Progressive Taxation / Econ Suggestions

[Dubayoo]

in most alliances a person's income generally comes from grants for cities, infra, and improvements early on, a regressive tax allows an alliance to more easily recoup their investment in new players, which is key especially in a style of game where many people go in active early on, this way the alliance could still let them sit on their aa while they recoup their investment. and when they become more self sufficient and less dependent on your alliance, you get less of your money being taken via taxes so you can fund yourself rather than other players who may or may not stick around

 

and this wouldnt affect money taken by raiding or trading on the market, which is fitting because it is money and resources the person has had to work for and gotten themselves.

 

Yea, but you can recoup your investment anyway by kicking them from your alliance and periodically raiding them.  Just raid them the instant they're kicked, and keep an eye on the beige clock.  A regressive tax in itself will discourage players from remaining active since they have to pay more from how they function.  They'll also anticipate they're being exploited by upper tier players who aren't taxed as much.

[Felkey]

Yea, but you can recoup your investment anyway by kicking them from your alliance and periodically raiding them.  Just raid them the instant they're kicked, and keep an eye on the beige clock.  A regressive tax in itself will discourage players from remaining active since they have to pay more from how they function.  They'll also anticipate they're being exploited by upper tier players who aren't taxed as much.

there is a diminishing return on raids, not to mention you can only do 3 raids at a time (essentially 3 raids a week at most), and it makes it more likely they will be raided by other people therefore further ruining your investment. it wont discourage them from remaining active because they would still get the money they need from the alliance, but it would also force them to interact with the alliance to get their money back and allowing other, more experienced players to guide them, instead of them blowing their money on dumb shit

[Dubayoo]

As an alliance though, the diminishing returns really aren't a problem.  It's not like you're raiding others regularly anyway.  You have plenty of opportunity to do so from having active yet unoccupied members.  Likewise, as long as you keep your timing updated, there shouldn't be anytime at all for others to interject.  If they do, you can always counter them as well.  

 

Obviously, the grants and interactions with experienced members keep them motivated, but the fact is a bigger tax is a bigger tax.  I'm not saying you would lose every newcomer, but your rate of retention would definitely decrease.  Your grant program should give them instructions anyway so they don't blow the resources away.

 

The biggest consideration towards newcomer retention is rigorous vetting in any case.  Regressive taxes will discourage candidates from seeking you out.  You could try it, but it'd definitely make people think twice about joining.

 

Heck, you could try it out now if you wanted.  Just created a protectorate that you subsidize which contains new recruits, increase the tax rate in it compared to your main alliance, and see what people think about paying more taxes compared to the rate of the main alliance.

[Felkey]

As an alliance though, the diminishing returns really aren't a problem.  It's not like you're raiding others regularly anyway.  You have plenty of opportunity to do so from having active yet unoccupied members.  Likewise, as long as you keep your timing updated, there shouldn't be anytime at all for others to interject.  If they do, you can always counter them as well.  

 

Obviously, the grants and interactions with experienced members keep them motivated, but the fact is a bigger tax is a bigger tax.  I'm not saying you would lose every newcomer, but your rate of retention would definitely decrease.  Your grant program should give them instructions anyway so they don't blow the resources away.

 

The biggest consideration towards newcomer retention is rigorous vetting in any case.  Regressive taxes will discourage candidates from seeking you out.  You could try it, but it'd definitely make people think twice about joining.

 

Heck, you could try it out now if you wanted.  Just created a protectorate that you subsidize which contains new recruits, increase the tax rate in it compared to your main alliance, and see what people think about paying more taxes compared to the rate of the main alliance.

The thing is, if smaller players allowed themselves to be taxed they would essentially allow for further expansion of grants, so im not sure if it would decrease the retention rate because they would have the promise of even faster growth, because not only would alliances have their standard tax rate for self sufficient members, but the members receiving most of the benefits would be putting in more money. essentially, the money they pay in, would be returned to them anyways, the benefit of such a system would be to farm anyone who goes inactive to return any previous investment. it would also make upper tier players happier as it is very difficult to give them benefits, but you would be able to lower taxes on them allowing them to grow faster as well.

 

you can give people all the instructions you want (and even when you do there will always be those that ignore them), but generally, the best way to get them to learn is to get them to come to the community hub whether it be discord or slack or whatever so they can learn from other players, it tends to cut down on silly spending and as a side effect gets them more involved in the alliance from the outset. i have already considered using a micro farm, down side is you essentially have to run two alliances which can be an absolute pain in the ass,

[Dubayoo]

The thing is, if smaller players allowed themselves to be taxed they would essentially allow for further expansion of grants, so im not sure if it would decrease the retention rate because they would have the promise of even faster growth, because not only would alliances have their standard tax rate for self sufficient members, but the members receiving most of the benefits would be putting in more money. essentially, the money they pay in, would be returned to them anyways, the benefit of such a system would be to farm anyone who goes inactive to return any previous investment. it would also make upper tier players happier as it is very difficult to give them benefits, but you would be able to lower taxes on them allowing them to grow faster as well.

 

you can give people all the instructions you want (and even when you do there will always be those that ignore them), but generally, the best way to get them to learn is to get them to come to the community hub whether it be discord or slack or whatever so they can learn from other players, it tends to cut down on silly spending and as a side effect gets them more involved in the alliance from the outset. i have already considered using a micro farm, down side is you essentially have to run two alliances which can be an absolute pain in the ass,

 

I can see that making sense if you have new members who recruit more members to give them a direct sense of paying it forward.  Most players aren't recruiters by nature though, so this would have to be complemented with further encouragement.  The real issue regarding transfer payments is that the majority of your active members are going to be average to upper tier members due to the nature of long-term commitment, so in reality, the majority of your income to support grant programs will come from them.  This isn't like in real life where the majority of your populace is lower class due to the nature of inequality.  

 

I suppose if you have an alliance with a couple hundred members and your recruitment rate is very low, then, you could depend on lower tier members to pay enough resources to afford grants for the low number of recruits (and I'm saying this because I'm guessing your newer players makes a few hundred thousand Dollars and a few hundred resources per day while you provide a couple dozen million Dollars and a few thousand in resources in city grants).  Otherwise, you'd have to have an even larger alliance to support a faster rate of recruitment.  

 

As for instructions, you can always test new recruits before giving them access to grants.  I remember HBE actually did this when I joined on their forum, and it was a good idea.  They had an outline for how grant resources were supposed to be spent, and you had to pass a test to show you read and understood the outline.

 

I agree that running a secondary alliance can be a pain too.  You should probably have a member of internal affairs lower government be the leader.  That would give exposure to how government works too.

[Ole]

This is sugested every few months, and always shot down in the end by the same argument.

It would make tax farming noobs and inactives alot easier.

While I dont agree, im just saying. Sheepy dosent want new members to join a tax farm immiately after signing up.

Like i did. (thanks Clarke -.-)

[Felkey]

This is sugested every few months, and always shot down in the end by the same argument.

It would make tax farming noobs and inactives alot easier.

While I dont agree, im just saying. Sheepy dosent want new members to join a tax farm immiately after signing up.

Like i did. (thanks Clarke -.-)

I know, he always shoots down tax brackets in general :'(

[ComradeMilton]

IRL, regressive taxes motivate people to become more wealthy by saying they pay less if they earn more.  lol. You think the poor just don't want to become wealthy? Regressive taxation is far more effective in making everyone put in their fair share. The kinds of people you're talking about don't pay taxes already.

 

IG, that doesn't make sense because earnings only have extrinsic value in how you compare against other players' power.  If you're in an alliance, you're not supposed to be comparing extrinsic value against fellow alliance members.  You're supposed to be comparing it against other alliances.  In an alliance, the alliance and its members decide what they will and won't do. Not you.

 

Hence, progressive taxes should be used IG instead to maximize cooperative extrinsic value against other alliances. Or you could just let people play they want to play.

[Lilac Veritas]

as durmij said in another thread, I'm definitely getting the impression that Argotitan is like a captain vietnam reroll or something, or maybe they're just the same annoying breed of troll

--

Now regardless of the irl merits of regressive, flat, or progressive tax rates, or whether its better in the middle cause we have brackets, I'm sure we can all agree that more freedom to set rates on alliances is a good thing, as this suggestion has come up many, many times before

[Dubayoo]

 

lol. You think the poor just don't want to become wealthy? Regressive taxation is far more effective in making everyone put in their fair share. The kinds of people you're talking about don't pay taxes already.

 

In an alliance, the alliance and its members decide what they will and won't do. Not you.

 

Or you could just let people play they want to play.

 

I think we live in a world where people care about what's sufficient rather than what's excellent.  That attitude changes under a regressive tax system where you get rewarded for changing your mind.

 

The remainder of the conversation was about discussing strategy in light of the current system.

[Dubayoo]

as durmij said in another thread, I'm definitely getting the impression that Argotitan is like a captain vietnam reroll or something, or maybe they're just the same annoying breed of troll

--

Now regardless of the irl merits of regressive, flat, or progressive tax rates, or whether its better in the middle cause we have brackets, I'm sure we can all agree that more freedom to set rates on alliances is a good thing, as this suggestion has come up many, many times before

 

1) I've no idea who that guy is.  

 

2) I'm getting the impression that like durmij, you just don't like what I have to say, so you see what you want to and jump to conclusions.  It seems more like you two are trolls and are just projecting to avoid having your trolling identified for what it is.

 

3) That was never being disputed.

[ComradeMilton]

I think we live in a world where people care about what's sufficient rather than what's excellent.  That attitude changes under a regressive tax system where you get rewarded for changing your mind.

 

The remainder of the conversation was about discussing strategy in light of the current system.

No one changes their mind. Regressive taxation is absolutely stupid. IRL or in-game regressive taxation is an error.

[Dubayoo]

No one changes their mind. Regressive taxation is absolutely stupid. IRL or in-game regressive taxation is an error.

 

Mate, I'd take you to be more open-minded than that.

 

You're coming off as some fatalist anti-intellectual there who's dogmatically stuck in his ways.