Lists of proposed changes to income simulations +misc

PARAdoxiBLE · February 12, 2022, 1:22pm

I have been experimenting with income simulations since it tends to give me 60% wealthy population. I got some ideas while looking through disposable income tab, with some thoughts regarding poverty & unemployment.

Summary of adjustment lists

Wage-to-low/middle-income links now have a second factor - Unemployment. High unemployment will make wages meaningless.
High poverty will lead to the poorer elderly.
The retired relying on private healthcare will become increasingly poorer.
Several wide & strong income boosts are now considerably weaker. Especially tax cuts will have smaller impacts on income since it was so easy for them to exceed the tax paid.
Slightly higher taxation income loss.
and misc. changes for flavor.

Here’s the results.

Example A is a very stratified country. Wage level is mediocre at best and unemployment is sky-high 72%. The only welfare is Food Stamp but the poor may benefit from religious institutions since the government is handing out very generous grants to them. It taxes its people really small (25% flat tax) but you can’t expect any state-funded public program except for scientific ones. However, as you can see from the pic above, it has a massive wealthy class with minimal people in relative poverty. Something you wouldn’t expect for such countries.

But, with my income sim changes, it becomes properly polarized. Many of them are still living decently thanks to faith schools, which are cheaper than non-religious private schools, with the hyper-riches at the top. The poor are having hard time paying their education, healthcare, and housing expenses on their own, with almost guaranteed poverty after retirement. Wage level isn’t that bad but it’s meaningless as the poor can’t find any job at this high unemployment.

Example B has a government that tries to redistribute the wealth and provide strong & wide social security net. You may not like it if you earn a lot of money since it has a very progressive tax system with 60% statutory income tax rate & additional tax on the wealthy. It also funds a wide variety of public programs (except for the rail :P) and intervenes in markets to keep wages high and maximize employment, though the latter wasn’t that successful (42% unemployment). Thanks to all these efforts, there’s virtually zero person in poverty & a large number of the wealthy, who are content with the gated community policy.

With my adjustments, the curve turns into something similar to normal distribution. 95% people are in the middle class. There’s relatively less wealthy citizens compared to the example A and it makes sense. The middle income voters aren’t that happy with tax rates but the government keeps them happy with other means, which are definitely not just the gated community. While high level of wages doesn’t benefit all the poor people because of unemployment, it does boost their income in general unlike the case of example A.

Lists of proposed changes

Major Changes

HostName	TargetName	Equation_old,inertia	Equation_new,inertia	description
PovertyRate	Retired_income	`none`	`0-(0.24*x),16`	while there’s no poor retired subgroup, giving general income drop to all the retired would be enough to make some of them poor for not having a decent private pension. Currently the retired always get their private pension benefits even if most of the people are in poverty and thus they are mostly unable to afford it.
PrivateHealthcare	Retired_income_fixed	`none`	`0-(x^0.5)*10000,4`	another link introduced to make the retired more poor in general. may need to tone it down a bit.
Wages	_LowIncome	`-0.25+(0.5*x)`	`-0.25+(0.57x)_inv_Unemployment`	low income will be more vulnerable to unemployment. unemployment of 12% or higher will make the equation harsher compared to the old one. super high unemployment will effectively neutralize the impact of wage to low income.
Wages	_MiddleIncome	`-0.13+(0.26*x)`	`-0.15+(0.4+_inv_Unemployment)x0.27`	middle income will be relatively less vulnerable to unemployment. unemployment of 29% or higher will make the equation harsher compared to the old one. high wage will have an impact even if unemployment is super high. +made this a bit steeper to boost middle income in general. though they will still become increasingly poor if wage or unemployment isn’t favorable to them.
EnterpriseInvestmentScheme	_HighIncome	`0+(0.12*x)`	`0+(0.06*x)`	since this is a tax cut, too big income boost looks awkward.
EnterpriseInvestmentScheme	SelfEmployed_income	`0.01+(0.09*x)`	`0.01+(0.06*x)`	self-employed income boost is way too strong in this game.
FaithSchoolSubsidies	Religious_income	`0+(0.08*x)`	`0+(0.03*x)`	way too large and wide income boost. it doesn’t take that much to turn FSS into UBI. FSS income should be something comparable with private school costs, in my opinion.
FoodStamps	Equality	`0.02+(0.08*x)`	`Poor_perc(0.08x)+0.02`	changing ‘Food Stamp’ into more residual welfare by introducing poor membership to the equations. no substantial osillation was observed in my test runs.
FoodStamps	_LowIncome	`0.03+(0.04*x)`	`Poor_perc(0.08x)+0.06`	changing ‘Food Stamp’ into more residual welfare by introducing poor membership to the equations. no substantial osillation was observed in my test runs.
FoodStamps	PovertyRate	`-0.03-(0.12*x)`	`Poor_perc(-0.24x)-0.06`	changing ‘Food Stamp’ into more residual welfare by introducing poor membership to the equations. no substantial osillation was observed in my test runs.
FreeBusPasses	_LowIncome	`0.01+(0.04*x)`	`DELETE`	turned ‘Free Bus Passes’ into elderly welfare. also its income boosts were so huge compared to others.
FreeBusPasses	Retired_income_fixed	`250+(2000*x)`	`50+(600*x)`	turned ‘Free Bus Passes’ into elderly welfare. also its income boosts were so huge compared to others.
HybridCarsInitiative	Environmentalist_income	`0+(0.05*x)`	`0+(0.01*x)`	another waaay too large & wide income boost.
MarriedTaxAllowance	Religious_income	`0.05+(0.05*x)`	`0.005+(0.025*x)`	too large for a tax cut. plus to that, to be fair, parents income boost instead of religious one might be better.
MicrogenerationGrants	Environmentalist_income	`0.02+(0.05*x)`	`0.01+(0.03*x)`	another waaay too large & wide income boost.
MilitarySpending	StateEmployees_income_fixed	`-1000+(6500*x)`	`-1000+(x^0.65)*3500`	made state employees income boosts less effective at high slider scale in general.
MortgageTaxRelief	_MiddleIncome	`0+(0.09*x)`	`0+(0.02*x)`	too large for a tax cut.
HealthTaxCredits	_HighIncome	`0+(0.06*x)`	`0+(0.03*x)`	too large for a tax cut.
HealthTaxCredits	_MiddleIncome	`0+(0.08*x)`	`0+(0.02*x)`	too large for a tax cut.
SchoolTaxCredits	_HighIncome	`0+(0.06*x)`	`0+(0.04*x)`	too large for a tax cut.
SchoolTaxCredits	_MiddleIncome	`0+(0.08*x)`	`0+(0.04*x)`	too large for a tax cut.
PoliceForce	StateEmployees_income_fixed	`-2000+(8500*x)`	`-2000+(x^0.55)*4500`	made state employees income boosts less effective at high slider scale in general.
RentControls	Capitalist_income	`-0.09-(0.04*x)`	`-0.01-(0.02*x)`	not sure why capitalists income in general should decrease with rent control. toned down instead of scrapping this.
RentControls	_HighIncome	`none`	`-0.05-(0.04*x)`	added wealthy income loss to keep the total income loss at a similar level.
SmallBusinessGrants	Capitalist_income	`0+(0.05*x),4`	`0+(0.02*x),4`	not sure why capitalists income in general should increase with small bussiness grants. as far as I know there’s already a modifier for capitalists with self-employed membership so they are more likely to be a capitalists anyway. toned down instead of scrapping this.
SmallBusinessGrants	SelfEmployed_income	`0.01+(0.15*x)`	`0.01+(0.08*x)`	I understand that SMG is kinda expensive policy but its income boost is too large & broad.
StateHealthService	StateEmployees_income_fixed	`-150+(5350*x)`	`-150+(x^0.9)*4350`	made state employees income boosts less effective at high slider scale in general. gave less income drop at higher scale to health service workers since it’s a really expensive policy.
StateSchools	StateEmployees_income_fixed	`0+(6500*x)`	`-500+(x^0.7)*5500`	made state employees income boosts less effective at high slider scale in general. gave less income drop at higher scale to teachers since it’s a really expensive policy.

Additional Changes on Self-Employed & Unemployment

HostName	TargetName	Equation_old,inertia	Equation_new,inertia	description
SelfEmployed_perc	Unemployment	`none`	`-0.24*(x-0.05),2`	since I made unemployment more punishing, added another tool to fight unemployment. this might need to be stronger I guess. (-0.05 is there for debug)
MinimumWage	SelfEmployed	`none`	`-0.03-(x^2)*0.1`	made self employed more picky.
MinimumWage	SelfEmployed_freq	`none`	`-0.2*(x^5),4`	made self employed more picky.
MinimumWage	SelfEmployed_income	`none`	`-0.03*(x+0.2)`	just a small income drop for more plausible depiction.

Minor Adjustments

HostName	TargetName	Equation_old,inertia	Equation_new,inertia	description
OilPrice	Motorist_income_fixed	`2000-(4000*x)`	`-500-(3000*x),2`	it seemed bit weird that oil price can boost motorist income by a lot
PrivateHealthcare	_LowIncome_fixed	`0-(1100*x),4`	`0-(1800*x),4`	slightly more costly private healthcare
PrivateHealthcare	_MiddleIncome_fixed	`0-(2200*x),4`	`0-(2800*x),4`	slightly more costly private healthcare
PrivateHealthcare	_HighIncome_fixed	`0-(3600*x)`	`0-(4000*x)`	slightly more costly private healthcare
PrivateHousing	_LowIncome	`0-(0.17*x)`	`0-(0.10*x)`	~~it’s kinda weird to see the poor literally spending more than the middle class for their houses. even those who own their houses will still have some costs I guess.~~ will discuss in the separate comment below addressing housing policies/sims in general.
PrivateSchools	_LowIncome_fixed	`-1000-(x^1.2)*3000`	`-500-(x^1.2)*3000`	the poor will send their kids to state schools or more cheaper ones if available so I toned this bit down.
PrivateSchools	_MiddleIncome_fixed	`-4000-(x^1.5)*6000`	`-3000-(x^1.5)*6000`	even the middle class could prefer state schools if private schools are so few and expensive.
AlcoholTax	_All__income_fixed	`none`	`-500(AlcoholConsumptionx)`	just a small income drop for more realism.
AlcoholTax	_LowIncome_fixed	`none`	`-500(AlcoholConsumptionx)`	just a small income drop for more realism. intended this to be more skewed toward the poor.
AntibioticsBan	Farmers_income	`-0.1-(0.23*x)`	`-0.08-(0.16*x)`	not sure why it’s so harsh. it makes this policy sounds like effectively banning factory farming.
ArmedPolice	StateEmployees_income_fixed	`0+(4200*x)`	`500+(2200*x)`	smaller income boosts for state employees in general since there’s too many of them.
ArmedPolice	Unemployment	`0-(0.04*x)`	`0-(0.02*x)`	it’s a good policy even without emloyment. also it sounds rather unrealistic compared to other anti-unemployment measures.
FlatTax	_HighIncome	`0-(0.06*x)`	`0-(0.07*x)`	slightly more taxation loss.
FlatTax	_LowIncome	`0-(0.16*x)`	`0-(0.18*x)`	slightly more taxation loss.
FlatTax	_MiddleIncome	`0-(0.14*x)`	`0-(0.16*x)`	slightly more taxation loss.
IncomeTax	_HighIncome	`0-(0.15*x)`	`0-(0.18*x)`	slightly more taxation loss.
IncomeTax	_LowIncome	`-0.03-(x^2)*0.1`	`0-(x^2)*0.12`	slightly more taxation loss. removed -0.03 since progressive tax system tends to create quite a lot of tax-exempted people (who are mostly poor).
IncomeTax	_MiddleIncome	`0-(0.14*x)`	`0-(0.16*x)`	slightly more taxation loss.
SolidarityTax	_LowIncome	`-0.03-(x^2)*0.02`	`0-(x^2)*0.03`	removed -0.03 since progressive tax system tends to create quite a lot of tax-exempted people (who are mostly poor).
TobaccoTax	_All__income_fixed	`none`	`-1000(TobaccoUsex)`	just a small income drop for more realism.
UniversityGrants	Young_income_fixed	`500+(2100*x)`	`600+(3200*x)`	youth is quite a small group and it sounds rather small for tution grants.

Misc. Changes

HostName	TargetName	Equation_old,inertia	Equation_new,inertia	description
banwomendriving	Motorist_freq	`-0.2-(0.3*x)`	`-0.1(2+x)CarUsage`	35% motorists rate went down to 5% when car usage was at 70%. made it more realistic.
Punitivewealthtax	Equality	`none`	`0.15*(x^1.5)`	though I find Punitive Wealth Tax to be kinda strong, it’s weird this doesn’t affect the Equality. also, since I’ve effectively removed equality boost from Food Stamp, there needs to be more equality boosting alternatives.
ArmedPolice	StateEmployees_freq	`0+(0.03*x)`	`0+(0.01*x)`	way too high state employees membership.
Religious_perc	Charity	`0+(0.12*x)`	`0.36*(x^3)`	just a try. not an important one.
SolidarityTax	Wealthy	`-0.07-(x^2)`	`-0.2*(x^2)`	not sure Solidarity Tax will really cause -107% approval drop. really?? I guess it’s meant to be -0.07*x^2 but made it a bit more punishing.
StateRail	StateEmployees_freq	`0+(0.08*x)`	`0+(0.05*x)`	way too high state employees membership.
TechnologyColleges	StateEmployees_freq	`0+(0.04*x)`	`0+(0.02*x)`	way too high state employees membership.
UniversityGrants	StateEmployees_freq	`0+(0.13*x)`	`0+(0.07*x)`	way too high state employees membership.
PetrolTax	Motorist_income_fixed	`0-(5050x)CarUsage`	`0-(5050x)_inv_ElectricCarTransition`	shouldn’t this be linked to electric car simulation?
ChildBenefit	Equality	`0.0.5+(0.15*x)`	`0.05+(0.15*x)`	typo

Changes under Testing

HostName	TargetName	Equation_old,inertia	Equation_new,inertia	description
AutomationTax	Capitalist_income	`0-(0.03*x),8`	`none`	same as rent control or small business grants.
AutomationTax	_HighIncome	`none`	`0-(0.04*x)`	same as rent control or small business grants.
GovernmentSubsidiesForUnions	TradeUnionist_income	`0+(0.09*x)`	`0+(0.03*x)`	income boost is too large & broad.
InternetCurrencyTaxation	Liberal_income	`-0.01-(0.02x)InternetCurrencyAdoption,4`	`-0.01(x+0.1)InternetCurrencyAdoption,4`	liberal is too wide to tax like this.
InternetCurrencyTaxation	SelfEmployed_income	`-0.02-(0.05*x),4`	`-0.01-(0.03*x),4`
OrganicSubsidy	Environmentalist_income	`0+(0.05*x)`	`0+(0.01*x)`	income boost is too large & broad.
RuralDevelopmentGrants	_LowIncome	`0.02+(0.13*x)`	`0.01+(0.08*x)`	sounds bit high for not that expensive policy.
UnemployedBenefit	_MiddleIncome_fixed	`none`	`5500(Unemployment^4)x`	doesn’t have that much impact but since super-high unemployment can lead to middle income crisis, it sounds legit to grant a bit of unemployment benefits if unemployment is super high like above 70%.

some test feedback

Automation Tax may need harsher income loss. With unemployment-to-taxloss change or my LIS mod, which does effectively something similar, losing automation progress wasn’t that painful.
Union Subsidies policy is real cheap so it may be okay to have even less income boost. it even has a positive link to wage so it’s likely to increase their income anyway.
not sure Rural Development Grants should benefit the poor instead of farmers. Nonetheless, in any case, 0.01+(0.09*x) sounds like an adequate level of bonus. the old one was so high that it was possible to spot some poor-middle income reversals.

+expected question) why u don’t just make a mod and upload it on the Workshop?
Answer) Several major changes are simulation-to-income links. I can for sure write overrides.ini for them but somehow they stop working after first few turns (works only at the first turn in severe cases). So They can’t be modded via overrides. That’s why I’m writing proposals here instead of meddling with moddings.

PARAdoxiBLE · February 15, 2022, 9:43am

#,StateHousing,default,,,13,18,9,9,WELFARE,,-150,1100,0+(1.0*x),,16,0,0,0+(1.0*x),,,#Effects,"Capitalist,-0.02-(0.1*x)","Poor,0.05+(0.05*x)","Equality,0.03+(0.21*x)","Socialist,0+(0.20*x)","PovertyRate,0-(0.17*x)","_LowIncome,0+(0.17*x)","_global_socialism,0.015+(0.02*x),12","_MiddleIncome,0.08*(x^2)",,,,,,,,,

#,PrivateHousing,WELFARE,0.5,0,1,UNKNOWN,icons_privatehousing,#,"StateHousing,-1.25*(x^1.3),4","GDP,0+(0.5*x),4",#,"_LowIncome,0-(0.17*x)","_MiddleIncome,0-(0.08*x)","Equality,0-(0.1*x),4","_global_socialism,-0.02-(0.06*x),8",,,,,,,,,,,,

I’ve just noticed that StateHousing & PrivateHousing have roughly the opposite income effects. Seems legit at a glance, but this effectively doubles the income boosts of State Housing. As private housing is supposed to kill the private housing, I see this redundant.

Plus to that, Rent Control does boost low income regardless of the size of private housing. This might need to scale with it but undecided.

Therefore, housing costs will require changes below in my opinion.

HostName	TargetName	Equation_old,inertia	Equation_new,inertia	description
StateHousing	_LowIncome	`0+(0.17*x)`	`DELETE`	shrinking private housing will replace this effect as state healthcare & schools do.
StateHousing	_MiddleIncome	`0.08*(x^2)`	`DELETE`	shrinking private housing will replace this effect as state healthcare & schools do.
PrivateHousing	_LowIncome	`0-(0.17*x)`	`0-(0.10*x)`	I understand that the middle class are more likely to have their own houses. But since A) the poor are going to get cheaper houses and B) the middle class homeowners are still likely to have mortgages, I find -17% at max to poor income sounds rather too high.
PrivateHousing	_MiddleIncome	`0-(0.08*x)`	`-0.08+(1-x)^2*0.08`	tried to make middle income stick with private housing when state housing is at low level.

PARAdoxiBLE · April 21, 2022, 4:58pm

Decided to upload a mod for this! For the reasons written in the original post, it does not fully include all the changes in the list and some have lost inertia to make it work. But I assume these limitations won’t make any significant differences.

Still, I hope more of the proposed adjustments in the list to make into the game. Wealthy voters taking up to 60% of the population still breaks my immersion :/.

Topic		Replies	Views
Disposable Income - serious rebalancing needed Democracy 4	1	160	October 10, 2020
New voter wealth screen idea General Discussion	8	270	June 21, 2020
What Should Poor/Middle/High Earnings Do? General Discussion	6	320	May 4, 2022
Another link suggestions General Discussion	3	174	March 6, 2022
Democracy 4 Developer Blog #16: Boosting Conservatives General Discussion	4	202	July 5, 2020