NEWS

Missions FAQ Additions?

  • 247 Replies
  • 64906 Views

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #240 on: <09-20-13/1704:05> »
And you'd still have the Accuracy bonus, just not the dice bonus. In fact you won't even have to bother with a cable that way, since you have a non-wireless connection mental already.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

ZeConster

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2557
« Reply #241 on: <09-20-13/1704:22> »
Smartguns are included in all ranged cyberweapons...
Perhaps next time you say your "ware" is negated, you could clarify that you mean cyberweapons, instead of cyberware and bioware, which one typically means with "ware".

martinchaen

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #242 on: <09-20-13/1725:21> »
Duly noted, ZeConster; but cyberguns is and should be considered 'ware; if that wasn't obvious, perhaps you need to expand your definition of what 'ware is as cyberguns can just as easily be installed directly in the flesh and automatically come with smartgun systems. In the mean time, I'll try to be more clear in the future.

Anyway, this thread has slid a little off-topic, and is also being discussed here, so let's continue this there and let this thread be for FAQ requests. Cheers for all your input, everyone.
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=12898.0;topicseen

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #243 on: <09-29-13/0727:56> »
Regarding taxes: In Sprawl Wilds, a SINner can cash in a bounty, since they are the one individual cashing it in, should they pay taxes over the full amount or just their cut since they distribute the rest of the cash to the others?

Without taxes it's 15.000, with taxes we're talking 12.750, without SIN (or risking a fake SIN) we're talking 8.500 bounty max instead.

Since the SINner cashes the bounty by themselves and thus receives the cash themselves, I assume full taxes apply. On the other hand, most of the cash goes to other people's cuts, so one could argue that only the SINners cut should be eligible for taxes. Since taxes are an abstraction, applying to all income from any source, it is reasonable to assume it only applies to your actual income, not to an entire bounty that you immediately distribute. Not to mention that otherwise you force the trick that they do not take the Johnson's pay but a bigger cut from the bounty instead, thus reducing the amount of taxes paid. Which is rather complicated and annoying to do, so it'd be more reasonable to only apply taxes over the SINner's cut of the bounty.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Top Dog

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
« Reply #244 on: <09-29-13/0755:46> »
I argued about Michael's point at our session yesterday, being of the school that the runner in question only had to pay her own share's worth in taxes.

Michael already pointed out much of my argument - taxes are handled as an abstract system over all the runner's income, even the (rather sizable) part that the IRS is pretty much blind to as it's handled in the shadows. By the same argument, only the runner's actual income should be counted; a bounty that she has to split with 4 people counts only for her share. Abstracting it to work as a flat rate over all income cuts both ways.

In-universe, it makes sense too. The character will have to declare the bounty's income, and pay full taxes on it. The character will also, usually, pay full taxes over any "illegal" income she gained (presumably the IRS doesn't care, or it's instead laundered/hidden away with costs associated with that). However, since she received a large bounty (of which she had to give most away to fellow runners), she now has a large amount of income she already payed taxes over to hide further less-then-legal income. In other words, she can use the fact that she already payed a large amount of taxes to launder the money she'll later receive through running. Mechanically, that ends up the same as her only paying taxes over her share of the bounty.

So that means that, in my opinion, both the mechanical interpretation of the rules as the in-universe explanation thereof supports only paying taxes over the SINner's cut over the bounty.

(It ended up not mattering as we dealt with it another way, but the question will probably come up later in similar situations)

ZeConster

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2557
« Reply #245 on: <09-30-13/1408:57> »
Speaking of the bounty: how does it (or other external revenue: one character decided to fence the commlinks belonging to the gangers in the northern camp) combine with the GM reward thing? Does the GM get the same 'cut' as the playing characters?

Arioch

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 54
« Reply #246 on: <09-30-13/1659:22> »
I argued about Michael's point at our session yesterday, being of the school that the runner in question only had to pay her own share's worth in taxes.

Michael already pointed out much of my argument - taxes are handled as an abstract system over all the runner's income, even the (rather sizable) part that the IRS is pretty much blind to as it's handled in the shadows. By the same argument, only the runner's actual income should be counted; a bounty that she has to split with 4 people counts only for her share. Abstracting it to work as a flat rate over all income cuts both ways.

In-universe, it makes sense too. The character will have to declare the bounty's income, and pay full taxes on it. The character will also, usually, pay full taxes over any "illegal" income she gained (presumably the IRS doesn't care, or it's instead laundered/hidden away with costs associated with that). However, since she received a large bounty (of which she had to give most away to fellow runners), she now has a large amount of income she already payed taxes over to hide further less-then-legal income. In other words, she can use the fact that she already payed a large amount of taxes to launder the money she'll later receive through running. Mechanically, that ends up the same as her only paying taxes over her share of the bounty.

So that means that, in my opinion, both the mechanical interpretation of the rules as the in-universe explanation thereof supports only paying taxes over the SINner's cut over the bounty.

(It ended up not mattering as we dealt with it another way, but the question will probably come up later in similar situations)

I can see the point, but if you think about it, the IRS doesn't care if you are splitting the money up with other people are not - especially if they are SINless. If you are paying taxes at the time of the bounty being gain then everyone that is getting a split will pay an equal amount of the tax that you had to pay. You are still getting more for the bounty than you would have otherwise. If you want to get the full amount, then use a raiting 6 fake SIN and try to beat the system. Having a SIN as a negative quality should not turn into a positive IMO.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #247 on: <09-30-13/1716:24> »
[spoiler]Keep in mind that with Season 5 not out yet, it's near-impossible to have a rating 6 fake SIN so that is not an option. As for not being positive: It still IS a positive benefit even when taxes apply, since you do not risk the 36% at losing a rating 4 value 10.000 fake SIN and still get significantly more money than when cashing it in through a Knight Errant contact. Plus the base pay of the mission is really low, the bounty is an essential part of the reward.

Also: If taxes are paid over the entire bounty, like I stated it encourages annoying bookkeeping, and with a regular team a SINner might arrange for another runner to take his share and distribute it as 'bounty' to the others, while the SINner takes the entire bounty and makes up for it in the next mission to the runner who handled the cost. So you get a dodgy scheme to prevent double-taxing, which hardly is intended.

And of course Bull forgot SINners paid taxes, so chances are taxes weren't kept in mind when writing the bounty part.[/spoiler]

I am not saying it should be one way or another, but your arguments are only one side of the equation and I can find good points in both sides. So I hope Bull will explain the intent (as well as a ruling on how the bounty plays into the GM Rewards). :)
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!