| Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 03:45 am |
i have an idea for state/national corps 100% profit transfer should mean 100% profit transfer (not just profit but losses aswell) i am trying to make a comunist style of game in my country. so i want to keep my corps owned by the state, and full of cash but take 100% of the profits to the state including 100% of the losses without having to manualy transfer cash all the time. good idea/ bad idea? questions? comments?
| Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 05:23 pm |
Take it else where buddy
| Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 06:38 pm |
well if the ideological crap is removed i think 100% transfer should mean 100% transfer
on a side note why have that as an option of government style if its such a taboo subject
| Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 10:38 am |
Not really taboo there buddy jux saying
Whatever u selling am not buying do u understand ( wink wink)
| Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 12:06 pm |
Sort of works that way anyway doesn't it. Ok it doesnt take loses to the country every month but if your corp loses money the country will automatically prop it up, i.e. take the losses.
But remember, profit and loss doesnt include all corp expenditures, like upgrades I believe and maybe another. And your workers pay income tax, is this desirable in a communistic state? I seriously dont know, would communism advocate tax? Then who sets the rate, who decides where to allocate it, etc? Hmm, tricky.
| Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 12:47 pm |
well the tax rate is currently non adjustable so i cant realy control it
im not upgrading my corps right now bc i have shortages of the high tech class of workers.
though i would say in theory it would be posable for the tax rate to be 100% (or the rate of pay would be) and housing, food, health, education, transportation would be supplied. (bringing back anticommie propoganda films to memory of 7 people sharing the same spoon and cramming into the same small car)
for that style of government the government costs should be much higher though for having to administer such massive programs (the costs are already there but the end users always pick up the tab for it in the private version, disproportunetly making those with the least pay equal to those with the most)
and as always the government desides what to do with revenues same as it does now. desiding not to have good education/healthcare/ etc has taditionaly been their choice though
| Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 04:31 pm |
Doesn't sound very community orientated to me then. A few get to dictate the quality of life for the rest.
I know its an old old well worn cliche but:
"Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others".
| Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 12:27 am |
not realy once the system is setup it would basicaly funtion on its own and everything could and should be shown publicly (expenditure wise) to mainain accountability
i envision a bus taking people to work, lunch served at work, pass around menu's so there is choice. and the same way there are resturants here there would be there, just government run, and no charge. potencialy a way of tracking consumption maybe a card that gets scaned just to remind people to be reasonable. but not 100% on the details of that.
creating some efficienceies in not needing full sets of dishes, cookware in every housing unit. but having a few central community kitchens to allow those who prefer to cook for themselves more efficiency in less wasted food. public transportation to and from work saving some fuel, im thinking there could be community owned cars,trucks,boats not quite a 1:1 "family" ratio for "pleasure" driving
i could work out details if i actuly put some thought into it but it is all realy pointless thought and completly irrelivant to my sugestion i want to keep proping up my corps if nessesary (what i find is odd is they all show profit in the profit cash debt screen but they're cash levels keep droping