Revisiting the idea of having multiple tax levels

[Greene]

As I see it, there are 5 permission levels in the alliance, and there are two tax levels. For purposes of discussion, an applicant is a sorta member, with 0% taxation. That means that to a certain degree, having multiple tax rates is possible.

 

What I'd like to see if the ability to break up taxes by permission level, with each level being able to have different rate. If I had my way, in my alliance Leader and Heirs would pay 100% taxes, Officers would pay 25% taxes, and Members would pay 15% (or something like that). I've always believed that gov should also be putting the alliance before themselves, and the tax rates would follow that. Ignoring the merits of my leadership style, what problems exist by having group-level taxation?

[Betulius]

Well the obvious issue would be people doing the opposite and setting up tax farms. The tax rates would need to be visible (at least to members) to avoid people being exploited.

[Ayayay]

The problems with this have been brought up repeatedly, quit beating a dead horse and let the idea die already.

[Greene]

The problems with this have been brought up repeatedly, quit beating a dead horse and let the idea die already.

 

I don't disagree that the problems have been brought up already, I'm merely restarting dialogue in the hopes that we can figure out a way to mitigate the problems.

[Fox Fire]

Well the obvious issue would be people doing the opposite and setting up tax farms. The tax rates would need to be visible (at least to members) to avoid people being exploited.

If people are exploited, it's their own fault for allowing it. If this suggestion is added, all members (other than applicants) should be able to see the different tax rates.

 

 

The problems with this have been brought up repeatedly, quit beating a dead horse and let the idea die already.

I don't really see any. Other than the fact that this game has enough bugs already.

[Phiney]

Its less allowing people to be exploited, more that people will keep inactives around and file them under the 100% tax group

[thePVT]

So? the new update should prevent that right?

[Fox Fire]

Its less allowing people to be exploited, more that people will keep inactives around and file them under the 100% tax group

That is a good point.

 

 

So? the new update should prevent that right?

What do you mean?

[Oppilan]

It is a great idea for a growing alliance. May be we can set up some restrictions for higher tax, like the activity level. We can go for higher tax only if the nation satisfies certain online time, which the inactive nations cannot.

 

it can be beneficial for bigger alliances, they can raise the tax of their already developed nations and lower the tax of smaller nations, an incentive to promote their growth.

[Goomy]

Perhaps it would be better to be able to set tax brackets depending on a nations income rather than their alliance rank, this way even if a smaller nation is in gov they can benefit form lower taxes like small non government nations, and vise-versa 

[PigInZen]

Both of the previous two suggestions would be helpful.  In any regard, some sort of ability to set a progressive tax structure would be fantastic.

[Pfeiffer]

Its less allowing people to be exploited, more that people will keep inactives around and file them under the 100% tax group

 

Actually, now that we have vacation mode, you could tie the two together. Anyone who doesn't log in for X days is removed from their alliance, unless they are in vacation mode. Obviously you set that number high, 30 days or something.

[Oppilan]

Actually, now that we have vacation mode, you could tie the two together. Anyone who doesn't log in for X days is removed from their alliance, unless they are in vacation mode. Obviously you set that number high, 30 days or something.

But what if someone does not want to activate vacation mode while they are away? Removing them from an alliance increases their chance of getting raided.

 

And why would anyone avoid vacation mode? because it is fixed for certain number of days (cannot use the nation before the day ends) and we don't get the revenue after every turns.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Oppilan

[Pfeiffer]

But what if someone does not want to activate vacation mode while they are away? Removing them from an alliance increases their chance of getting raided.

 

And why would anyone avoid vacation mode? because it is fixed for certain number of days (cannot use the nation before the day ends) and we don't get the revenue after every turns.

 

That's why it's called vacation mode. I'm not checking in here if I'm off on a cruise, honeymoon, opium den tour, etc.

[Oppilan]

That's why it's called vacation mode. I'm not checking in here if I'm off on a cruise, honeymoon, opium den tour, etc.

In case you don't activate vacation mode when you are on cruise, by the time you get back your nation would be filled with cash. For this reason, I think setting up tax brackets based on nations income or setting up tax brackets based on nation's online time is better.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Oppilan

[Pfeiffer]

In case you don't activate vacation mode when you are on cruise, by the time you get back your nation would be filled with cash. For this reason, I think setting up tax brackets based on nations income or setting up tax brackets based on nation's online time is better.

 

This is the exact reason brackets are BAD. You'd just put your inactive people in a 100% bracket for a couple weeks and milk them dry while not really having any obligation to defend as they'll just lose some infra you can easily rebuild with literally all of their money.

[Oppilan]

This is the exact reason brackets are BAD. You'd just put your inactive people in a 100% bracket for a couple weeks and milk them dry while not really having any obligation to defend as they'll just lose some infra you can easily rebuild with literally all of their money.

You missed the point. 100% tax is not possible if the nation is inactive. Tax bracket, if based on a nation's online time, would require that nation to be online for more than 'x' hours per day. On the other hand, if they are based on income, you cannot set 100% tax on smaller nations, smaller nation would automatically mean lower tax rate.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Oppilan

[Pfeiffer]

You missed the point. 100% tax is not possible if the nation is inactive. Tax bracket, if based on a nation's online time, would require that nation to be online for more than 'x' hours per day. On the other hand, if they are based on income, you cannot set 100% tax on smaller nations, smaller nation would automatically mean lower tax rate.

 

You're setting hypothetical restrictions on hypothetical brackets using metrics you have devised for a hypothetical scenario.

 

Cool story bro.

[Ayayay]

would require that nation to be online for more than 'x' hours per day.

Most players are casuals and likely aren't on more than an hour over the course of several days

[Oppilan]

You're setting hypothetical restrictions on hypothetical brackets using metrics you have devised for a hypothetical scenario.

 

Cool story bro.

lol May be hypothetical, but everything here is hypothetical till Sheepy thinks its a good idea.

 

 

Most players are casuals and likely aren't on more than an hour over the course of several days

Ok then how about number of log-ins in a day or any way of measuring the activity, you name it.

 

If the problem is potential abuse by taxing inactive nations, we can just add a logic to differentiate active nations from inactive nations.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Oppilan

[Betulius]

Its less allowing people to be exploited, more that people will keep inactives around and file them under the 100% tax group

 

That'd be mitigated by it being by rank rather than just generic tax brackets, wouldn't it? I mean, you could make your inactives officers or something, but that'd be weird.

 

I suppose you could make it so that nations have to accept the new tax rate or something so you can't just shove people into a 100% tax group when they go inactive. Alternatively it could take effect whenever they log in again?

[Pfeiffer]

There's no abuse by taxing them, it would simply by a way to avoid raiding ever being a real issue.

 

>Set taxes to 100%

>Members log in and request their money (up to whatever amount they're allotted

>Raiders get nothing unless they beige

 

So all that any decently large/strong alliance has to do is have people ready to smack down anyone who attempts a raid. Nothing will be gained in the first 2/3 hits that happen before a response can be made.

[vonnorman]

Vacation isnt too exciting to prevent someone from logging on once and a blue moon. The money is worth not using vacation mode. Come home from vacation and boom new city

[vonnorman]

That being said the tax brackets are a great idea, if people get taken advantage of its their own fault. If they quit playing whats wrong with their resources being farmed until theyre deleted?

[Spaceman Thrax]

I've always believed that gov should also be putting the alliance before themselves, and the tax rates would follow that. Ignoring the merits of my leadership style, what problems exist by having group-level taxation?

 

That's a very principled stand, and I salute you for it.

 

There's nothing preventing you from simply dumping all your funds into the bank, though. Do it right now! Or you can send it via my nation, so I can confirm. For your member's sake, I mean, I'd be pleased to assist.