How to counter high cost of recycling and smoke detector?

[Doc Savage]

Yes
Do my test and tell me which way is cheaper. Try to remember the OP's question............counter the high cost.
Sooner rather than later (in population numbers) will be cheaper, will counter the high cost.

It appears cheaper only because the initial number is lower, however you are not factoring in the cost over time...

The amount of money spent over many weeks of protection will be higher than waiting and taking that supposed big hit.

Early on I don't need this. As long as I can cover with fire trucks I let it go. That's money I don't spend, let alone spend weekly in a way that's transparent.
_

 

[EvilTom]

It appears cheaper only because the initial number is lower, however you are not factoring in the cost over time...

The amount of money spent over many weeks of protection will be higher than waiting and taking that supposed big hit.

Early on I don't need this. As long as I can cover with fire trucks I let it go. That's money I don't spend, let alone spend weekly in a way that's transparent.
_

I agree. The efficient use of this policy is to just target it in areas that are probably outside of your effective fire coverage and to make best use of it with high density buildings, so that you can maximum population per building.

I, frankly, no longer use it. I just have better fire services and pay for those. I would consider it in certain districts that are highly flammable, but I haven't encountered anything unusual with this.

 

[Male]

Is tax raise also depending on building like other policies or on individual Cim?

I never understood why we can't tinker with the tax policy adjustment. I don't even know what percentage the tax raise policy even is for gods sake!!