Capitalism 2 and Capitalism Lab Forum

eleaza wrote:

WilliamMGary wrote: The only way I can see capital gains being taxed is if there's a line item within the operating income of the income statement that accounts for stock sells and if its a gain (postie) that would be added to operating profits and if its a lost then it will affect the operating profit. The only way a company could avoid being taxed on substantial gains is to hold the stock and not sell or to sell smaller % of the capitalized stock.

I remember this is something has to do with accounting principle, capital gain is very different from operating income, it's a change of value, and whether it's occasional or regular operations, and by what principles use affect which items will be accounted for. Sometimes things will go extra weird when multiple companies held each other, or through other holding companies' equities. That would cause a huge headache. And capital gain actually include capital losses as well, when selling a stock, it might not be a gain, but could be a loss, and they need to be aggregated through consolidated financial reports. That's something I don't fully understand.

WilliamMGary wrote: If investments are not being taxed then stock focused companies will have even more of an advantage and the citizens as well as the government will be loosing out on billions of dollars. This needs to be addressed and accounted for.

What you described here is just one point of view in the political debate, more towards current USA Democrats view. On the other hand, another point of view, like those from USA Republicans treat "capital gain", not as "profit", but a flow in the financial system's reservoir. The capital accumulated should be reused into making more capital, these capital is meant to create and facilitate other businesses to flourish, and act as a shock absorber. Since not every investment is a gain, a lot of time it's pure loss, and new enterprises have huge risk, and definitely make big losses most of the time. Hence if we take out the "capital gain" and distributed to everyone's benefit through taxes, instead of reinvesting back into capital market with the same amount, it might strangle businesses, market shrinking, higher unemployments, even the whole economy recession, etc.

Decrease or even total abolishment of capital gain tax is a very tradition "capitalist" point of view, while increasing capital gain tax is actually more associated with socialist ideology.

WilliamMGary wrote: When the game is called Capitalism Lab but I've become more center-left from center-right and feel that we need a way to account for "stock focused" companies and the profits they make in order to provide services to the community in which they have operations in. Maybe we could tax investment capital when they buy stocks they are taxed but then who does that tax go to? Would it be split evenly between the cities they have operations in or where they are headquartered?

klasanov wrote:Ive never done a stock focused corporation, and ive never seen them very profitable.

There are just very few reasons for me to have to issue shares (or want some stock focused company to acquire any), although it would be interesting to have a stock focused company and have it run a subsidiary.

eleaza wrote:

klasanov wrote:Ive never done a stock focused corporation, and ive never seen them very profitable.

There are just very few reasons for me to have to issue shares (or want some stock focused company to acquire any), although it would be interesting to have a stock focused company and have it run a subsidiary.

Stock focused AI performance usually linked to how other AI corporations perform and how much capital they start with. If invest early and find the right target, the return can be hundreds even thousands of time over decades.

For issuing stocks, it really depends on many situations, like starting with very low capital, and wish to expand quickly, it's probably the quickest way, and necessary at very high difficulty.

klasanov wrote: I think ive ran into a situation or two where it was beneficial. Usually though i can just get loans and expand quickly enough.

klasanov wrote: Granted the new ces dlc options with real estate change things. Even at 330% difficulty i have 6 targets in mind of who i am wishing to acquire. Each one makes around 12m per year. They are just now getting off the ground.

My corp makes 20m. Its real estate sub makes 100m per year and the media company makes around 12m per year. The highest market cap ive seen is around 200m or so.

klasanov wrote:I only control 4 cities at the moment and i am expanding into commercial buildings now.

And yeah i could do a lot if i aggressively expanded into a lot of markets, but with micromanagament that takes a lot of time. And in using corporate strat this go around so i need to absolutely ensure i have the tech advantage

klasanov wrote: And while 100m may seem low, i am unequivically the richest person in the game. So i really think the AI needs slme work for this dlc.

eleaza wrote:

klasanov wrote:I only control 4 cities at the moment and i am expanding into commercial buildings now.

And yeah i could do a lot if i aggressively expanded into a lot of markets, but with micromanagament that takes a lot of time. And in using corporate strat this go around so i need to absolutely ensure i have the tech advantage

Really a good idea to venture into commercials before apartments in current build. Normally in the core game, real estate AIs will quickly fill up commercials, and most cities have enough default government commercials to push the supply/demand index close to balance. However in 4.2.07 CES DLC, there's no commercials at all for every city, hence a lot of profit can be gained, before the first election come up. And they required almost no management at all, and fill up really quickly. As for dominate product classes, tech advantage isn't always necessary, like products don't rely on quality but brand rating, or rely on price, or when technology don't play major role in finish product quality. This is why furnitures/bed so popular for AI start-up, good timber quality is enough, or leather products, or farm related products, as long as the AI has the expertises, and also have high farming level, they can start with Lv6 farm units. A lot of time high marketing level AI will start to make a killing once chemicals and oils are available. Products mostly dependent on techs are electronics, and oddly some food/drinks.

it would make sense that cola is tech dependent. So many flavors, they're the same kind of sugar though. Everything else being 50/50 makes sense.

klasanov wrote: And while 100m may seem low, i am unequivically the richest person in the game. So i really think the AI needs slme work for this dlc.

I also feel the current CES DLC AI is very basic, and haven't been optimized for this DLC setting (and shouldn't be when it's still beta). Most AIs don't even perform well with subsidiary DLC (ever seen AI try to separate their businesses through subs? At least I never observed any). They are more optimized and specialized with the core game mechanics and settings. But still miles behind most human players when comes to optimize production, or detect inefficiency. However I have to say, AIs can adapt to a vary wide range of situations, and when it comes to diversify, they really don't put all eggs in one basket. Just give them time.