Is insufficient Taxation capacity supposed to still tax the pop in full?

[PDJR_Alastorn]

what, what does TC does then?

@lachek can correct me if I am interpretting things wrong but this is what I got from our conversation.


Loss of taxation capacity is a loss of inefficiency to collect your taxes, those taxes are not collected - thus they stay with your pops in wealth.
Tax Waste applies to taxes that are collected from pops but then are not delievered correctly to the government, so the wealth is neither in the hands of your pop nor your government.

 

[kernco]

There's a lot that doesn't make sense in that screenshot. How is the pop's total weekly income +333K while the workforce income is +45.3K and dependents income is +70.5K? That only adds up to +115.8K. If we try to calculate what the pop should pay in income tax based on a 6.5% rate, 333*0.065 is 21.645, which is much higher than what we see them paying in the tooltip. If we try to apply the -82.42% penalty from taxation capacity, we get

0.065*0.8242=0.053573

0.065-0.053573=0.011427 (effective tax rate)

333*0.011427=3.805191

This is a lot closer to the -2.94K we see the pop paying in the tooltip, but I can't figure out how to arrive at that exact number.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

There's a lot that doesn't make sense in that screenshot. How is the pop's total weekly income +333K while the workforce income is +45.3K and dependents income is +70.5K?

Maybe reported job income is being reduced by tax efficiency? 45.3 / (1-0.8242) + 70.5 = 328.2, which is fairly close to total reported income...

 

[PedroLuiz]

There's a lot that doesn't make sense in that screenshot. How is the pop's total weekly income +333K while the workforce income is +45.3K and dependents income is +70.5K? That only adds up to +115.8K. If we try to calculate what the pop should pay in income tax based on a 6.5% rate, 333*0.065 is 21.645, which is much higher than what we see them paying in the tooltip. If we try to apply the -82.42% penalty from taxation capacity, we get

0.065*0.8242=0.053573

0.065-0.053573=0.011427 (effective tax rate)

333*0.011427=3.805191

This is a lot closer to the -2.94K we see the pop paying in the tooltip, but I can't figure out how to arrive at that exact number.

Most of the pops' income comes from subsistence output that's not taxes on income taxes

 

[PedroLuiz]

There's a lot that doesn't make sense in that screenshot. How is the pop's total weekly income +333K while the workforce income is +45.3K and dependents income is +70.5K? That only adds up to +115.8K. If we try to calculate what the pop should pay in income tax based on a 6.5% rate, 333*0.065 is 21.645, which is much higher than what we see them paying in the tooltip. If we try to apply the -82.42% penalty from taxation capacity, we get

0.065*0.8242=0.053573

0.065-0.053573=0.011427 (effective tax rate)

333*0.011427=3.805191

This is a lot closer to the -2.94K we see the pop paying in the tooltip, but I can't figure out how to arrive at that exact number.

Wages x tax rate

 

[kernco]

Ok so using just the workforce income: 45.3 * 0.065 = 2.94 which is exactly the income tax shown in the tooltip. So it looks like there's definitely a bug with taxation capacity not being properly accounted for. Could be only in the numbers shown in the interface and the correct calculations are actually being done on the weekly ticks, but that's still a bug.

 

[maxirage]

If the money isn't owned by pops or the treasury, then where does it go? The bottom of the ocean?

 

[Mef]

If the money isn't owned by pops or the treasury, then where does it go? The bottom of the ocean?

It goes to the same place where dependent wages, subsistence income and minting revenue come from.

 

[PedroLuiz]

It goes to the same place where dependent wages, subsistence income and minting revenue come from.

Money laundry scheme found