| Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - 02:10 am |
If I may make a suggestion to the GM. As it stands for CEO's we are taxed via country resource fee, however I think this needs to be tweaked.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the country resource fee is taken from the total income generated from the corp. I would like to suggest the GM look at charging this fee only -AFTER- fixed maintenance and salaries have been paid or even a slight reduction to the fee percentage rate.
I run 400 salaries and buy 220Q in order to produce 303Q goods, but between these salaries and the country fee a huge amount of the corporations income is deducted. Not to mention that the president gets to tax a CEO a second time via the tax rate. If you look at some of the "best corps" air force maintenance those corps often make less then some of the lower level corps when you compare against private companies.
Like I said I'm not asking for the GM to do anything crazy, but over the last while the GM has made changes to the production levels, income, and even workers/salaries, but these numbers have been left untouched. I just think the GM should look at helping to reduce these costs so those larger and more costly corps are slightly more profitable. The income rates have changed, but the taxes haven't.
| Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - 07:45 am |
Agreed, the current levels of revenue that CEOs provide nations seems a tad excessive. Often the Nation receives more each month in "Country Resources Used" tax, than the CEO makes in profit.
I'm saying this as someone that has a nation that collects a lot of revenue from CEOs, and I don't own an Enterprise. So I'm even looking at this from the side that would loose out on this change, and I still think it's justified.
If the GMs are worried Nations might end up with too little revenue as a result of a reduction to "Country Resources Used" taxes. The base rate of "Corporate Profits Tax" that C3s charge, could be increased to compensate. This would allow C3s to remain cash stable, while also giving Presidents the option of raising taxes if they are loosing money.
Signed President of DanNation on LU
| Thursday, April 5, 2018 - 06:00 pm |
Whatever level we choose, you may think it is too high.
I never heard from anyone that a cost level we have chosen is too low.
If we reduce, CEO income will increase.
as simple as that.
we think that enterprises are making a fortune that is in fact too high compared to countries.
this cost, moves some funds from the enterprise to the country to balance it a bit and make CEOs attractive for the presidents.
we have even now, presidents who ask how to prevent CEOs form having corporations in their countries.
It has to be very profitable for the president too.
| Thursday, April 5, 2018 - 06:26 pm |
Thank you for taking the time to respond. As a player, I really appreciate communication from the GMs.
"Whatever level we choose, you may think it is too high." This is true.
A level of taxation that is too high by one players standards, may be too low by anthers.
That is partly why I advocated increasing the base level of the Corporate Profit Tax to compensate. So that base level revenue would remain roughly unchanged.
This would instead put the power of deciding taxation, into the hands of Presidents. Enabling Presidents and CEOs to negotiate levels that work well for their individual setup and style.
Signed President of DanNation on LU
| Friday, April 6, 2018 - 12:37 am |
Your right I wouldn't complain about more income. I wont lie to you and pretend that's not what this is about either.
What I'm taking about is the disparity between corporations. If you look at Services compared to Air force maintenance when CEO ran, Service corporations profit is equal to or greater than air force maintenance even in the most successful CEO's. The "profitable" corps that you mention make huge amounts of Income, but once you charge taxes, country resource fee, and other costs to CEO the profit is much less then other corps. In some cases State corporations can make larger "Profit" then CEO's once everything is considered.
I want to be clear, I am in no way suggesting that CEO's should get a free ride.
---I SHOULD be forced to pay my fair share!---
However, the amount of work it takes to monitor a Defensive maintenance, Air force maintenance, or shuttle corporation in a CEO -SHOULD- make more profit then a service.
Just something to consider
| Friday, April 6, 2018 - 03:51 am |
I personally think it's well balanced as it is. However I forget to consider the incentive of building challenging corps. Why build af maint when you could make just as much with soybeans?