Talk:Better Maps/Hierarchy

All sounds good, but the new taxes seem overly harsh on the traders who already have it hard enough? -Dominic "Chénier" 16:43, 23 November 2010 (CET)

Tariffs could be fun, with three stipulations:

1. trade profits would need to rise to sustain this. These taxes will murder trade as it presently stands. The extremes between surplus and deficit food would need to expand in order to increase profit margins. And not just more severe seasons; I mean we would need to have large geographic areas where there is a reliable, high-paying market.

2. tariffs need to be long-range visible. I mean that there should be a way for a trader to know the tariffs along their route. So you would want a function (maybe give traders a skill?) that would allow traders to get a general idea of what the tariffs along a route would be. To really make this work, you would need a "route-selector" system rather than the current automated route system. ALTERNATIVELY, you could just have tariff rates be publicly known. This would greatly incentivize tax competition. High-traffic regions could boost their tariffs and still make money, up to a threshold of costs through a more roundabout path.

3. This is less a necessity and more a thought. Would non-traders be subject to tariffs? If only traders are subject to tariffs, then there will be a decline in traders, and some form of substitute will be found. If everyone is subject to tariffs... you will need very low thresholds. Maybe a maximum estate-level tax of 1-3%, maximum region-level tax of, say, 2-4%, maximum duchy of 3-5%, maximum realm of 5-8%. With those maximum numbers, (3%, 4%, 5%, 8%), moving across a realm border (also logically a duchy, region, and estate border) would incur a 20% tax. Loss of 20% of your assets is rather biggish. Inflict that on everyone and you will find assets sapped away fast. Long-range wars will become impossible. Heck, marching an army from the capital to an outlying region would be impossible if every region you pass through saps away even 5% of your income. If you go through 5 regions, you're looking at upwards of 15% of your gold lost. The politics would be powerful: you could give an ally the right to pass through your land, but then have lords in his path jack up tax rates, and so basically rob an ally of his funds. In fact, one individual knight could make a KILLING by having a large army pass through his land.

Which is all backwards. It doesn't make sense for a medieval army passing through to cause an economic boom. So these tariffs would have to be applied in a significantly more complex way, and have very low thresholds, else they could rapidly supplant other forms of income. The idea is nice... but would need a lot of work. Things to think about: tariff rates applied at every border will necessarily stack very quickly, tariffs will drastically reduce the basic unit of political cooperation, tariffs levied on only one class will cause loophole-hunting to a very great degree and lead to the disuse of the taxed class, uncapped tariffs levied on all classes equally will allow a single knight in a single estate to destroy the long-term capabilities of an entire army, tariffs presumably are not paid by hostile armies: so would a neutral army pay a tariff if he/she was allied with an invading army? or if tariffs are paid even by hostile invaders, then a tariff-wall would be a more effective defense than anything else, as you could rob an army of all its gold right away.

Tariffs need to be implemented very carefully, as they could stifle movement very, very easily. Vellos 03:21, 24 November 2010 (CET)

German nations did this alot in de middle ages, everyone had to pay a certain amount to cross a certain border. However if you pass with an army and don't want to pay I think they'll let you threw as well. Sounds a bit unrealstic t be able to tax an army as a simple knight. If i'd be that masrhal i'd lynch that border patrol. Best is this to work threw treaties, so taxes can't be changed on the last minutes, and ervy noble should be able to refuse paying. --Vlad 07:54, 24 November 2010 (CET)

You are all reading seriously too much into a draft concept. This outlines how a hierarchical structure could work in regards to taxes. Nothing more. And yes, it does stack rather quickly. That's the whole point. Going at medieval trade with a concept of "free trade" is a heinous crime. --Tom 08:05, 24 November 2010 (CET)

I apologize; I thought you wanted criticism. My bad, I was just trying to offer thoughts on how the system would work. And indeed unilateral free trade should be dubious (though the question of Venice, Genoa, and the Hanseatic League would seem to indicate the presence of some kind of pseudo-free trade, or perhaps a kind of monopolistic trade). But surely we still want the trader game to be possible? Vellos 19:53, 24 November 2010 (CET)

I'm not saying "don't criticize". I'm saying "don't criticize stuff that's not actually written there". :-) --Tom 10:50, 26 November 2010 (CET)