that well. In that case I think this is fine but I'm not sure how this would translate into tax rates then if a player or company has multiple skills based on top of each other. Let's say a player has mining smelting adv. smelting industry, he'd just get triple hit by that sales tax for going for that skill set. In the end you spend a star and you expect to get something out of it. I feel like this could lead to certain item prices spiral out of control.

#

And also just having to calculate how much tax you're actually paying can lead to a headache alone 😄

main mauve
#

I know it would definitely be a challenge, at least initially, a bit of an update in general chat, going for a 3 tier system with Low Vi, Mid VI and High VI, with variable rates of sales tax.

#

The idea behind it is to essentially mitigate the advantage players who do vertically integrate have over those who don't. It shouldn't be punative

#

essentially .... If you sell Iron at £5, £1 is typically taken as tax. If you are a mechanic with smelting, that is all profit margin because you don't incur that taxable amount.

#

So lets say you have a base rate tax of 20%, a 50% sales tax increase might mean you pay 30% of the total sale value. A non-VI player will buy products at a 20% premium (compared to VI player), but have a 20% sale value, so overall they may or may not make more or less of a profit

#

It all depends on the numbers, but this variety will give different players different competitive advantages in each product, allowing more variety of playstyle even within the same skills

spice barn
#

@random hemlock , the concept = people will be motivated to not VI which makes for stronger economy, do you not think that would be healthy?

spare tusk
#

Might be healthy for the economy, but what about player enjoyment and player retention?

wispy lion
main mauve
wispy lion
#

True, I just think additive could be disastrous with anything higher than like 5%

random hemlock
# spice barn <@145127491529474048> , the concept = people will be motivated to not VI which m...

I think it would make for a healthy economy BUT I don't think this should be implemented on top of the current bracket taxes we have. It makes things for new players extremely complicated and confusing. There should only be one type of tax, the current one is already very confusing as people have to figure out which bracket their item belongs to so adding just another one can be difficult as even veteran players have to learn it first 😅

main mauve
#

It could apply top bracket tax only, that might be a great idea

#

top bracket is designed for highly processed resources such as vehicles & such

unreal walrus
#

Think when applying to both solo and company that would empower VI companies even more because they would only hve to pay that panalty once for endless vertical integration. Which is already a huge problem for server economy.

#

I like the part to punish skills with synergies so people can easier pick the skill needed and not the one matching with their current skills

wispy lion
unreal walrus
wispy lion
#

that still fits within what dennis wanted, allowing companies to isolate themselves if they wanted 🤷‍♂️

unreal walrus
#

yes it does but I would not like to see them getting another benefit over solos which would be the case if the punishments hits only ones for both. it should hit companies once per player imo

#

That would still enable them to play isolated

shut briar
#

I think this is a good idea. I had a similar idea, but in my idea the vertically integrated funds were taken out in a manner similar to company income scaling. I like it better here that it’s a “real tax”, but it might be harder to implement.

Overall though, I hope something like this gets implemented. It is far too easy to take super skills like mining/smelting, logging/carpentry, smelting/engineering professions, etc. and then just vertically integrate and end up selling a couple finished products. If those professions were actually different players, it would be better for the economy, and allow players who aren’t super skilling to have a chance.
Dad speed does this (albeit much more restrictive than what we are talking about: 2 stars only and no interaction between them at all) and it is the only Eco server I know of to maintain a balanced, healthy, and active economy for months on end. This is the next step to make White Tiger more dynamic, and not dominated by the same people picking super skills every time

spice barn
#

I feel strongly with @random hemlock about it being confusing/difficult towards newer players.
@main mauve how could we implement the system without that issue?

main mauve
spice barn
#

Hahaha!!!

unreal walrus
#

use flat slaes tax instead of scaled tax

shut briar
#

New players will always feel overwhelmed on white tiger, because of the amount of changes and information

spice barn
#

Very true

shut briar
#

This is just adding another aspect to it. Nothing crazy

spice barn
#

I think Teal is right, people usually figure things out and the community helps all new players.

spare tusk
#

Usually itll be too late, they pick VI cause thats what you do 90% of the time you play and they get taxed heavily and cause them to quit. Its company income scaling all over again, but now new players can get F'd twice in 1 cycle.

main mauve
#

again, the idea isn't to heavily tax them.... but bring them into line with the competitive advantage they recieve

unreal walrus
#

maybe it would be an option to turn that around. cause higher tax feels like a punishment. But if we would reduce tax needed to be payed for people picking skills without integration that would be a kind of compensation which would feel better. Of course that would result in a higher overall tax so in the end it would be same income for gov

shut briar
main mauve
spare tusk
shut briar
#

Isn’t that what this is, in a way? 😛

unreal walrus
#

not for new players. If they need to pay more tax after picking a skill the will react negative. If they keep paying the same they will not notice that other player need to pay less after a picking a skill without integration

spare tusk
unreal walrus
#

or they will try to pick skills to get lower tax not to avoid higher. You can always better sell rewards then punishments

shut briar
spare tusk
#

Yeah and I like it, if its done with scaling in mind

wispy lion
#

All taxes have to be applied after company scaling anyway

spice barn
#

Who is going to spread sheet all the VI’s and balance them and then make the law?

spare tusk
#

I vote Elmeye, since he aint here yet he cant disagree

wispy lion
#

If the gov did something like a 10% increase for VI (multiplicative) it might not cause people too much hurt

spare tusk
#

does that 10% make a difference though?

wispy lion
#

It would still be more income for the gov, but might not upset the current economic balance too much

rancid juniper
#

That's more or less what I suggested the other day (#1032743502313959454 message)
I think company scaling and VI should be handled separately. Number of players increase your time available to play so you can make bigger volumes, plus you don't need to travel to trade. But since income is "split" among members it evens out. In the end, a person in a company is slightly advantaged than an individual; this is not addressed by scaling because if everyone in the company takes the same skills, they can work 24/7, flood the market and react to undercutting but nothing will stop them.

However, after a week or two, many players have 3 stars, meaning they can dominate a craft either in a company or solo. and each skill you have in a branch is a trade that disappear and that is not taxed. Someone (solo or company) selling an item that should have been traded 2 times will then cost 15%^2 less to someone that has all 3 skills.
Complementing on what OP suggests, It might be best to count the number of skills upstream of the item being sold, ie: when selling iron bar, count mining+smelting but not mechanics. Otherwise ppl will be at a disadvantage to sell intermediates when they can further refine, and we want intermediates to be available. Also when learning a higher skill, you won't need to adjust your prices, only when learning a lower skill (but your cost also decreases, so end price should be ~same). Tho it will probably be hard to implement (probably one law section per item)
As for the value of such tax, it should be similar to the end product tax (multiplicative) so that it's like you sold the intermediates to yourself.
Since companies mostly behave as a single (legal) person, the stars of each members are already pooled together.
Members count of a company and matching stars of entities (legal or solo) should be handled seperately

spare tusk
#

Members count should finally be handled, but big corpo's are keeping it down. We know who you are! (also 24/7 hype)

grim olive
#

So I started poking around compiling a list of VI, and I was wondering what the general consensus is for the following scenarios:
A campfire cook can create meals without gathering/farming, but those skills could help if the campfire cook decides to gather themselves instead of purchasing.
A Mason could mine their own rock for most of their crafts, but having Mining helps with that.
A Potter could use the charred mortar recipe, but crafting mortar through masonry is helpful
There are several scenarios where having a skill isn't necessary to create/gather an item needed, but could still be helpful. Do we issue a VI tax in those scenarios?

main mauve
#

Cooking / farming in my opinion should be split

#

Mining and masonry / smelting as well

grim olive
#

Split meaning no tax?

main mauve
#

Yea, take that combo and get extra tax

foggy turret
#

any form of cooking + gathering/farming should 100% be split

rancid juniper
#

If you don't tax it, a gatherer won't have a chance at selling crops because all cooks gather their own so definitely tax it.

#

A trickier one: gathering+farming+fertilizing
Farmers always harvest their own field because habits. Technically, a crop uses a seed as ingredient, du having both should incur a VI tax.
Fertilizing however is an edge case because you need such tiny amounts of it that a lone guy could provide fertilizers to the whole server and still play casual. I think fertilizers is the only food intermediate good that actually hits the market. I'd say don't tax it in any way.

main mauve
rancid juniper
#

Milling is utterly tied to baking.
I agree fertilizer is a mostly useless skill, but farming and gathering can completely be separated. Both need each other and yes, it's often taken in pair, just like smelting and mining.
I think the general idea of a VI tax is to make it possible to thrive playing a job without the other highly connected jobs. Currently, one cannot play farming without a dedicated gatherer (usually himself)

spare tusk
#

Would be neat to have farmers sell seeds or hire gatherers to work the fields.

rancid juniper
#

I tried to do that on a server or 2, didn't go well. Because every gatherer has his farmer

main mauve
#

Are people going to be better off by having separate seed sellers? Might be interesting

spare tusk
#

I remember being a gatherer and would have loved the opportunity to buy seeds, but that was back when they didnt expire so they hogged em all till they got gathering themselves.

#

So it may make people trade a lil more, which would be nice, or hire gatherers, which is also nice.

twin flare
#

I’ve never done a farmer/gatherer run, but they seem so inexplicably tied together. Loggers don’t req another skill to plant more trees, miners naturally don’t need another skill to find more rocks.

main mauve
#

Initial intention wasn't to split farmer / gather, but more to split logger / carpenter and miner / smelter.

keen dust
#

Tried to do seed crafting cycle before this one. Think in part because seeds spoil too it isn't really worth it. Could be worth it if you have a few people where you agree on mixing farming/fertilizers/milling between each other.

rancid juniper
#

Seeds spoil in one week, it's not that bad

#

Thing is gatherer makes value ex nihilo but if you buy seeds then you have costs other than your own play time

fervent bough
#

I'm late, but having read the whole conversation here's my two cents:

  1. The philosophy of Eco is about one thing and one thing only: efficiently managing your limited resources. So, naturally, 90% (guestimate) of players go for VI as that's how the game is balanced. Hitting 90% of players with an additional headscratching tax to facilitate a niche playstyle may not go well, especially if it's selective and certain combos aren't taxed extra.

  2. As I understand it the main products targeted by this tax are iron, steel and lumber. The main shortages on any WT run I played were always iron, steel and lumber. Take mining away from smelters, logging away from carpenters and mining AND smelting away from advanced smelters and 2 things will happen: some will just VI anyway and will charge more to cover tax, and the rest will buy their raw materials and may have to charge more to cover for upstream tax&profit. What we don't know is if they can buy enough raw materials and what's the final price after all the back and forward trading. Personally, when I play as a logger or miner I find it incredibly boring to mine and sell crushed or hewn, I want to make stuff out of it, I want to experience the game as a whole.

#

If the powers that be end up implementing it, please, for the love of god, make it a tax rebate, not an extra tax. Make it an attractive option for the players that like that playstyle instead of making it look like you're forcing VI integration out. Even if it has the same effect on one's bottom line, the way it's perceived makes all the difference.

#

Unless, of course, you want to force it out

rancid juniper
#

Good point on the perception aspect (I'm the kind of guy the go for 10€ instead of 9.99)

If the system is well balanced, the tax paid for a product should remain the same, meaning a truck taxed 25% should become a 5-10% tax on each step.

Also it's not just to please a niche, but to balance with groups of players and newer players that have less stars than day 1 players

main mauve
# fervent bough I'm late, but having read the whole conversation here's my two cents: 1. The ph...

There are many ways of looking at Eco, but essentially that in an inter-player perspective. Each player has that objective, but the government has a role in involving as many player into the game as possible. The combo's are sure selective, but players have been complaining about vertical integration for a while and it's effect on the way players trade in the economy.

This suggestion has the objective to increase trade amongst players. There are major challenges around the supply of goods, as vertically integrated players often cannibalize their own supply take all the profit.

When a VI player makes a mechanics part, if they have mining and smelting they will sell a product that has never been traded, therefore no tax has been paid on it. The player who takes just mechanics will struggle to compete because they will have to pay a higher price for iron, due to the sales tax and likely have a lower supply.

The purpose of this tax change isn't to penalise one particular style over the other, but to neutralise the advantage the VI player has over those with just one skill. In a perfect world, the overall tax paid should be roughly similar between trading and VI.

Regarding a tax rebate, mechanically it's the same thing. I certainty don't want to force out VI players, but the idea with this would be to encourage trade, particularly between non-VI players in a sustainable way.

main mauve
#

@wispy lion the potential skill match-up

wispy lion
#

thanks

#

the interesting part will be setting this up in law code, will be fun i think

grim olive
#

So... sales tax is per item. This shows professions. If I'm a Mason and Potter, do I get charged more tax for selling a toilet, when it doesn't use any Masonry products? How does this graph translate to per item taxes?

wispy lion
#

basically this is an additional percent on top of the normal sales tax

grim olive
#

But do I pay more tax as a mason/Potter on toilets than a Potter without masonry?

wispy lion
#

if thats the only thing you have, no, 1 pt doesnt get taxed extra

fervent bough
#

It's all down to how it's implemented into the law.

#

Anyway, one can easily avoid the taxes. You're a mason or smelter? Mine your rocks without taking mining set up a Work party. Same for logging and etc.

#

it's just more annoying to mine/log without the skills

wispy lion
#

i think that was kinda the goal with this specific tax

#

damn i think the bot didnt like my code with all the spaces

grim olive
#

Yeah if this is implemented, work parties need a bigger nerf

wispy lion
#

funny thing is gov controls min wage too lol

grim olive
#

yeah and they control the tax rate for work parties

wispy lion
#

i dont think the gov should go too far into changing these things this cycle. one major change at a time seems best

main mauve
#

Idea is.... If there is a key part of your supply chain, if you make it yourself, you are paying extra tax

main mauve
keen dust
#

You could also add the same additional tax to work paries. No reason to make them a way to avoid a tax that way.

main mauve
#

Aren't work parties usually taxed?

wispy lion
#

Yes

#

Also got my message pulled from the bot, my code idea is here
#white-tiger message

keen dust
keen dust
#

A bit like the company income scaling?

wispy lion
#

I think thats the plan yeah

main mauve
# keen dust A bit like the company income scaling?

Kinda, yea. Theory is, you will sell the vast majority of products in the skills you take. So if you take skills that vertically integrate, then you are charging a higher sales tax to compensate for the fact a majority of your sales have less trades involved, therefore not paying the tax on intermediary trades.

keen dust
#

Is way easier to make the law that way compared to determining the VI per object

#

Wil you reach max added tax at 4 VI-score or does it keep going up?

rancid juniper
#

Company scaling looks like it balances VI but it does not. VI tax applies to every one, solo player or company's virtual person.
Note that the total tax should remain roughly the same, or even VI tax replace the regular tax. If the typical tycoon had 3 matching skills and paid 15% tax, it should become 5% base tax plus 5% per extra matching skills so that in the end, the gov income and market prices are similar

main mauve
#

So, just to point out... I'm proposing the theory behind the law, with reasons. I hope that others write and implement it. That's a bit greedy of me, I know.

I suggested 4 points as high VI, but theoretically it's up to whoever implements the law. I hope that the law structure is written, and people play with the write numbers.

wispy lion
#

I think I've got a couple of implementation ideas I'll propose to congress if I am elected. Can decide as a group which route to take specifically since there are a few different permutations of tax options

rancid juniper
#

How does it stack with company taxes btw ?
Last run, the company tax was based on how many unique stars the company had.

wispy lion
#

Company income scaling is part of server rules so it does not change. This tax has to be applied after income scaling like any other tax

rancid juniper
#

sounds bad

wispy lion
#

How so?

rancid juniper
#

It serves a similar purpose, so it would be double tax on companies if they do VI

wispy lion
#

The thing is that company scaling serves to keep companies on par with solo players in terms of skill count. This VI tax is meant to discourage VI/ give non VI players a more competitive edge.

rancid juniper
#

Can it be adjusted to like a tax based on sqrt(company members) to balance the increased play time and apply VI like any player

wispy lion
#

Which part be adjusted?

rancid juniper
#

company scaling

#

or is it written in stone

wispy lion
#

That's a GM thing, not a gov thing. We just work with gov stuff for the VI tax

#

Companies can also simply play within the stars of a single person if they don't want any scaling

rancid juniper
#

So if a company took 6 jobs in a branch (say engineering or food) but the highest level is 3, which is common I think, he gets 3 ranks of scaling plus 5 ranks of VI tax

wispy lion
#

Most likely yes. But having that much variety in skills is their choice, scaling is known at the start of the cycle. The hard part of VI is warning people when it goes live, but if the details get sorted before 2nd star then most of it should be ok

rancid juniper
#

Just saying it might lead to incredibly high taxes to groups

#

How long can it take to implement Ed's law, best case ?

wispy lion
#

Hopefully congress is able to discuss everything shortly after elections beginning of day 2, so details can be written into code that day and ideally voted on by start of day 3. Ultimately depending on responsiveness of MPs

fervent bough
#

I still think this tax system will cause more problems than it solves. As I said before, it works better as a tax rebate instead of a double tax. Start with a flat tiered tax of 5%, 20% and 30% (example numbers) then apply rebates to this based on each player's skills. This way people can choose to pay the standard tax and go for their usual playstyle or get the gratifying feeling of avoiding taxes by choosing random/unrelated skills. They don't have to feel pressured to take/avoid certain skills by, what will undoubtedly be considered, unfair taxes. People that took butchery and campfire cooking will complain that they are taxed extra for selling salads. Then you have bakers that took milling and they are not taxed extra. Furthermore, milling is a farmer's greatest asset and it's allowed to be taken by bakers without VI tax. Makes no sense. Industry, the VI heaven and the skill that makes the most money in the game, only has 5 points of VI taxation whereas Farming and Gathering each have 11 points of VI tax. Mining has 12. More bad design and the list of issues can continue.
Major issue number 2 is a potential raw materials shortage. Mining and Logging are usually taken for efficiency, or in other words VI integration. People take Mining because they take Smelting, not the other way around. If given the choice most will take smelting/masonry/carpentry/etc, and try to buy the raw materials. Will there be enough people willing to take just mining/logging and spend their day mining and grinding to sell raw materials for peanuts? After much headache and complaining in the chat a balance will likely be found, raw materials will rise in price and it will be cheaper to eat the VI tax instead. Players will find themselves with the wrong skills, no matter which route they took.
The more I think about it, the more I want to ask: "What in the name of all that's holy possessed you to" want an efficiency tax?

wispy lion
#

the largest issue with a rebate system is that the gov still needs money. regular taxes would have to be raised to account for the rebates. as far as the specific points associated with each combo goes, you can propose changes, that was just a proposal Ed put out, but those numbers can easily be changed

grim olive
#

I very much echo the sentiment that this tax in its current form feels like an efficiency tax

#

I was on board with the tax until I learned about the plan for implementing it as taxing every item even if you dont get an advantage on that item

fervent bough
# grim olive I was on board with the tax until I learned about the plan for implementing it a...

Exactly, hence why I mentioned that people who have Butchery and Campfire Cooking get taxed extra when selling salads. And there are many, many similar examples and even worse examples. Eg: you take gathering, farming and campfire cooking. You're being taxed once for farming, and once again for gathering when you're selling campfire roast. As madminer2 said the list is preliminary and the worst offenders can be fixed but it's impossible to fully fix

wispy lion
#

if we can find a fairly easy way to target specific items im all ears, but at that point we are starting to get into the VAT that i think Kimm proposed

#

but this is also why there are varying tiers of integration. we could discretize it into more tiers if that would solve the issues and be easier

fervent bough
wispy lion
#

so we check for certain skill combos to give rebates for rather than just having a base rebate and reducing it for each level of integration?

fervent bough
#

Correct, everyone still pays taxes, but it starts from the max tax and goes down if you don't have VI integration

wispy lion
#

ok

#

so we basically take the current spreadsheet, flip any 0s or 2s, 1s stay the same, and thats the new matrix? (just as an example)

fervent bough
#

Exactly

wispy lion
#

tbh in practice it looks like it will end up having the exact same effect as my proposed implementation, but with more layers of "rebate" to hide the pain

main mauve
main mauve
keen dust
#

But some people do notice one scoop is taken away. They see just see a law that takes away there scoop.

#

What also could be done is replace the empty spots in the matrix with -1. That way you can compensate your VI with different skills to reduce the tax again

fervent bough
#

That's a good analogy, what I'm saying is get ready for people to cry in chat that you're taking their ice cream, even though it wasn't theirs to begin with. I'm suggesting, that at the very least, we need a system that looks like it offers ice creams to people who want them, aka people who like to play random skills.

But that wasn't my main point. My main points are that whichever way it's implemented it will be unfair and it may lead to a raw materials shortage as people either try to dodge the double tax or enjoy the new gaming experience.

#

And one final thing that was staring me in the face and I couldn't quite put my finger on. Here is a quote from Ed's earlier replies: "When a VI player makes a mechanics part, if they have mining and smelting they will sell a product that has never been traded, therefore no tax has been paid on it. The player who takes just mechanics will struggle to compete because they will have to pay a higher price for iron, due to the sales tax and likely have a lower supply."

He makes a very good point. What I missed is that the Mechanic that makes a smaller profit because he didn't take Smelting and Mining has two other skills to profit from, which together should match the VI Mechanic's income who invested all 3 of his stars into Mechanics and has no other revenue streams.

#

Sorry for the walls of text

main mauve
#

Btw, same analogy for companies. Your company has 6 skills but 3 stars... However 80% of your products you sell are all related to just 1 skill.

Is it fair that the company is hit with an income reduction? It's what the system is

verbal sapphire
main mauve
# verbal sapphire My only problem with it that this profit difference goes to the black hole of go...

Lets say if you have a 25% sales tax, if you want to make a steel bar, here are the two chains.

Miner sells iron concentrate (€8, €2 tax), smelter sells iron bars (€4, €1 tax each), miner sells crushed coal & Limestone (€0.5, €0.1 tax each), steel bar (€8, €2 tax).

Current recipe cost with upgrades, 2 coal, 1 lime, 1 iron. (1/4 iron concentrate making iron). Total taxable sales including steel are €15.50, with €3.88 tax.

If you VI the 3 skills, your €8 steel bar results in €2 of tax.

This is nearly double the tax income for a final product costing the same price. Just an example and rough maths however.

By not trading, the government is missing out on taxable income and Players are missing out on opportunities to buy and sell intermediate goods. Unfortunately this means the flat sales tax needs to be raised for all to a higher rate to compensate for the lower tax revenue, which further promotes vertical integration

#

The overall proposal would look to charge, in theory a 10% tax on the €15.5 trade, and a 20% tax on the vertically integrated €8 sale, giving overall taxable revenues of €1.55 and €1.60 respectably.

#

People have complained about Vertical integration a lot, it's been a major problem on WT for a long time and nothing has addressed it.

If this proposal works, it would be the same great leveler that company income reduction did, but to VI, provided it was applied properly.

Players would just need to know that by VI, they won't be keeping all the non-taxed profit in the supply chain.

verbal sapphire
#

Either way, at this point it is more about fine tuning numbers and practical coding them into law.

wispy lion
#

Yeah if someone can come up with how to code it in a better way than I proposed, im happy to try it instead. I'm not super keen on Mega's inversion idea because accomplishing the same thing with different layers just adds confusion. Also everyone should keep in mind that taxes aren't there just for the fun of it. They serve a purpose, they're going to hurt a little, people will complain about taxes no matter what.

rancid juniper
#

The issue I see with your implementation Mad is that the player get taxed the same no matter what he sells, so selling iron concentrate instead of iron bar gets taxed the same, so he will be less likely to sell low tier stuff. But that's already been pointed out, and it might open a niche if a miner wants to sell just concentrate and a smelter not take the mining skill. It might happen if they discuss it beforehand, but I see it unlikely to happen unless they know each other
Similarly, if mid-late game someone with 3 matching skills takes an unrelated skill to help a flaw (say every tailors left the server) or just because he's bored of selling the same stuff, his lone star will be taxed hard

#

On the other hand, it's much easier for players to know their tax status and prepare for it

wispy lion
#

the problem with getting down to individual items is the law gets exponentially more complex, and it needs to be coded for every single recipe in the game

rancid juniper
#

The fairest I can imagine would be for each item to list which skills participate into its making, but that would lead to hundreds of rules like "If selling X and has skill A then tax 1%, if has skill B then 1% (extra) if has skill B and C (cause C is used to produce item at B level) then tax some more... very convoluted

#

Yep, barely imaginable

#

What might be possible however is to group them. If we can reasonably get 2 groups per job, it would be possible

#

most skills have the same ingredients tree (in terms of jobs involved)

#

What I'm not sure is if we should tax a chain with missing link: mining + mechanics but not smelting ?

#

Do ppl often skip intermediate skills ?

wispy lion
#

afaik, not usually. people take those skills for the sake of not having a random tax point in their production chain

rancid juniper
#

My thought too. I think it would be reasonably easy to prepare a list of items, group them and define which jobs contribute to them

wispy lion
#

i will say now that i cant really be preparing lists of anything this week, i have final projects and homework to finish before friday

rancid juniper
#

The hardest point would be when multiple recipes can make an item

#

I can look into it

wispy lion
#

ah yeah, like plastic vs bioplastic

rancid juniper
#

Tech papers might be concerned, but I think only the books use tags like any advanced paper, and since we don't sell books it's fine

wispy lion
#

geo moderns and some of the culinaries have multiple recipes unfortunately

rancid juniper
#

Should I try to make such a list ?

wispy lion
#

if you want to, no reason not to try

#

honestly when i take this to congress (if elected) ill probably propose all the different implementation methods and the "best" can be picked as a group

rancid juniper
#

Allright, I'll see if I can cook something

#

Is there a list of the not vanilla changes on WT ? I know some furniture is logging instead of carp

wispy lion
#

if there is one idk where, if you ask in #white-tiger someone might have a list

fervent bough
main mauve
fervent bough
wispy lion
#

any final comments on possible implementations of this? just want to make sure before tomorrow when elections finish and taxes need to get rolling

twin flare
#

It will depend on who gets elected no?

wispy lion
#

it does, just looking to see if anyone else has recommendations on implementation before its even brought to congress. if im elected i plan to present each model so one can be picked as a group

rancid juniper
#

I started working on a list, but due to not enough time, I'm probably gonna go with just one set of skills per group

rancid juniper
#

With the mod, laws can be imported from Json right? Won't be hard to make item focused rules
Can't find the format tho, the GitHub won't load and mods.io had no info. Is there a documentation somewhere?

wispy lion
#

You can ask thomasfn in wt chat, he made the mod

rancid juniper
#

I have my list. with 3 levels of dependencies, it's 1270 ifs per transaction
with 2 levels it's 715
with just one it's 282 ifs
Is it acceptable ?

wispy lion
#

Probably, if it starts breaking the server we take it down. The WT way is trial and error

#

Does yours account for company integration?

rancid juniper
#

Didn't yet look into making the json, so no
The question of how this new tax should overlap or not with company scaling is still open imho

wispy lion
#

Unfortunately under the current rules it will simply have to apply after income scaling, nothing can really be changed about that

rancid juniper
#

Not applying it to companies would be seen negatively, but applying both will kill groups. Also a tax must apply the same to everyone
Company scaling doesn't apply to everyone

wispy lion
#

The thing is of a company goes crazy on lots of skills, they very quickly can't trade anyway, so it doesn't matter that much

fervent bough
#

So companies will be double taxed after being double taxed, if they make the mistake of taking more skills? What can I say... I like playing solo. 🤣

#

It is ironic how a game about cooperation is stifling cooperation (playing with friends) by trying to make cooperation better.

rancid juniper
#

The point of VI tax is to allow players to take not related skills and still having a chance to follow market prices. the scaling prevents that altogether

wispy lion
#

I'm sorry to be so brash, but the scaling is not something we can really consider as the government. That is simply a rule enforcement measure so groups don't dominate the server like they did just over a year and a half ago. We are trying to put this out as fast as possible so people can shift plans around it, I think low level integration tax probably won't hit people that hard. Everyone is acting like it'll be 20% per level or something

rancid juniper
#

I understand the rule being made by GMs, no worries

#

Since the scaling is based on star count, it feels it's made to address VI, so the new VI tax should not apply logically. How was the balancing of companies with just scaling + flat tax ?

#

Ie can a company based on food get revenues to make their house, or do they depend on UBI to rent a flat like hoboes ?

random hemlock
#

If a company has mining + smelting on 2 separate players they should be affected the same way by VI as a solo player with mining + smelting. I think that's the main thing.
The Company income scaling gets removed first and the normal tax gets applied to the remaining value. So if a company has 80% scaling they pay that 80% and then the normal tax is removed from the remaining 20%

rancid juniper
#

If a company has mining + smelting, it gets one level of scaling, same effect as VI tax, so make them exempt ? That would feel like circumventing GM's law

random hemlock
rancid juniper
#

The chart says 15% per excess star

wispy lion
#

yes but the first 2 skills arent taxed because of people wanting to get started in duo early on and stuff

rancid juniper
#

Tough question for the congress to answer 😉

#

Is this (2 free stars) exception player or GM rule ?

wispy lion
#

gm rule

rancid juniper
#

ok

unreal walrus
#

even with income scaling companies are op and have huge benefits over solos. A company is treated as being a player so this law should treat them the same way

main mauve
#

Companies should be equally impacted by this law as solo players, so it should consider company members in the overall tax rate

wispy lion
#

yeah, skills of the company would be taken rather than just 1 player, since they are 1 legal entity

rancid juniper
#

Consistant with bank history

image.png
wispy lion
#

i think its only free when you are at 2, once you go above, you forgo the lenience

fervent bough
#

might only kick in after first player gets his second star. Edit: ^

tulip jasper
#

The pinned ‘company income reduction simulator’ lied lol

main mauve
main mauve
rancid juniper
#

Any news from the congress on the matter ?

wispy lion
#

frankly none of use have started drafting a law with all the items and their recipes. and with with being day 5 i dont kow if its a good idea to implement

rancid juniper
#

Yeah, everyone have 2 stars now, too late...
The window was very short since before start we were waiting for the elections

wispy lion
#

Yup, we will just put the law together at the end of this cycle, export it, then it can be imported next cycle almost immediately

rancid juniper
#

What the mod author told me is there no documentation, it's just an export of the code's object for the law, so we need a template by exporting something similar and go from there.
Maybe if we plan it for the next cycle, we can discuss with the GMs to adjust the scaling rule too.

wispy lion
#

scaling can be adjusted as the GMs see fit. so that can be discussed when the law passes. the plan currently is to just try creating the full law at the end of this cycle

main mauve
#

The idea was to have it as an option for government, but you could run a referendum on this server to have it implemented in the next cycle, or leave it up to the prospective government if they wish to implement it. I'd probably not be in favour of a referendum, as it would be one government binding another

wispy lion
#

yeah no need for that, but the law needs to be made prior to elections. trying to sort it out after did not work this cycle

verbal sapphire
#

You can actually try it out in one of regions separately

#

(just please don't use mine for that)

#

By adding district exception to main law, and importing modified copy, you can at least iron all the quirks out, ruining only 20% of economy, instead of 100

wispy lion
#

That would get shot down by the Supreme Court incredibly fast

rancid juniper
#

If that is in 2 month, it's probably fine, but before it woudn't be fair to have some ppl pay extra tax

#

only if you limit it to one person and as a side message instead of tax, to test the implementation

wispy lion
#

Well there is time if anyone wants to prepare the list of recipes and professions that need to be checked. If not I might be able to handle it once uni research is over

verbal sapphire