Possible bug: Everyone income

Is it a bug that Everyone Income doesn’t change poor, middle and high earnings?

I guess there are a lot of weird disparities when it comes to that sort of thing.

Doesn’t that just affect Everyone Earnings instead?

Everyone Earnings?

I guess that’s not an actual stat is it. But Junk Food Tax and Universal Basic Income at least decrease/increase the disposal income of Everyone.

Which, I suppose, is totally past the point of your question so never mind :smiley:

lol fair enough

The income of everyone is literally just stuff that every one in the country gets, so if you have a payment that is given to every citizen (like helicopter money), then the everyone group will get it, but most payments only go to a specific group. Dont forget every voter is in lots of different groups, but they are all in the everone group.

Yeah, I was referring to having an effect on the Earnings variables. The intended relationship between the “earnings” variables (poor earnings, middle earnings, high earnings), the “income” modifiers (such as everyone, wealthy, commuter) and poor earnings/income:poverty isn’t exactly clear, to be honest. My impression is that it’s kind of inconsistent? Earnings obviously affects Income (though thats not listed anywhere afaict) but effects on income don’t change Earnings (moreover, some policies affect infome, others earnings). I suspect that there’s some more invisible stuff going on that makes it all make sense- would you mind explaining the intended relationships?

1 Like

This actually sounds like an error to me. I need to look at all the various instances, but generally speaking we should be using Low, Middle, High Earnings values to affect those groups income. For tedious complex code reasons, Poor_income will still exist, but I think its effectvely re-routed to the LowIncome value in the code.

That bit of the design is a bit annoyingly complex to be honest. To go into more depth…

The reason for the complexity is that voters can be in the Poor group, and then have various things applied to their income because they are in that group, and this then makes them middle income… But they are not really middle income, they are still poor, then have just been elevated out of being poor by government programs.

Without doing this… voters would ping pong between groups. Poor? Have a welfare payment! oh that makes you middle income! so pay this tax… whoops! you are poor again.

This kind of hassle is hopefully hidden from the player by internal code hoops, but the result is that we have these values for LowEarnings etc instead of poor_income.

Its confusing, I know :smiley:

It makes sense, really. I don’t envy you having to negotiate that, though. I’ll keep it in mind when looking for bugs.

I think another point of confusion is that “middle income” increasing as a policy effect sounds like middle incomes get higer but actually means approval among people in the middle income group improves.

You’d probably want to define what stuff gets applies in what order.
Something like:

  • Stage 1: Base income is boosted/reduced by anything that’s taxed by income or flat tax (imo, this should not include UBI. The whole point of that is that you get a flat amount for free, right?)
  • Stage 2: Flat/income tax is deducted
  • Stage 3: Anything that is only taxed by other stuff, such as sales tax and other consumption tax etc. should be modified (so this is where UBI would be added)
  • Stage 4: consumption taxes are factored in accordingly. Consumption taxes should be levied not on starting income but on pre-consumption disposable income (representing mostly how much this person consumes given how rich they are.)

Not sure that covers everything. Certainly payroll tax should probably be deducted from wages, but not below minimum wages, say. Taxes can get super complicated super fast.

OH and I just had an idea how to maybe fix the income tax vs. flat tax stuff.
Instead of Flat Tax, have an uncancelable policy “progressive/regressive taxation”.
At 1/3rd it’s what currently is regular income tax.
At 2/3rds it’s what currently is flat tax.
Going outside that range you actively subsidize either the rich or the poor. Like, at 0 it would be very lenient negative taxes, whereas at 1 you do tax breaks for the richest of folks so they have to pay less taxes than middle income (though not necessarily 0 or even negative)

This would, I think, simplify
and fix one of the weirdest aspects of the current calculation, while also giving finer control, and adding support for one thing people wished for, namely negative taxes.

1 Like

I do lik the idea of separating out the level of income tax from the progressive nature of tax, so your idea is very interesting. It would need to make it clear that it only applies to income tax though, not to all taxes. (although some countries have progressive property taxes, even car taxes).

I gave one way of ensuring that in another thread but if multiple sliders per policy is too big a change or you’re morally opposed to that kind of change, simply call that policy “income tax progressiveness”.