Taxation and collection

[X-Brosengae [Cloene] (Linde)]

I haven't looked at the numbers. But as I see it there are several ways you could adress the problem.
1) Adjust taxation and collection to hurt a lawholder who runs a no tax strategy.
2) Decrease the income modifier for prosperity.
3) Negative events. (More money in the hands of the general population = people flock there to steal/rob/trick them)
4) Take the negative events a step further and just implement a flat 50% waste score for the extra income gained from lowering taxes below heavy. (setting taxes to 0 would then give each non taxed holding a 'virtual tax' of 15% if heavy taxes is 30%)


Comments?

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

An off-piste query, why is income from law holdings gained from taxing the organised and powerful (holdings) but not from disorganised rabble (empty domain slots in a province) causing the "lost income" problem?

To reduce the changes necessary, I'd suggest giving law holdings - or simply provinces themselves - income based on level rather than collection from other holdings to reflect "basic income" from everyone organised or not.

This effectively creates a new holding type for gold-income purposes, but you can avoid increasing overall province income by scaling down all holdings.

The existing tax percentages then remain unchanged (although they don't tax the new "basic income") but you get an income shift from domains to realms as desired (sob).

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

An off-piste query, why is income from law holdings gained from taxing the organised and powerful (holdings) but not from disorganised rabble (empty domain slots in a province) causing the "lost income" problem?

To reduce the changes necessary, I'd suggest giving law holdings - or simply provinces themselves - income based on level rather than collection from other holdings to reflect "basic income" from everyone organised or not.

This effectively creates a new holding type for gold-income purposes, but you can avoid increasing overall province income by scaling down all holdings.

The existing tax percentages then remain unchanged (although they don't tax the new "basic income") but you get an income shift from domains to realms as desired (sob).

Without the interdependence between holding levels and law income, law holders are unshackled to completely ignore domains, imo.

[DM B]

Basic premises:

1. Provinces generate taxable income independent of existing holdings.
a) Provinces must generate MORE taxable income than they do today.
b) Excess provincial income is 'lost' (i.e. it belongs to the 'people') so taxation is the only way to get hold of it
c) Income is based upon province level squared times a multiplier (old version = 0,2).

2. Holdings generate income (except sources).
a) They represent valuable activites within the province, above and beyond stuff baked into the province level.
b) Keep in mind that vacant holding slots really aren't that common; most province will be filled, not neccesarily to capacity, but nearly so most of the time.

3. Increasing the total volume of gold available to domains is not acceptable; it will disrutp too many other things.

4. Law holdings must not become MORE powerful.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

What about something like this:

Income generated by a provinces is doubled.  Whenever taxes are set to Heavy or higher, all non-law holdings are considered to have a virtual Fort (1) against any actions by province law holders. Holdings will lose this benefit, if a province for a period of 8 consequative turns, has a taxation less than 'heavy'.
Anuirean domains that consistentally have less than heavy taxation will suffer stability penalties.

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

Basic premises:

1. Provinces generate taxable income independent of existing holdings.
a) Provinces must generate MORE taxable income than they do today.
b) Excess provincial income is 'lost' (i.e. it belongs to the 'people') so taxation is the only way to get hold of it
c) Income is based upon province level squared times a multiplier (old version = 0,2).

This sounds like re-creating the old income from province rules in BR and scaling domain holdings.  The only issue I have with it is it assumes 100% rule of a province by one person - how do you deal with more than one province ruler (i.e. Duke, Count, chief of the allied goblin villages) where the "rulership" of, say, a L7 province might split 2/3/2 or Morcosoer situations where the goblin population is being slaughtered by the "rulers" of the land so doesn't see them as rulers at all?

The splitting problem is why I suggesting beefing law holdings - law ownership generally equates to rulership.

4. Law holdings must not become MORE powerful.

I'd thought that shifting power to law holders was the plan, sorry.

The social "I am the ruler, I am the law" policy does create a deterrant protecting law for rulers, but it's permeable (as HA proves) so there is a risk of "I must have it" with law holdings.  One option of course is to make law holdings cost more to re-create the same income:cost analysis as for other holding types, or two make 2 law holdings per province level and


Alan: I wasn't dissasociating law from the domain holdings, merely avoiding giving the province level itself income by adding income to the law holding - the existing tie to holdings would have been retained, my apologies for being unclear.  Also, unless I'm mis-reading it (quite possible) the P&H shows that there is currently <no> income from provinces - currently you only appear to get income from holdings.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

Alan: I wasn't dissasociating law from the domain holdings, merely avoiding giving the province level itself income by adding income to the law holding - the existing tie to holdings would have been retained, my apologies for being unclear.  Also, unless I'm mis-reading it (quite possible) the P&H shows that there is currently <no> income from provinces - currently you only appear to get income from holdings.

I think you are mis-reading it.  Currently, a law holding draws income from 5 potential sources: manors, temples, guilds, trade and province.

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

Alan: I wasn't dissasociating law from the domain holdings, merely avoiding giving the province level itself income by adding income to the law holding - the existing tie to holdings would have been retained, my apologies for being unclear.  Also, unless I'm mis-reading it (quite possible) the P&H shows that there is currently <no> income from provinces - currently you only appear to get income from holdings.

I think you are mis-reading it.  Currently, a law holding draws income from 5 potential sources: manors, temples, guilds, trade and province.

Graciously put sir, column R was hidden if the sheets I was looking at and when I deleted province taxation (col S) nothing happened so I assumed that it had been cut out of the law income calculation and was simply a redundant leftover.

Looking more closely at the formula, law holdings are picking up the enhanced province level directly (col R), multiplying it by law level over 5 and then modifying the result for prosperity - completely bypassing the province taxation calculation itself in column S which in turn looks to be calculating the post-law income from the province but is in fact apparently completely redundant - it doesn't appear feed into the regent income totals so "1b" below would appear already in effect albthough that contradicts the province squared comment as that requires province taxation to be included for total province income to be the swuare of province level at average prosperity.

If however Col S is not going to feed into income - and 1b suggests that it won't - then law holdings will have to generate the extra income desired for rulers, which directly conflicts with point 4 - there doesn't appear to be another route for the province ruler to get more income other than via law holdings.

I'm probably too tired to figure out the plan, as if the plan is to give more income to rulers (1a) then it has to either come from the province taxation in column S that is currently lost (barred under 1b), or via law holding collections (barred under 4).  I'm also getting confused between what is proposed and what is changing as most of the proposals made appear to be effective already, and I'm not sure what is meant by "province taxation" in various comments - the income directly from the province level in col S, or the law holding claim thereon.

I can't help but feel that the best way to get 1a, while keeping 3 and 4, is to dump 1b in the skip. To pump "4" you could exempt province taxation from law holding collection leaving the province ruler pumped up at the expense of law regents with no impact on other domains.  If the aim is to drop domain income while pumping law holders then it would be simpler to raise the tax rate percentages then change divisors.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

Hey, B, maybe simply having law holdings draw more of the province income will work?  Say, 30% + Taxation level?  While there is a concept behind the lost income, it doesn't really play much of a game roll.  Nothing else would need to be changed...

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

Ok, to better flesh that idea out:

Leave the divisor and taxation levels the same.

Modify how income on the provincial source is taxed.

Taxation Level/Holding Tax%/Province Tax%
None/0%/0%
Light/10%/10%
Fair/20%/20%
Moderate/30%/30%
Heavy/40%/60%
Severe/50%/75%
Crippling/60%/90%
Total/80%/100%
Unrest/0%/0%

With this scaling, there is a real cost, but not an unbalancing cost per se, particular when you consider that the gain is very short-term, but the damage is prospertiy is real/long-term.

[DM B]

Ok, to better flesh that idea out:

Leave the divisor and taxation levels the same.

Modify how income on the provincial source is taxed.

Taxation Level/Holding Tax%/Province Tax%
None/0%/0%
Light/10%/10%
Fair/20%/20%
Moderate/30%/30%
Heavy/40%/60%
Severe/50%/75%
Crippling/60%/90%
Total/80%/100%
Unrest/0%/0%

With this scaling, there is a real cost, but not an unbalancing cost per se, particular when you consider that the gain is very short-term, but the damage is prospertiy is real/long-term.

A possible solution.

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

I'm wondering if the answer isn't to effectively get rid of "province income/province taxation" completely (whichever term is used for it) and pump up Manor holdings to maintain overall income - at the moment law holdings are being pumped and they are generally seen as "the best" holding type.  As manor holdings are generally held by "the rulers" that retains the link between land and income while not pumping law holdings yet more (although they would get more law claims from manor holdings that gain should be balanced by the lack of claims on province income/taxation.

That method takes as a base assumption that between them law and manor holdings represent all the income that is gained from the land and people, with "waste" occuring only when the holdings are not filled, although in a way it does detract from the "RoE is different" feel as effectively manor income is then simply the old province income albeit potentially split between different lords.

That leaves rulers with law/manor (both strong holdings), guilds with guild/trade holdings, with temples then the potential poor relation of the three - although RP and spell power compensates to a degree and many temples have at least some manors.  Overall the discrepancy between the holding types shouldn't be too bad although source holders still get shorted.

[DM B]

Interresting idea - but it breaks with one of the basic premises:

Taxation should not be absolutely dependent on holdings.

But: I'll think about it some more. Maybe other models have different but still viable solutions.

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

You could always add a holding type for provinces themselves, splitting the province itself into levels held by the relevant regents, with some levels "unclaimable" to reflect the level of wastage that you want - possibly based on race, alignment, and long-term prosperity / great events (i.e. "your abject failure in this endeavour leads to 1 unclaimable level in province X for a generation" sort of thing allowing you to fine tune as required).

Tweaking divisors or exempting these "province holdings" from law claims would shift income to the province holder away from existing holdings which seems to be the plan - the law claim exemption being preferable in my view as law holdings are somewhat butch although as most province holding regents would likely be law regents also this might not have a great effect beyond slightly weakening the "mine all mine" syndrome that afflicts some law holders.

You could say that these province levels can only be reduced or transferred via investiture or pillaging to make them feel "special" and connect them particularly tightly to "the people" - and possibly move the "raise levies" ability from manors over to them (moving it from law to manor changed the balance of power in some realms between ruler and vassals).

[DM B]

Province levels were already 'split' off into manors, so I'd rather not tamper any more with that aspect.