Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
 

Wealth tax

Author
#1 - 2017-07-14 12:45:18 UTC
Since the amount of ISK in the game is going up incontrollably and the disparity between the poor and the rich keeps growing, I propose to add a progressive wealth tax, ranging from 1% to 3%.

The total wealth of a character or corporation should be calculated by taking all assets, ISK, structures and skillpoints into consideration, and then each month a wealth tax is levied.

For individuals or corporations that have under 100 million isk in net wealth, the tax is 1%.
Between 100 million and 1 billion isk, the tax is 2%.
More than 1 billion isk, the tax is 3%.

The tax is taken directly from the wallet. If the wallet does not have enough ISK, it goes into negative and the character should be prohibtied from transfering ISK or assets to someone else until the wallet is positive again.
#2 - 2017-07-14 13:38:21 UTC
zitellona wrote:
Since the amount of ISK in the game is going up incontrollably and the disparity between the poor and the rich keeps growing, I propose to add a progressive wealth tax, ranging from 1% to 3%.

The total wealth of a character or corporation should be calculated by taking all assets, ISK, structures and skillpoints into consideration, and then each month a wealth tax is levied.

For individuals or corporations that have under 100 million isk in net wealth, the tax is 1%.
Between 100 million and 1 billion isk, the tax is 2%.
More than 1 billion isk, the tax is 3%.

The tax is taken directly from the wallet. If the wallet does not have enough ISK, it goes into negative and the character should be prohibtied from transfering ISK or assets to someone else until the wallet is positive again.



A couple of things.

One... I think the idea as a whole isn't very good.

Two... even if it were a good idea, I think the "wealth discrepancy" wouldn't be addressed at all by this because of the numbers. 1 billion really isn't high-wealth in EVE. Effectively everyone is getting 1.5 billion worth of isk for just paying a sub (as that's what 1-month of game time costs in game). If you add the cost of skillpoints... (at the best rate it's 1sp = 1500 isk based on skill injectors)... a character with 700K sp is worth over a billion isk already... and characters start wtih over 400k. In a week or two every character in the game is worth over a billion isk. Essentially this would just be a 3% tax on every toon.

#3 - 2017-07-14 14:14:31 UTC
You're basically punishing people who play infrequently compared to those who play more frequently. You're also rewarding the very wealthy because most of the very wealthy in the game will have a significant amount of their wealth tied up in the markets or other places where it's A. not easily calculated into your formula, and B. not in a taxable form.

Also 1B ISK is not very much and therefore makes a terrible starting point for the highest bracket in your tax.

Overall this is neither needed nor a particularly good idea. ISK should be taxed when it does something, not for simply sitting around, since ISK that's sitting around doing nothing isn't a problem.
Caldari State
#4 - 2017-07-14 15:04:35 UTC
******* socialists.

"they have too much money, tax them more".

If it weren't so common in real life, I might be okay with it in game.
Mercenary Coalition
#5 - 2017-07-14 15:36:55 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
******* socialists.

"they have too much money, tax them more".

If it weren't so common in real life, I might be okay with it in game.

The contrast that this works in RL, not in EVE because taxes in EVE get destroyed not put back into the society.

That aside, taxing 1B ISK? 1B ISK is nothing in the world of EVE. It buys you a single T3C or Faction BS with proper fitting. Real richness is beyond 100B and even this is nothing. While your tax would destroy immense sums of ISK from the really rich, it would in particular also destroy a lot of ISK from the the EVE citizens who barely have enough to have sustainable fun.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

#6 - 2017-07-14 17:04:46 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Old Pervert wrote:
******* socialists.

"they have too much money, tax them more".

If it weren't so common in real life, I might be okay with it in game.

The contrast that this works in RL, not in EVE because taxes in EVE get destroyed not put back into the society.


It's more than that, really, in that the point of taxes in RL is to fund collectively utilized goods and services, whereas this is just some whiny space-poor complaining that other people shouldn't be allowed to have more stuff than them.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Caldari State
#7 - 2017-07-14 19:19:22 UTC
I disagree that a tax where the revenue is simply removed from the game is not providing a service.

I won't debate on the quality of the service (aka is it a good or stupid idea), but we all know about the current issue with isk faucets overflowing at the moment... soaking up some of that isk and removing it from the game would be one means of wiping out speculative inflation.

Sure the tax isn't being spent on something tangible, but the service provided in that taxation is the attempt at controlling inflation.

Assuming one were to go with a "tax the wealthy" approach, simply adding a 20% concord tax to any ratting ticks over 50m would very rapidly reduce the number of people ratting in titans and supers. Again, not debating the merit of the approach, merely the concept that it is not providing a service "in exchange".
#8 - 2017-07-14 19:27:35 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Old Pervert wrote:
I disagree that a tax where the revenue is simply removed from the game is not providing a service.

I won't debate on the quality of the service (aka is it a good or stupid idea), but we all know about the current issue with isk faucets overflowing at the moment... soaking up some of that isk and removing it from the game would be one means of wiping out speculative inflation.

Sure the tax isn't being spent on something tangible, but the service provided in that taxation is the attempt at controlling inflation.

Assuming one were to go with a "tax the wealthy" approach, simply adding a 20% concord tax to any ratting ticks over 50m would very rapidly reduce the number of people ratting in titans and supers. Again, not debating the merit of the approach, merely the concept that it is not providing a service "in exchange".


You can call it a service if you want to creatively misuse the term, but it's not something that's being funded, as with, e.g., roads, hospitals, miscellaneous civil services, etc.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Caldari State
#9 - 2017-07-14 19:44:09 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Old Pervert wrote:
I disagree that a tax where the revenue is simply removed from the game is not providing a service.

I won't debate on the quality of the service (aka is it a good or stupid idea), but we all know about the current issue with isk faucets overflowing at the moment... soaking up some of that isk and removing it from the game would be one means of wiping out speculative inflation.

Sure the tax isn't being spent on something tangible, but the service provided in that taxation is the attempt at controlling inflation.

Assuming one were to go with a "tax the wealthy" approach, simply adding a 20% concord tax to any ratting ticks over 50m would very rapidly reduce the number of people ratting in titans and supers. Again, not debating the merit of the approach, merely the concept that it is not providing a service "in exchange".


You can call it a service if you want to creatively misuse the term, but it's not something that's being funded, as with, e.g., roads, hospitals, miscellaneous civil services, etc.


If a government decides to devalue its currency, it funds the printing of more currency through the use of tax dollars. There is nothing tangibly gained (save for more currency floating around, which I would argue may as well be intangible), yet the service was provided.

Such a service could be used to improve the country's position within international trade, something China did (and possibly still does) for many years.

Just because you can't eat it, drive on it, etc, does not mean that it isn't a service being provided to the people for whom they are in governance of. A "service" loosely defined is any act for which work is done to help someone. Making their isk worth more on the market is most certainly helpful, and the act would be done by CCP implementing the tax.
#10 - 2017-07-14 20:01:02 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Old Pervert wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Old Pervert wrote:
I disagree that a tax where the revenue is simply removed from the game is not providing a service.

I won't debate on the quality of the service (aka is it a good or stupid idea), but we all know about the current issue with isk faucets overflowing at the moment... soaking up some of that isk and removing it from the game would be one means of wiping out speculative inflation.

Sure the tax isn't being spent on something tangible, but the service provided in that taxation is the attempt at controlling inflation.

Assuming one were to go with a "tax the wealthy" approach, simply adding a 20% concord tax to any ratting ticks over 50m would very rapidly reduce the number of people ratting in titans and supers. Again, not debating the merit of the approach, merely the concept that it is not providing a service "in exchange".


You can call it a service if you want to creatively misuse the term, but it's not something that's being funded, as with, e.g., roads, hospitals, miscellaneous civil services, etc.


A "service" loosely defined is any act for which work is done to help someone.


If that's what we're going with, the idiocy in the OP is literally an anti-service with respect to anyone who isn't as amazingly spacepoor as the OP (which, I imagine, is far more than a simple majority of players), particularly given that the Eve economy tends to be deflationary despite the relative difference in inflow Vs. outflow.

This is sincerely one of the most cancerously stupid ideas to ever grace F&I with its presence. Took a break from the game for a bit? Don't bother coming back. We deleted your **** to salve some imbecile's feefees.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Caldari State
#11 - 2017-07-14 20:54:35 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Old Pervert wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Old Pervert wrote:
I disagree that a tax where the revenue is simply removed from the game is not providing a service.

I won't debate on the quality of the service (aka is it a good or stupid idea), but we all know about the current issue with isk faucets overflowing at the moment... soaking up some of that isk and removing it from the game would be one means of wiping out speculative inflation.

Sure the tax isn't being spent on something tangible, but the service provided in that taxation is the attempt at controlling inflation.

Assuming one were to go with a "tax the wealthy" approach, simply adding a 20% concord tax to any ratting ticks over 50m would very rapidly reduce the number of people ratting in titans and supers. Again, not debating the merit of the approach, merely the concept that it is not providing a service "in exchange".


You can call it a service if you want to creatively misuse the term, but it's not something that's being funded, as with, e.g., roads, hospitals, miscellaneous civil services, etc.


A "service" loosely defined is any act for which work is done to help someone.


If that's what we're going with, the idiocy in the OP is literally an anti-service with respect to anyone who isn't as amazingly spacepoor as the OP (which, I imagine, is far more than a simple majority of players), particularly given that the Eve economy tends to be deflationary despite the relative difference in inflow Vs. outflow.

This is sincerely one of the most cancerously stupid ideas to ever grace F&I with its presence. Took a break from the game for a bit? Don't bother coming back. We deleted your **** to salve some imbecile's feefees.



Lol well, my first post correctly conveyed my feelings on the subject. I agree it's an utterly terrible idea... though 53 has certainly come up with worse. We kind of segued OT on the whole thing lol.
CODE.
#12 - 2017-07-14 21:29:44 UTC
A wall should be built around socialists, and they should be made to pay for it.

Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.

#13 - 2017-07-14 22:19:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Empire Raider
First of all, 1b is nothing, second, anyone keeping a lot of ISK in their wallets is doing it wrong. ISK is just like real money, if you hide it in the mattress it will only lose value, ISK has to be invested, and every wealthy player knows this. I have almost a trillion ISK in assets, and not even 5b on my wallet.

Besides, it would be very easy to dodge this system by simply moving assets and ISK to alts or corporate wallets. It would be just another broken system that doesn't do what it was intended to do, like bounties and wars.

Moreover, this is a economy centered game featuring capitalism on its most brutal form, so take your communist ideas the **** out of here.
#14 - 2017-07-15 00:12:42 UTC
Get out.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Solitaire.
#15 - 2017-07-15 13:46:18 UTC
1b is poor though, that's not even enough to Plex my account.

There are people with hundreds of billions if not trillions and multiple trillions and hundreds of trillions for the cancerous ghost trainers. Why should I get taxed because the exploited the same and broke the rules. Just ban them permanently and their isk is gone.
Tactical Narcotics Team
#16 - 2017-07-16 12:24:36 UTC
how about we:

1) pod all e-social justice warriors who feel it is their duty to level the playing field of wealth accumulation.

2) non-consensually biomass all e-communists who want to redistribute other peoples wealth.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Forum Jump