[Trading Card Dev Idea] Tax Trades

[Coffin-Breathe]

and I'm curious to see what is your definition of (big farmers) whose a big farmer.
I dislike transfer too, but I need BANK if I want to be able to pay for future deck capacity costs. these are not given.
a single nation can't easily farm 150 bank.

You, my dear, are a "big farmer", for example. Well, you and almost everyone with a "golden" artwork badge (exceptions exist, but not many), I´d say...
Btw, how high´s your bank balance on your main alone ? Around 15.000 ? Be sure to have my pity. And for sure don´t tell "how hard it is to achieve the payment for a deck space of 500 or more" for any "single nation" (which you definitely not are), because I (and everyone who "plays fair") really know(s). Especially since a "single nation" doesn´t farm...(which you seem to have forgotten)...or have need for "transfers".

[Fauzjhia]

And I never disrespected the deck limits
even take some step others might certainly not be willing to do, to stay bellow the limit, the bank I need, its to pay for future deck expansions, on my main, and on my puppets. currently I'm good, they can pay for one themselves.

Plus you forget I have multiples nations that receive no transfers, I know how long it can take for a single nation to reach 500 bank. (all beetles for exemple.)
let's see, Zophie beetles, Stop transfer its bank to Fauzjhia 240 days ago, Current bank : 54.69... so that tell us how long it take for a nation to reach 54 bank (no legends sold)


not unlike the list of nations I am going to show you, who certainly ignore the their deck limit
and they always saying an image is worth many words


now if you want to draw conclusion about having too much cards, unpaid deck capacity and etc. keep that picture.
you will notice that only like 32 players have gone over capacity (gold retriver does not take in account site supporter bonus. That why I exclude the Northern light from my count, I know they are not over-capacity even if they have 3170 cards. All other players are over capacity. and multiple have regional/rarity/flags collection
Buccaruu (all default flags), giovanniland (the west pacific), CartAgRiem021 (all uncommons), the North Pacific collection s2 (the north pacific), TSP SS2 collection (the south pacific), TalAkchen and destructive economic system (ex-nations), Mara jade-skywalker (all rare s1), Lauds Epics (epics), Karen Matheson (ultra-rare s1), an actual hurricane (ultra-rare s2)

you have 1 guys who really have too much cards, its 9003 with 276 235 cards. then a bunch of people who has more then 10 000, but that,s not a lot of players.

[Xoriet]

not unlike the list of nations I am going to show you, who certainly ignore the their deck limit
and they always saying an image is worth many words

Are you saying I have more cards than my deck limit? That's kind of odd, since I pay for all of my expansions and have less than current capacity at the moment because my next purchase is going to be painful for limited bank. The only time I was over my deck limit was when Cards first came back and I had all my cards from the first April Fools event.

[Luna Amore]

That why I exclude the Northern light from my count, I know they are not over-capacity even if they have 3170 cards. All other players are over capacity.

You should probably verify you numbers before posting, because you have me on that list as well and I am most definitely not over capacity. 1455/2800

[Giovanniland]

So is one of the goals to punish people for large collections? Like region collectors? Because they are forced to use bank transfers because of the ridiculous deck update costs.

"Punishing people with large collections" ? I´m pretty sure, you won`t find many "people with large collections" and sufficient "paid space". And furthermore someone has to ask, how do those "large collections" have come into existence in the first place, if not by "big farming", "TACLS abusement" and other "half-legal" and unfair practices ?
Imo, "overstocking" is not mainly a problem of large "real" collections, but more of hoarding and amassing countless cards for other purposes (ie, for MV ranking), and therefore should be able to been solved by excluding "large collections" from the whole market or at least parting the DV-value ranking (in "paid space" and "unpaid space" rankings).

Any collection, including yours, are affected by mass farming. Perhaps if it weren't by many people farming, some of the cards you own would never have been found and sold to you. Farming has long been a feature of the game, I don't think it should be one of admin's goals to restrict the generation of cards (which would make a rather boring market) but rather some of the other effects of mass farming, which is bank accumulation and inflation, that could be resolved by the topic of this thread. I don't think splitting the DV leaderboard in two according to deck capacity will solve it as much as a tax.

I think it's a sensible idea to have a luxury tax of 10% or so for large trades, the only issue to discuss is at what match value this tax starts, I'd be inclined at something between 10 and 100 so it doesn't affect most normal trades bar transfers and inflation.

[Fauzjhia]

That why I exclude the Northern light from my count, I know they are not over-capacity even if they have 3170 cards. All other players are over capacity.

You should probably verify you numbers before posting, because you have me on that list as well and I am most definitely not over capacity. 1455/2800

Gold retriever ignore Site Supporter Bonus, that's the reason why Xoriet and I have shown capacity of 750, while we certainly have over cards.

And Also, I was talking about number 1 to 33. (excluding TNP), that's who is certainly over capacity

[Frisbeeteria]

While capacity limits are part of the problem, this thread is about trade tax. Back on topic, please.

[Benevolent 1]

I like this idea, who knew taxes would turn out to be the right answer (:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=ben ... id=1566222

Posted this back in June. Its a progressive tax with a regressive factor. The regressive factor increasingly kicks in for high bank trades of low denomination cards.
Downside is it may be a bit complicated for some players. Maybe too difficult yo implement technically. ( I don't know)
Upside, it might work.

[One Small Island]

not unlike the list of nations I am going to show you, who certainly ignore the their deck limit

Remove me from the list. I am exactly at my deck limit. Please refrain from presenting lies as facts in the future.

I am fine with the idea of trades being taxed; there are other games that have inbuilt economies like the one we have with cards that have done admirable jobs of combatting inflation with taxes; and I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to do it here.

[Fauzjhia]

not unlike the list of nations I am going to show you, who certainly ignore the their deck limit

Remove me from the list. I am exactly at my deck limit. Please refrain from presenting lies as facts in the future.

I am fine with the idea of trades being taxed; there are other games that have inbuilt economies like the one we have with cards that have done admirable jobs of combatting inflation with taxes; and I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to do it here.

I swear, you just look at the picture and don't read the comments. the list does not take into account site supporter bonus for deck capacity. don,t be offended.

I would prefer a luxury taxes, but honestly. losing 10% of my transfers lost to see that artificial price manipulation you call (inflation) stopped, is not unacceptable. in fact, these inflation are actually just transfers.
I would just prefer a luxury taxes

[Coffin-Breathe]

Any collection, including yours, are affected by mass farming. Perhaps if it weren't by many people farming, some of the cards you own would never have been found and sold to you.

I think it's a sensible idea to have a luxury tax of 10% or so for large trades, the only issue to discuss is at what match value this tax starts, I'd be inclined at something between 10 and 100 so it doesn't affect most normal trades bar transfers and inflation.

While of course you´re somehow right, that farming is helpful in finding/printing cards, I´m afraid this doesn´t "affect collections" the much as you might think; most "farmers" (my personal guess), especially the ones who use scripts, are not really interested to "market" cards found by their puppets (don´t even have the time to look at them), if not alarmed by an ridiculous "oversized" bid for an otherwise rather worthless card (exceptions for legendaries and/or "very low owners/hard to get cards" may exist) and, more than this, often don´t even recognize that they are in the possession of such a "searched for" card (personal experience), even if telegrammed (via those puppets, since the main of most is unknown). As also you stated, most "farmed cards" don´t go to the market, but are (automatically) junked for accumulating bank or transfered via market to the main (which at least leads to a slim access to the card for anyone else).

As for the "match value", I´d say, starting at 1.00 (the base price for any legendary), as otherwise players will avoid to be taxed by transacting "one penny below the line". And as Frisbeetaria stated, the main purpose is to make "excessive" or "feeding" "transactions" either more risky or somehow a little bit pricey; and no one with bank(s) of thousands (or hundreds) should whine about he/she "could not afford such". And on top of this, if someone really wants to avoid the tax, he/she has to transact cards on the open market for the affordable price of 0.99 or less (supposedly big bunches of them), and I´m almost sure, some will do, which leads (imo) to a rejuvenation of the market.

[Fhaengshia]

Let’s do some arithmetic on these based on my experience as a “large farmer” (I have hundreds of puppets I farm a couple times a week).
Currently I am pretty strict in my bank transferring, I wait till a puppet has >=4.90 bank and purchase a specific common card at 4.00 bank then gift it back. I do this in batches of dozens at a time, sometimes even over 100.

Because of the cost of gifting, my loss is 0.25% of what I transfer, a very profitable rate imho.
If there is a 10% trade tax that occurs on trades 10.00 bank or over, then that doesn’t concern this and I have the same loss rate. However if it kicks in at 1.00 bank then I would have a loss ratio of 10.25%, much higher and definitely worth trying to work around. If I end up lowering my transfer rate to 0.99 my loss then is roughly 1.01%. This is 4 times worse off than current, but 10 times better than the alternative if I were to face this higher tax.
Not only this, but I would have to transfer 4x the frequency/volume I normally do to receive the same income from my puppets. Bothersome, but less of a deterrent than that big 10% tax.

Of course there could be plans that are underway to make these types of transfers more risky, if that ends up being similar to how tcals was a threat to transfers then it wouldn’t matter as much as I would welcome owning more of the card I transfer on as that helps with the problem of volume that sneaking around this tax created.

[Racoda]

If there is a 10% trade tax that occurs on trades 10.00 bank or over, then that doesn’t concern this and I have the same loss rate. However if it kicks in at 1.00 bank then I would have a loss ratio of 10.25%, much higher and definitely worth trying to work around. If I end up lowering my transfer rate to 0.99 my loss then is roughly 1.01%. This is 4 times worse off than current, but 10 times better than the alternative if I were to face this higher tax.

The tax rate could be either universal and lower (3%, 5%), or – to expand on the luxury tax idea – we could keep a higher rate and have a much lower threshold reflective of a non-transfer price (say 5×JV – so transferring below the threshold is effectively at least 20% loss due to gifting).

Rarity	Threshold
common	0.05
uncommon	0.25
rare	0.50
epic	2.50
legendary	5.0

Thus, there's a tax on transfers; a "luxury tax" on expensive cards, almost all legendary trades, and some epics.

[Apatosaurus]

As someone who has played with cards in the past, I do like this idea.

[Coffin-Breathe]

Not only this, but I would have to transfer 4x the frequency/volume I normally do to receive the same income from my puppets. Bothersome, but less of a deterrent than that big 10% tax.

Well, but at least this gives "collectors" a good chance to interfere with such "transfer" and get such usually "hoarded" and therefore hard-to-get cards at an affordable price.

[Fauzjhia]

If there is a 10% trade tax that occurs on trades 10.00 bank or over, then that doesn’t concern this and I have the same loss rate. However if it kicks in at 1.00 bank then I would have a loss ratio of 10.25%, much higher and definitely worth trying to work around. If I end up lowering my transfer rate to 0.99 my loss then is roughly 1.01%. This is 4 times worse off than current, but 10 times better than the alternative if I were to face this higher tax.

The tax rate could be either universal and lower (3%, 5%), or – to expand on the luxury tax idea – we could keep a higher rate and have a much lower threshold reflective of a non-transfer price (say 5×JV – so transferring below the threshold is effectively at least 20% loss due to gifting).

Rarity	Threshold
common	0.05
uncommon	0.25
rare	0.50
epic	2.50
legendary	5.0

Thus, there's a tax on transfers; a "luxury tax" on expensive cards, almost all legendary trades, and some epics.

Considering transfer and inflation is most commonly done using commons and uncommons, (rare/ultra-rare/epic) being rarely inflated and legendary being nearly never used in transfers... I would say, that the higher priority is those inflated commons and uncommons. (being as rare as legendary and much easier to inflate
I would suggest higher value then 5 jv, which I find a bit too low.

[Coffin-Breathe]

Btw, how about if the "tax" wouldn´t be based on every single card, but on the sum of every "transaction on the market (buys, sells, transfers)" in a certain ammount of time (5 or 10 days maybe ?)) for every nation ? And to prevent the "wise-asses" from cleaning out the bank and dismissing the (feeder) nation just before "taxing day", the "sum of tax debts" could be added to the " bank set on running/set bids", thus making "tax-avoiding transfers" and/or "buys" impossible.

[Fauzjhia]

Btw, how about if the "tax" wouldn´t be based on every single card, but on the sum of every "transaction on the market (buys, sells, transfers)" in a certain ammount of time (5 or 10 days maybe ?)) for every nation ? And to prevent the "wise-asses" from cleaning out the bank and dismissing the (feeder) nation just before "taxing day", the "sum of tax debts" could be added to the " bank set on running/set bids", thus making "tax-avoiding transfers" and/or "buys" impossible.

what is suggested here is a tax on trade.
that mean no matter when you make a trade, you will pay thy taxes
if you make 200 trade in a single or 1 trade every single day for 200, you will pay 200 taxes.
a nation would be unable to avoid the taxes.

[Vylixan]

My honest opinion.

Abolish Deck value as a measurement anywhere on the website. No leader boards, no gold badges, no stats, nothing.

Then we don't need any silly taxes.

[Flanderlion]

My honest opinion.

Abolish Deck value as a measurement anywhere on the website. No leader boards, no gold badges, no stats, nothing.

Then we don't need any silly taxes.

I mean, the tax isn't about the DV stat. It's about inflation, and hiding the stats about it doesn't remove the issue, just removes a symptom. Also third parties would just use bots to poll the site to create DV unless you removed MV of every single card, which I think at that point causes even more issues.

[Fauzjhia]

My honest opinion.

Abolish Deck value as a measurement anywhere on the website. No leader boards, no gold badges, no stats, nothing.

Then we don't need any silly taxes.

I mean, the tax isn't about the DV stat. It's about inflation, and hiding the stats about it doesn't remove the issue, just removes a symptom. Also third parties would just use bots to poll the site to create DV unless you removed MV of every single card, which I think at that point causes even more issues.

If you remove the (dv) stats, the goal of inflation, there is not point about inflation, it would be useless to inflate cards beyond their values.
having a 1000 mv card would be meaningless.

I support Vylixan's opinion,

[Flanderlion]

I mean, the tax isn't about the DV stat. It's about inflation, and hiding the stats about it doesn't remove the issue, just removes a symptom. Also third parties would just use bots to poll the site to create DV unless you removed MV of every single card, which I think at that point causes even more issues.

If you remove the (dv) stats, the goal of inflation, there is not point about inflation, it would be useless to inflate cards beyond their values.
having a 1000 mv card would be meaningless.

I support Vylixan's opinion,

Inflation is still beneficial as you can sell the cards to unsuspecting noobs for more than the cards are worth (but less than the MV of the card). End result is the unsuspecting noob has parted with their hard earned cash for a worthless card. That's my main dislike of inflation, the other bits are secondary.

[Fauzjhia]

If you remove the (dv) stats, the goal of inflation, there is not point about inflation, it would be useless to inflate cards beyond their values.
having a 1000 mv card would be meaningless.

I support Vylixan's opinion,

Inflation is still beneficial as you can sell the cards to unsuspecting noobs for more than the cards are worth (but less than the MV of the card). End result is the unsuspecting noob has parted with their hard earned cash for a worthless card. That's my main dislike of inflation, the other bits are secondary.

that's way to see it. I don't like inflated cards, but I prefer to sell the cards for 2.00 bank rather then for zero.

[Racoda]

My honest opinion.

Abolish Deck value as a measurement anywhere on the website. No leader boards, no gold badges, no stats, nothing.

Then we don't need any silly taxes.

I agree that DV is a silly metric, but IMO a tax is needed regardless of whether DV exists or not – to balance out inflation (not in the sense of high MV cards, but in the sense of nations accumulating more and more bank from an unlimited supply of junked cards). From a game design perspective, a bank sink is needed because the current one (deck upgrades) doesn't work. A tax on trades is the most obvious, universal idea, but there can of course be other ways to remove bank from circulation. Abolishing DV wouldn't accomplish that.

[Fauzjhia]

when I see that a card has reached a value of 10 000.
I can't help but to say, (inflation is out of control)

https://www.nationstates.net/page=deck/ ... _history=1

well. this change perspective. although, its only a few players who does this insane kind of trades.