Taxing Religions/Secret Societies

[Vellos]

He said 10-50 gold per size. Just so you know.

Ah, that makes sense.

Either one of these would solve most if not all of the problems I see with taxing religions.  My personal preference would be option a), but I think either would work just fine.

As I think about it, actually, option a of tax-free reserves still seems really bad, though. It still makes a huge handicap on building big temples, which are already comparatively rare, despite, in Terran's case, practically an entire realm with multiple cities chipping in to finance them. Taxes will make this even harder.

But taxes on transactions will effectively shut down much of the "banking," without restricting static holds on money.

It is difficult to know which transaction to tax, however, and how to adjust balances. If you tax inputs of gold, then the balance absolutely MUST be adjusted as well. That is, if I donate 500 gold, and 25 of it is taxed away, my balance should only raise 475 gold, or else, if I am the lord of that temple's region, I'll just get the 25 (or at least some of it) back, and can boost my balance again. It's marginal, but it'd happen. Heck, if I could have been doing that with Triunism, by now my balance would be a solid 500-700 gold more.

If you tax funds as they are withdrawn, it will not put any inhibition at all on accumulating funds for temple expansions, but will tend to "overstate" what we might call "banking reserves," that is, gold available for withdrawal and shift to another financial entity. This sounds like what Tom wants, so maybe is a good idea: there would be no penalty whatsoever under this system for any donation of gold to the temple, and gold stored in the temple would be tax exempt. However, any withdrawal from the temple would be taxed, thus if there was, say, a crusade, funding from the temple at the "destination" would need to be greater by the margin of the tax rate.

Actually, this would be awesome. Whatever the "final stop" on the crusade to pick up gold, the lord of THAT REGION would reap significant tax benefits as the crusaders withdrew gold. Using the SA example, if crusaders from Morek accumulated a surplus in SA, then traveled to, say, Eidulb, and withdrew gold there that had been accumulated by Astrumite believers, the Duke of Eidulb would end up receiving a profit as gold shifts from the outlands of Astrum to his personal tax share. If, however, Morekian priests, say, transferred all that crusader gold to Eidulb and deposited it, a portion would be taxed in Morek as it was withdrawn (increasing the overhead of the crusade), and a portion would be taxed in Eidulb as crusaders withdrew it, such that the transfer would move wealth from the general populace of Morek towards lords of central temples in Morek and the Duke of Eidulb.

That is, it would become financially advantageous for dukes to attract religious crusaders to their cities to attack neighbors. The cost for crusaders themselves would increase, thus limiting the possibilities of free banking. But the incentive to do it might become sufficiently concentrated in a few dukes that it could amount to several hundreds of gold.

Can you tell I do finance?

[Bedwyr]

Ah, that makes sense.

As I think about it, actually, option a of tax-free reserves still seems really bad, though. It still makes a huge handicap on building big temples, which are already comparatively rare, despite, in Terran's case, practically an entire realm with multiple cities chipping in to finance them. Taxes will make this even harder.

Except that increasing the size of a temple is a one-time expense, and you don't need to have it sitting in the region.  The tax-free reserve is for handling maintenance, while raising temple levels still requires some coordination to pull off (as it should).

That's not to say that your other point isn't valid, as it may well be.  I don't have the background to figure out what the other unintended side-effects would be, but expanding temples isn't a problem from where I'm standing, only maintenance.

[Chenier]

But taxes on transactions will effectively shut down much of the "banking," without restricting static holds on money.

Actually... While if everyone is in the same realm, it's easy to transfer gold via the bank to have temples built, the same can't be said for multi-realm religions. To gather the funds to build a new temple, I've often had to travel to multiple temples to withdraw the gold necessary. With this proposed system, I would have had to pay a good chunk (big cities usually have both the best-filled treasuries and highest tax rates) for each withdrawal, and then paid taxes *again* to put the gold in the new treasury to be able to enlarge the temple. You wouldn't just be taxing people who withdraw their monthly credit, you'd be taxing the inter-temple gold transfers with this, meaning double taxes on temple enlargements when one realm finances religious infrastructure in another (such as the heart of a faith supporting its expansion in foreign lands).

And if you do have the ability to send gold via the bank for enlargements, then you may not be paying twice the taxes, but you still may be paying a tenth to a fifth of the cost in taxes for these large capital cities. By taxing treasuries instead of transactions, one at least wouldn't have to pay these high taxes if he plans on using the gold as soon as he deposits it.

[De-Legro]

By evolution, I meant post roman collapse.

You mean AFTER they were a well established religion, with their own principality/realm centred around the Vatican and the power to appoint the Holy Roman Emperor? Roman patronage catapulted the Catholic faith on the course that gave it dominance over the west, they never built up from nothing after the fall of the empire, in fact the fall of the empire simply created a central power vacuum that they could step into.

[Vellos]

Actually... While if everyone is in the same realm, it's easy to transfer gold via the bank to have temples built, the same can't be said for multi-realm religions. To gather the funds to build a new temple, I've often had to travel to multiple temples to withdraw the gold necessary. With this proposed system, I would have had to pay a good chunk (big cities usually have both the best-filled treasuries and highest tax rates) for each withdrawal, and then paid taxes *again* to put the gold in the new treasury to be able to enlarge the temple. You wouldn't just be taxing people who withdraw their monthly credit, you'd be taxing the inter-temple gold transfers with this, meaning double taxes on temple enlargements when one realm finances religious infrastructure in another (such as the heart of a faith supporting its expansion in foreign lands).

And if you do have the ability to send gold via the bank for enlargements, then you may not be paying twice the taxes, but you still may be paying a tenth to a fifth of the cost in taxes for these large capital cities. By taxing treasuries instead of transactions, one at least wouldn't have to pay these high taxes if he plans on using the gold as soon as he deposits it.

Note that most of my post discussed taxing withdrawals from treasuries, not deposits. Double-taxation, IMHO, should be avoided. Withdrawals would mean that, yeah, there would be significant taxation if somebody pulls cash out.

But it'd be better than having that pile of gold repeatedly taxed for week on week as you're stockpiling it. A transactional tax is far, far more friendly to expansionist multi-realm faiths than a treasury tax, simply because the treasury tax means regular local support is absolutely vital for maintenance and, even with a "tax-free threshold," foreign support could offer only very, very marginal financial aid as treasuries are taxed down below the threshold needed to expand temples. A transactional tax allows flexibility in timing, basically.

[Draco Tanos]

Now, there are too many pages atm for me to really find it quickly, but I have to ask this:

Will there be an option for increased taxes for specific religions?  I mean, yeah, we could put favored religions' gold back in their temples, but that's an unneeded headache for a Lord. :/

Like the Muslims had a jizyah on Jews and Christians, but not on fellow Muslims.

[egamma]

Now, there are too many pages atm for me to really find it quickly, but I have to ask this:

Will there be an option for increased taxes for specific religions?  I mean, yeah, we could put favored religions' gold back in their temples, but that's an unneeded headache for a Lord. :/

Like the Muslims had a jizyah on Jews and Christians, but not on fellow Muslims.

That seems to be undetermined, but unlikely.

[Stue (DC)]

before, i was sending many complaints on how current religious situation has become unfun, and when I hear that new burden will be imposed to religion, i can only think of religious fall, in all realms but theocracies.


personally i simply cannot accept that level 3 temple, with top fof 7500 followers, having exactly 7500 followers produces -10 gold per week, temples that did not reach their peak not to mention. how that can be balance? and additional taxing looks as nightmare...

i daresay, if some temples have become banks, the reason can be that religious people are forced into these financial issues so much that only people interested in financial stuff can actually run religions. how elders could be expected to develop spiritual agenda if they are pushed by game mechanics to run around temple treasuries all the time?

ordinary guilds are different stories, as they are anyhow reliant on lord's good will. the fun with religion can come from the fact that lords want to be diplomatic to prevailing religions in his region, rather than act as their master.

form first time i read about religion in wiki, i remember what was stated - religion game is the most intersting when religion overcome borders of realm structures, and singular realms. with many financial burdens on religions, that, the most interesting part of game is suffocated.

if there is issue of too much use of religion treasuries, here is on humble proposal:

- sacking of temples to be allowed without actual destroying or even damaging temples. Sacking to be allowed to each and every noble, no matter whether he is realm member, ally, neutral or enemy (similar to adventurer's arrests). that is potential for fun!

[Tom]

Will there be an option for increased taxes for specific religions?

Not at this time.

This is also the major source of all this confusion. You guys have the Catholic Church in the middle ages in mind when you talk about Religions, but BM doesn't model that. It models various religions, none of them utterly dominant.

Sometime in the far future, we will support state religions and then we can talk about tax exemptions, different tax rates, etc. again.

[Perth]

Sometime in the far future, we will support state religions and then we can talk about tax exemptions, different tax rates, etc. again.

This is great news, at least!   

[De-Legro]

before, i was sending many complaints on how current religious situation has become unfun, and when I hear that new burden will be imposed to religion, i can only think of religious fall, in all realms but theocracies.


personally i simply cannot accept that level 3 temple, with top fof 7500 followers, having exactly 7500 followers produces -10 gold per week, temples that did not reach their peak not to mention. how that can be balance? and additional taxing looks as nightmare...

i daresay, if some temples have become banks, the reason can be that religious people are forced into these financial issues so much that only people interested in financial stuff can actually run religions. how elders could be expected to develop spiritual agenda if they are pushed by game mechanics to run around temple treasuries all the time?

ordinary guilds are different stories, as they are anyhow reliant on lord's good will. the fun with religion can come from the fact that lords want to be diplomatic to prevailing religions in his region, rather than act as their master.

form first time i read about religion in wiki, i remember what was stated - religion game is the most intersting when religion overcome borders of realm structures, and singular realms. with many financial burdens on religions, that, the most interesting part of game is suffocated.

if there is issue of too much use of religion treasuries, here is on humble proposal:

- sacking of temples to be allowed without actual destroying or even damaging temples. Sacking to be allowed to each and every noble, no matter whether he is realm member, ally, neutral or enemy (similar to adventurer's arrests). that is potential for fun!

Temples are used as banks for one main reason, they are tax free. Thus a Elder can stash their gold in a temple and avoid their realms property tax and wealth tax.

[Chenier]

Temples are used as banks for one main reason, they are tax free. Thus a Elder can stash their gold in a temple and avoid their realms property tax and wealth tax.

Which was necessary or else they'd never get the gold for all these silly temples.

Mind you, the more time passes, the more I realize these temples are nothing but a vanity, and that you don't really need to have 100% followers in your capital with a lvl 12 temple.

Indeed, you hardly need any followers at all. A lvl 3 temple in the most conveniant region for the nobles, usually the capital, is all one needs.

[De-Legro]

Which was necessary or else they'd never get the gold for all these silly temples.

Mind you, the more time passes, the more I realize these temples are nothing but a vanity, and that you don't really need to have 100% followers in your capital with a lvl 12 temple.

Indeed, you hardly need any followers at all. A lvl 3 temple in the most conveniant region for the nobles, usually the capital, is all one needs.

You only just worked this out? Unless you plan to use followers to generate power through threats, RTO's and the like, all you need is a temple for conversions. You do hit upon the real problem of taxing Temples though, it is hard to distinguish between gold stored for real religious reasons like temple building, and gold stored away as a tax haven.

[Perth]

Temples are used as banks for one main reason, they are tax free. Thus a Elder can stash their gold in a temple and avoid their realms property tax and wealth tax.

Honestly, I'm a little unsure as to why this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't people be able to store gold away if they want? How does it hurt the game?

Just honestly curious here.

[De-Legro]

Honestly, I'm a little unsure as to why this is a bad thing. Why shouldn't people be able to store gold away if they want? How does it hurt the game?

Just honestly curious here.

Can't really answer that, I play in realms with no property or wealth tax, so I can just keep my gold in my back pocket.