The Money Problem

[Codein]

I'm thinking of experimenting with a socialist-style taxation concept, where by richer players are taxed a higher percentage where as poorer players are taxed at a lower rate.

There could be bands, such as:

Band A: Highest rate. (30 percent)
Band B: Middle rate. (20 percent)
Band C: Low rate. (10 percent)
Band D: Exemption rate.

Also, I would keep a log of transactions and produce visual aids, such as graphs, using a sample of the data and make predictions.

I'm sure if the current system was researched into deep enough, looking at it from an economist point of view rather than a technical point of view, you could effectively curb inflation and deflate the economy without constant resets.

However, I'm unsure what measures you ARE already taking, so I can't say you're not looking into it deeply either way.

[MontyPython]

Originally Posted by Codein

I'm thinking of experimenting with a socialist-style taxation concept, where by richer players are taxed a higher percentage where as poorer players are taxed at a lower rate.

There could be bands, such as:

Band A: Highest rate. (30 percent)
Band B: Middle rate. (20 percent)
Band C: Low rate. (10 percent)
Band D: Exemption rate.

I disagree with this idea. Socialism's way of operation discourages success and glorifies mediocrity. If you climb up the ladder only to be taxed more heavily than your fellow player who's not working as hard as you to make money, it really kills the incentive. When everyone is essentially brought down to the same level, regardless of how hard they work, it destroys the will to work/succeed. Socialism doesn't work out well in real life, and it wouldn't work in Era.

[Mark Sir Link]

Originally Posted by Codein

I'm thinking of experimenting with a socialist-style taxation concept, where by richer players are taxed a higher percentage where as poorer players are taxed at a lower rate.

There could be bands, such as:

Band A: Highest rate. (30 percent)
Band B: Middle rate. (20 percent)
Band C: Low rate. (10 percent)
Band D: Exemption rate.

Also, I would keep a log of transactions and produce visual aids, such as graphs, using a sample of the data and make predictions.

I'm sure if the current system was researched into deep enough, looking at it from an economist point of view rather than a technical point of view, you could effectively curb inflation and deflate the economy without constant resets.

However, I'm unsure what measures you ARE already taking, so I can't say you're not looking into it deeply either way.

the correct term is progressive tax, please don't confuse it with socialism.

Originally Posted by MontyPython

I disagree with this idea. Socialism's way of operation discourages success and glorifies mediocrity. If you climb up the ladder only to be taxed more heavily than your fellow player who's not working as hard as you to make money, it really kills the incentive. When everyone is essentially brought down to the same level, regardless of how hard they work, it destroys the will to work/succeed. Socialism doesn't work out well in real life, and it wouldn't work in Era.

I'm guessing you saw the word socialism and decided not to read the rest of the post.

Unless wealth is already worthless, there is always an incentive to make more money. If someone making 500,000 were taxed 20 percent, they'd have 400,000 after taxes. If someone making 1 million were taxed 25 percent, they'd have 750,000 after taxes. What was once twice has much is now 1.875 as much, which is still a considerable amount of money.

The issues you'll typically see with a progressive tax is people trying to skew the amount of money they make based on tax proportions IE, if the 20 percent scaled from 500,000 to 999,999 you'd be better off taking 999,999 instead of 1 million. This is combated by vastly reducing the tax brackets.

[MontyPython]

Originally Posted by Mark Sir Link

I'm guessing you saw the word socialism and decided not to read the rest of the post.

Unless wealth is already worthless, there is always an incentive to make more money. If someone making 500,000 were taxed 20 percent, they'd have 400,000 after taxes. If someone making 1 million were taxed 25 percent, they'd have 750,000 after taxes. What was once twice has much is now 1.875 as much, which is still a considerable amount of money.

The issues you'll typically see with a progressive tax is people trying to skew the amount of money they make based on tax proportions IE, if the 20 percent scaled from 500,000 to 999,999 you'd be better off taking 999,999 instead of 1 million. This is combated by vastly reducing the tax brackets.

No, I read the rest of the post. Call it what you will, it still resonates with the socialistic concept. Granted, you're not all put down to the exact same level like you would be in an ideal socialistic environment, but it's edging closer.

Yes, you still have more money in the end, but you're also losing much more money. There's no reason why just because you took the time to make more money, you should be losing more money. There's other solutions rather than just forcibly removing money from people's accounts via taxation. I agree with darthSaKi's concept of having there be a more approachable way to get your foot in the door with economy. And furthermore, a tax system makes no sense in a virtual world where there's no government to make use of it.

[Mark Sir Link]

Originally Posted by MontyPython

No, I read the rest of the post. Call it what you will, it still resonates with the socialistic concept. Granted, you're not all put down to the exact same level like you would be in an ideal socialistic environment, but it's edging closer.

Yes, you still have more money in the end, but you're also losing much more money. There's no reason why just because you took the time to make more money, you should be losing more money. There's other solutions rather than just forcibly removing money from people's accounts via taxation. I agree with darthSaKi's concept of having there be a more approachable way to get your foot in the door with economy. And furthermore, a tax system makes no sense in a virtual world where there's no government to make use of it.

In one of the most capitalist regions in the world, a vast majority of economists advocate a progressive tax. Why is that if it's "socialist"?

[MontyPython]

Originally Posted by Dark_Zeratul101

Socialism glorifies mediocrity? I don't know about that, but I sure as hell know that capitalism does.

Please elaborate. Capitalism in its true form (doesn't exist currently) allows anyone with the work ethic, talent, and willpower to go as far as they wish. Socialism keeps everyone at the same level, no matter what your goals/talents may be. There's no reason to work hard when you get nothing more for it than someone who only does the bare minimum to survive. But this argument really isn't keeping in line with the thread's actual topic.

Originally Posted by Mark Sir Link

In one of the most capitalist regions in the world, a vast majority of economists advocate a progressive tax. Why is that if it's "socialist"?

One of the most? I'm assuming you're talking about America. America might still be the "most" capitalistic region, however, that's a very very relative term. We've been heading down the path to socialism for a very long time, mostly initiated back with FDR and his "New Deal" shenanigans.

With our current status and what's coming in the future, I classify America as capitalistic in name only.

But once again, this isn't really what this topic is about.

Taxes aren't a good way to remove money. It's not like real life, people might play the game for a while, then stop. Do they still get taxed? That'd be absurd. It'd be great to come back after a long break to an entirely empty bank account. In real life, you don't just take a break (unless you decide welfare is a good route for you). I could keep going, but anyways.

If you really insisted upon a tax being put into Era, the only kind that would be acceptable is a static percentage value for everyone. Obviously the richest are still losing the most money, but they're not being punished with a higher rate simply for being successful.

But let's forget taxes, just removing money for the sake of removing money doesn't solve too much. If items like guns had more upkeep costs other than ammo, it'd be a bit more realistic. Would it be annoying to have to pay to repair your gun at times? Absolutely. But taxes would also be annoying. There's that big question of how realistic do we really want a game to be? Where does the realism start ruining the fun? Changes should be made to make the economy more fair overall, but we don't want to sacrifice the fun of the game by making it some demanding, realistic high-upkeep/maintenance simulation.

[Mark Sir Link]

Originally Posted by MontyPython

Please elaborate. Capitalism in its true form (doesn't exist currently) allows anyone with the work ethic, talent, and willpower to go as far as they wish. Socialism keeps everyone at the same level, no matter what your goals/talents may be. There's no reason to work hard when you get nothing more for it than someone who only does the bare minimum to survive. But this argument really isn't keeping in line with the thread's actual topic.

As obviously indicated in posts before you, 750,000 is > than 400,000. I can't write it any simpler than that.

One of the most? I'm assuming you're talking about America. America might still be the "most" capitalistic region, however, that's a very very relative term. We've been heading down the path to socialism for a very long time, mostly initiated back with FDR and his "New Deal" shenanigans.

With our current status and what's coming in the future, I classify America as capitalistic in name only.

But once again, this isn't really what this topic is about.

Taxes aren't a good way to remove money. It's not like real life, people might play the game for a while, then stop. Do they still get taxed? That'd be absurd. It'd be great to come back after a long break to an entirely empty bank account. In real life, you don't just take a break (unless you decide welfare is a good route for you). I could keep going, but anyways.

I've never been partial to taxes in a game but there are literally no money drains on Era. The money gained by purchasing a shovel far exceeds the cost of repairing it when it breaks.

The only way Era could hope to get the economy to a stable level is either releasing more (expensive) luxury items that are worth purchasing, or implementing a tax.

If you really insisted upon a tax being put into Era, the only kind that would be acceptable is a static percentage value for everyone. Obviously the richest are still losing the most money, but they're not being punished with a higher rate simply for being successful.

But let's forget taxes, just removing money for the sake of removing money doesn't solve too much. If items like guns had more upkeep costs other than ammo, it'd be a bit more realistic. Would it be annoying to have to pay to repair your gun at times? Absolutely. But taxes would also be annoying. There's that big question of how realistic do we really want a game to be? Where does the realism start ruining the fun? Changes should be made to make the economy more fair overall, but we don't want to sacrifice the fun of the game by making it some demanding, realistic high-upkeep/maintenance simulation.

I still don't see where you're going with this punishment for being successful argument since the fact of the matter is, if you're earning more money, you will retain more money regardless of what you are taxed.

I don't even have to mention that most of the people near the top of the wealth charts have obtained their wealth by fraudulent means, or that the economy is virtually non-existent and wealth has no value because as best I can tell, a majority of the top tier items were either given to friends by staff members or duplicated by bug abuse.

Unless there's a store somewhere selling these high end guns that I'm completely unaware of.

[MontyPython]

Originally Posted by Mark Sir Link

As obviously indicated in posts before you, 750,000 is > than 400,000. I can't write it any simpler than that.


I've never been partial to taxes in a game but there are literally no money drains on Era. The money gained by purchasing a shovel far exceeds the cost of repairing it when it breaks.

The only way Era could hope to get the economy to a stable level is either releasing more (expensive) luxury items that are worth purchasing, or implementing a tax.


I still don't see where you're going with this punishment for being successful argument since the fact of the matter is, if you're earning more money, you will retain more money regardless of what you are taxed.

I don't even have to mention that most of the people near the top of the wealth charts have obtained their wealth by fraudulent means, or that the economy is virtually non-existent and wealth has no value because as best I can tell, a majority of the top tier items were either given to friends by staff members or duplicated by bug abuse.

I never said you wouldn't retain more money, but you're also losing more money than you should be. If you have a fixed percentage tax, the richer person still will lose more money than the poorer. But why you should increase the amount they are taxed simply because they have more money, that makes no sense to me. That is punishment for succeeding. It's a short-sighted, poor way to remove money from an economy. Will it throw you, the rich player, into an immediate economic down-spiral that results in your own demise? Of course not. But will it be a discouraging factor? It should be.

As for the dislike of taxes in games - good, we agree on something. I already said that you could introduce gun repairs/upkeep. That's the biggest problem, really. Once something's released, it never decays or breaks. So it's always at maximum, peak value. The only way to lessen its value is to release more. You could stabilize the economy a bit by having all weapons available from shops at all times. That would ensure the player market doesn't get out of control, but it'd also pretty much kill the player market in general. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your own opinion/dealings with the player market.

Yeah, a lot of money/items have been spawned or obtained through fraudulent means. Shouldn't mean we just tolerate it and tax them more heavily. There are some legitimate rich players, they shouldn't have to suffer just because it's assumed that everyone that is rich cheated. And besides, there shouldn't be any kind of spawning/glitch abuse that goes unpunished or unaddressed. Obviously that's something that happens much more frequently because the server's staff is drawn from the player-base. It's getting better, from what I'm seeing. It'll never completely die out, especially on a server like Era....but still.