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

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 owners

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 resou

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 w

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

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 res

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

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

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'

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

Boring,

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

apparently neither can the gm