[Discuss] Tax oddity

[Thomas Dalton]

> My question of bug here isn't on whether or not the percentages are right,
> but why take gold and bonds when the bonds alone cover the taxation.  Taxes
> deal directly with bonds; you get bonds, or you lose bonds.  From my
> understanding, you only lose gold if you do not have enough bonds to cover
> your taxes.  So, why is he taxed both bonds and gold here?

The way I understand it is that gold and bonds are taxed separately.
If you have more than 100 (that seems to be the cutoff point) of
either, you'll get taxed on it, if you have more than 100 of both, you
get taxed on both. This means having 99 of each is a good tax fiddle.

I don't know why it's like that, but it seems to be how it works.


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss