[Trading Card Dev Idea] Tax Trades

[Racoda]

Currently, the cards game has a very easy way to generate bank (junking cards). The “tap” is very generous, but there is no corresponding, balanced “sink”.
Existing sinks are gifting and deck expansion (deck expansion being the biggest and not really commonly used – but that's a discussion for another thread).

I propose adding a third one: a tax on all sales. With the removal of TCALS, this would ensure that high value transactions (whether real, transfers or inflations) would carry an obligatory cost (name it what you want, tax or “artwork transportation fee” for additional lore). Of course, the tax would be proportional to the sale amount, say 10%~15%.

Consequences: mandatory sink, inflations are nerfed, a TCALS replacement for bank transfers, flipping isn't as profitable

The 10%~15% are obviously just off the top of my head, it doesn't have to be that high.

In what concerns implementation details, I think the most intuitive would be to include the tax in the price listed on the market. In other words, the buyer pays the price displayed, but the seller only gets 90%~85% of that.

Auction Fees as a deterrent to runaway inflation in card game.

viewtopic.php?p=38796370#p38796370

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

The difference is of course this tax is linear, not progressive, which would make it easier for players to calculate/eyeball in a tense auction. Additionally, it's not tied to junk value, which I see as a plus.

[Flanderlion]

I fully agree. Think it's a good solution (paired with slightly rejigging MV formula) to fixing the rampant inflation cards has at present.

[Bawkie]

I can agree with this idea, maybe it could deincentivise inflation through the costs incurred

[Islands Of Ventro]

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

[Imperium Anglorum]

Gold sinks are normal in inflating games. Balancing would be needed to maintain a relatively constant money supply. Because there are no interest rates to do it, the only remaining mechanism is fiscal policy.

[Panagouge]

I think that 5% is a more reasonable, and affordable, tax. A possible addition is that cards below a certain range, such as 2 MV or whatever you feel, don't get taxed as they are clearly not in demand on the market. It won't take long for inflated cards to become taxed.

[Fauzjhia]

its not an uninteresting idea

if someone try to inflated a cards, they'll lose 10% of the bank they use.
but is it worth punishing every other players by taking 10% of their (gains)

[Islands Of Ventro]

Just spitballing here but what about taxing the rich

The higher the bank the more tax

.1 bank = 0%
1 bank = 5%
10 bank = 10%
100 bank = 15%

With the spaces in between being the in between percentages
(Example: 5 bank = 7.5%)

My percentages are most likely of and there is most likely a better ratio out there for this idea (I just used up by 5 cause it was easy)

I feel like this will remove the problem of inflation snd not punish the newer players to the game


Feedback?

[Flanderlion]

Just spitballing here but what about taxing the rich

The higher the bank the more tax

.1 bank = 0%
1 bank = 5%
10 bank = 10%
100 bank = 15%

With the spaces in between being the in between percentages
(Example: 5 bank = 7.5%)

My percentages are most likely of and there is most likely a better ratio out there for this idea (I just used up by 5 cause it was easy)

I feel like this will remove the problem of inflation snd not punish the newer players to the game


Feedback?

Sometimes simple is best. I initially favoured the progressive tax system for this, but a flat 10% on a common sold at junk value is 0 tax. Only things sold for 0.05 or higher would have tax as lower would be rounded to 0. Players selling for small amounts would pay a small amount, while players selling for hundreds of bank would pay a larger total with the same 10% tax.

[9003]

A flat 10% seems most reasonable
Let's take a peek at some random cards on the market right now to see how reasonable it would be



LEGENDARY
Pogaria 13.00 - 13.06 spread with 1.30 in tax
The Bunny Herd 0.01- 0.02 spread with 0 in tax (with rounding)
Vereinigt Amerikan Reich 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 spread with 100 bank in tax (ouch but also no card has ever had a "true" market value close to 1,000 out side of transfers.

A 10% flat tax (with rounding) seems fair to me

[Odinburgh]

So the collection of taxes, what would that go towards to?

[Frisbeeteria]

So the collection of taxes, what would that go towards to?

Paying for the 'printing' of cards ... fees maintaining the marketplace ... etc. Mostly, reducing the amount of Bank in circulation. We've been "printing money" for years now with no checks balances. We're trying to correct that.

Just to let you know that this is a fine idea that we've been kicking around backstage for several weeks now. Some variant is likely to be included in the next round of MV adjustment tools.

[9003]

So the collection of taxes, what would that go towards to?

Paying for the 'printing' of cards ... fees maintaining the marketplace ... etc. Mostly, reducing the amount of Bank in circulation. We've been "printing money" for years now with no checks balances. We're trying to correct that.

Just to let you know that this is a fine idea that we've been kicking around backstage for several weeks now. Some variant is likely to be included in the next round of MV adjustment tools.

Slight threadjack but relevant to this comment. The current MV rejigger (the technical term) is incredibly slow, outside of cards that clear the marketplace. Mostly shown by my useful collection https://www.nationstates.net/page=deck/ ... 1?start=50 that shows many 0.00 cards even though a while back admin said they would be fixed automatically. Just so the team is aware that if we do a sweeping recalculation of MV the current method of forcing a recalculation is slow and cumbersome.

[Frisbeeteria]

The current MV rejigger is incredibly slow,

Sorry, pal, but we can't use your enormous deck as a timing standard. As I've told you privately, your deck is too big for our servers. It's 10 times the nearest competitor. I'm not at all surprised that it causes you timing problems that wouldn't affect anyone else. Not being mean, just stating the facts.

[9003]

The current MV rejigger is incredibly slow,

Sorry, pal, but we can't use your enormous deck as a timing standard. As I've told you privately, your deck is too big for our servers. It's 10 times the nearest competitor. I'm not at all surprised that it causes you timing problems that wouldn't affect anyone else. Not being mean, just stating the facts.

That tracks, I didn’t know if the rejigger picked decks or went card by card

[Odinburgh]

So the collection of taxes, what would that go towards to?

Paying for the 'printing' of cards ... fees maintaining the marketplace ... etc. Mostly, reducing the amount of Bank in circulation. We've been "printing money" for years now with no checks balances. We're trying to correct that.

Just to let you know that this is a fine idea that we've been kicking around backstage for several weeks now. Some variant is likely to be included in the next round of MV adjustment tools.

Sounds good to me.

[All Wild Things]

I'm curious as to how low-value trades would be taxed.
If I'm selling a common for 0.01 or 0.02, for example.
If tax were 10%, then would it be applied to individual trades under 0.10?
Or would there need to be an additional stat that would track the fractions of a cent still owed?

As an aside, and not likely significant, but the tax rate may affect "bank transfers" too.
At present, I can gift a card to my main, and have my main junk the card. Its risk free, but only 50% of the JV generated by my puppet gets transferred.
If I try and transfer by selling cards from my main, there is a risk of heist. So I can transfer (100 - probability of heist)% of bank to my main.
The new calculation would be (100 - probability of heist - tax). If this gets close to 50%, it stops being worth doing those type of transfers, and better to do the risk free.

[Bawkie]

I think a 10% rate would be fine but should only apply to trades of 10 or above. This would still allow lower trades and small transfers to remain untaxed.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm curious as to how low-value trades would be taxed.

We're looking at something like a 'luxury tax' rather than a flat rate.

As an aside, and not likely significant, but the tax rate may affect "bank transfers" too.

Bank transfers are a major problem as it is. We're absolutely not going to look for a way to reward puppetmasters who use a feeder network to bulk up their main nation. The entire TCALS system was an attempt to cut down on those, and that's still a goal. We don't want them to be risk free.

[All Wild Things]

I'm curious as to how low-value trades would be taxed.

We're looking at something like a 'luxury tax' rather than a flat rate.

As an aside, and not likely significant, but the tax rate may affect "bank transfers" too.

Bank transfers are a major problem as it is. We're absolutely not going to look for a way to reward puppetmasters who use a feeder network to bulk up their main nation. The entire TCALS system was an attempt to cut down on those, and that's still a goal. We don't want them to be risk free.

Ta
Another area affected will be card "dropping" as described here:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=511875
I guess that in those cases, the nation doing the "drop" will have to figure tax into their calculation too
There's probably other implications, but not sure what.

[Coffin-Breathe]

Well, there´s another problem no one still seem to have mentioned : a fixed "tax" of, let´s say, 10% (rounded) for card transactions of at least 1.00 (on the market) would be a good idea, but does not really solve the problem of "inflating"; when I was watching cards and market, I´ve seen some players (tobixland, for example) already "preparing" for such a step by trying to amass vast ammounts of "random unsuspicious otherwise relatively worthless" cards for later inflation. If now such a "tax" will appear, it doesn´t tackle them much, because they only have to inflate one card (and pay the "taxes" for it) to gain the fifty- or hundredfold revenue in "deck value".
This tactic, though legal, not only deprives the market of such cards (before), but also makes (like every "inflation") it almost impossible for "casual" or "little" players (collectors) to get such a card through auction; and, since of course it´s a "tactic", only "big farmers" with incredible ammount of bank and (usually) lots of puppets and "unpaid deck space on their main" can really hope to succeed in doing so, this practice can´t be stopped without also handling the problem of "overstocking".
As adressed here : viewtopic.php?f=42&t=512144

[Fauzjhia]

I'm curious as to how low-value trades would be taxed.

We're looking at something like a 'luxury tax' rather than a flat rate.

As an aside, and not likely significant, but the tax rate may affect "bank transfers" too.

Bank transfers are a major problem as it is. We're absolutely not going to look for a way to reward puppetmasters who use a feeder network to bulk up their main nation. The entire TCALS system was an attempt to cut down on those, and that's still a goal. We don't want them to be risk free.

I do believe in a certain luxury taxes to limit the inflation problem, its been a problem, only made worst by abolishing pull events.
but if I may ask a question, what's the risk you want to be associated with transfers ? If I read this well, I doubt you want to abolish them totally

Well, there´s another problem no one still seem to have mentioned : a fixed "tax" of, let´s say, 10% (rounded) for card transactions of at least 1.00 (on the market) would be a good idea, but does not really solve the problem of "inflating"; when I was watching cards and market, I´ve seen some players (tobixland, for example) already "preparing" for such a step by trying to amass vast ammounts of "random unsuspicious otherwise relatively worthless" cards for later inflation. If now such a "tax" will appear, it doesn´t tackle them much, because they only have to inflate one card (and pay the "taxes" for it) to gain the fifty- or hundredfold revenue in "deck value".
This tactic, though legal, not only deprives the market of such cards (before), but also makes (like every "inflation") it almost impossible for "casual" or "little" players (collectors) to get such a card through auction; and, since of course it´s a "tactic", only "big farmers" with incredible ammount of bank and (usually) lots of puppets and "unpaid deck space on their main" can really hope to succeed in doing so, this practice can´t be stopped without also handling the problem of "overstocking".
As adressed here : viewtopic.php?f=42&t=512144

I don,t believe limiting deck capacity like you suggest is ever going to happen

and I'm curious to see what is your definition of (big farmers) whose a big farmer.


EDIT :
as Vylixan mention, people who over capacity have no choice but to use transfer to fund themselves. thanks to very heavy deck capacity cost.
yeah I understand there are SOME players who take cards collecting to a ridiculous like 9003, but those are not that many

Mikeswill has 46,291 cards.
Giovanniland has 19,593 cards.
Koem Kab has 23,760 cards.
9003 has 276,202 cards.
Frisbeeteria has 24,155 cards.
BuccaRuu has 26,993 cards.

and I think there are some others but no much.

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.

[Vylixan]

I'm curious as to how low-value trades would be taxed.

We're looking at something like a 'luxury tax' rather than a flat rate.

As an aside, and not likely significant, but the tax rate may affect "bank transfers" too.

Bank transfers are a major problem as it is. We're absolutely not going to look for a way to reward puppetmasters who use a feeder network to bulk up their main nation. The entire TCALS system was an attempt to cut down on those, and that's still a goal. We don't want them to be risk free.

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.

[Panagouge]

If taxes are being introduced, and bank transfers are affected, it may be logical tangent to introduce taxed direct transfer of bank. The ability to do this would be something like five times a day to make sure we're smart about. It may also serve to get rid of at least some inflated cards. I am aware there may be a bazillion things wrong with and ways around this idea, but I believe it to be worth considering somehow.

[Coffin-Breathe]

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).