"+21.4% Tax Waste"

[General WVPM]

What is Tax Waste?
It's a penalty to taxation you get when your bureaucratic capacity is not sufficient.
Sure we all get that from the dev diary, but what does it mean?

Does this mean that:

1. Tax collection is hampered and POPs pay less taxes;
2. Tax collectors are corrupt and keep taxes for themselves;
3. or Tax collectors collect more taxes from the POPs and keep some for themselves?

I'm wondering about this to decide how bad it will be. In Victoria 2, low tax efficiency was simply countered by putting taxes to a theoretical 100%, which resulted in a practical ~40%. Victoria 2 also had a penalty for poor administration that would increase the prices of goods for the government (I still don't know where the extra money went).

How does Victoria 3 implement this?

 

[Hemothep]

Wait for a DD on the matter, but I'd guess it's one of the first two, because less taxes for the player is a direct adverse effect.

 

[Polarisan]

I would assume that since tax waste is fixed by adding beaurocracy it's simply that you're taxing less than you could because of an inneficient state.

 

[EUnderhill]

What is Tax Waste?
It's a penalty to taxation you get when your bureaucratic capacity is not sufficient.
Sure we all get that from the dev diary, but what does it mean?

Does this mean that:

1. Tax collection is hampered and POPs pay less taxes;
2. Tax collectors are corrupt and keep taxes for themselves;
3. or Tax collectors collect more taxes from the POPs and keep some for themselves?

I'm wondering about this to decide how bad it will be. In Victoria 2, low tax efficiency was simply countered by putting taxes to a theoretical 100%, which resulted in a practical ~40%. Victoria 2 also had a penalty for poor administration that would increase the prices of goods for the government (I still don't know where the extra money went).

How does Victoria 3 implement this?

I believe in V2 the state simply bought more goods than were needed at 100% efficiency and bought less as efficiency increased, much to the detriment of the artisans no longer selling all their goods.

 

[Drogan]

Hopefully its not disappearing money and stays with the pops.

 

[Guedes]

Its tax evasion.

 

[Grave461]

Does this mean that:

1. Tax collection is hampered and POPs pay less taxes;
2. Tax collectors are corrupt and keep taxes for themselves;
3. or Tax collectors collect more taxes from the POPs and keep some for themselves?

I don't think it reduces the tax burden on pops, nor do I think tax collectors keep it for themselves. Instead, I think its a penalty due to insufficient bureaucratic administration. Pops still pay whatever the tax rate is set at, which affects happiness, etc.

Your pops pay X in taxes, and of that, 24.5% is wasted on inefficiency, and you collect the net result. So if pops pay £100 in taxes, the government would net £75.5 after all waste (inefficient spending, overhead, corruption, etc) is accounted for.

Thats how I interpreted it.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

I don't think it reduces the tax burden on pops, nor do I think tax collectors keep it for themselves. Instead, I think its a penalty due to insufficient bureaucratic administration. Pops still pay whatever the tax rate is set at, which affects happiness, etc.

Your pops pay X in taxes, and of that, 24.5% is wasted on inefficiency, and you collect the net result. So if pops pay £100 in taxes, the government would net £75.5 after all waste (inefficient spending, overhead, corruption, etc) is accounted for.

Thats how I interpreted it.

But I think that the money has to go somewhere to some pops. Be it bereaucrats or to some other pops, it can't just dissapear.

 

[Grave461]

But I think that the money has to go somewhere to some pops. Be it bereaucrats or to some other pops, it can't just dissapear.

It would go towards bureaucratic operating costs, I think. Filling out forms in triplicate, the bureaucracy must expand to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy... stuff like that.

 

[EUnderhill]

But I think that the money has to go somewhere to some pops. Be it bereaucrats or to some other pops, it can't just dissapear.

In a closed economy that would be the case, but if there is a magic money spring, then a tragic money sink follows naturally.

 

[General WVPM]

But I think that the money has to go somewhere to some pops. Be it bereaucrats or to some other pops, it can't just dissapear.

This is my main concern for this matter.

A secondary concern is that you could counter it by raising the theoretical tax level as in Victoria 2.
Say a POP needs $60 to buy goods and be happy. His income is $100. The desired practical tax level would be 40%.
If there would be 20% 'tax evasion', the required theoretical tax level would be 40% / (100% - 20%) = 50%. If it works like this, I can counter a insufficient bureaucracy by increasing the tax levels, whilst my pops don't care (they still end up with $60 to spend on their goods).

If it works like that (and it does in Victoria 2), then there is no incentive to improve the bureaucracy.

 

[Subcomandante]

But the possible tax levels depend on politics. The state will not necessarily be able to increase taxes.

 

[nikkythegreat]

I don't think it reduces the tax burden on pops, nor do I think tax collectors keep it for themselves. Instead, I think its a penalty due to insufficient bureaucratic administration. Pops still pay whatever the tax rate is set at, which affects happiness, etc.

Your pops pay X in taxes, and of that, 24.5% is wasted on inefficiency, and you collect the net result. So if pops pay £100 in taxes, the government would net £75.5 after all waste (inefficient spending, overhead, corruption, etc) is accounted for.

Thats how I interpreted it.

I hope this is not the case. Something like this would ruin the game's closed economy. Either that or it would mean that they have abandoned the close economy of vicky 2.

Both of which would be ruin what made vicky, vicky.

 

[VineFynn]

In a closed economy that would be the case, but if there is a magic money spring, then a tragic money sink follows naturally

Why do you assume there is a magic money spring? If you mean minting, then bureaucratic waste has literally nothing to do with how money leaves an economy.

 

[Ekcrbe]

The devs have talked about how hard they tried to find and eliminate all the money sinks in V2, without success. I'm all but certain they haven't intentionally designed a huge money sink into V3. The uncollected money won't disappear.

 

[Poliut]

What is Tax Waste?

Ask fiscal watchdogs.

 

[Buttons12345]

I would assume that since tax waste is fixed by adding beaurocracy it's simply that you're taxing less than you could because of an inneficient state.

But what is the mechanism for taxing less? You just don't know what people are worth so you exclusively under-tax by a massive percentage?

 

[PedroLuiz]

But the possible tax levels depend on politics. The state will not necessarily be able to increase taxes.

does it really?

 

[EUnderhill]

Why do you assume there is a magic money spring? If you mean minting, then bureaucratic waste has literally nothing to do with how money leaves an economy.

Because I don't think they are recycling the closed economy.

 

[Subcomandante]

It's already clear where the money sink will be: Standard of living. Pop excess money will be converted into a happiness percentage. Not sure yet where the spring is, probably some building efficiency multipliers.