Guild Wars 2

Essence Snow.3194:

It would be increased for more than a few, it would encompass the top percent (what amount idk…that’s open to analysis). I think you’d be amazed at how much that would actually amount to. Somewhat like in rl where the top few percent control the vast majority. JS has those numbers and though I doubt he’d be willing to share.

So ideally, which percentage of the weekly trading volume should be extra taxed by an additional 15%?

Well ofc idk that. That would be totally dependent on data that JS has.

Which data exactly?
You just said I would be amazed at how much the top percent actually amount to, so you obviously have a figure in your head. I know that we dont know exact numbers of the overall trading value but that is irrelevant, if you just have to name a percentage.

For starters the same type of data that they shared with us at the beginning of the game would help to give a range. If I had to guestimate it (which is by no means anything other than just that) 10-15%.

Ok, lets go with 15%.

Now we have to estimate, how efficient a gold sink the tp is.
Lets assume 1000g are generated by the whole player base in a week.
We know that all gold sinks in game combined dont drain all gold out of the economy, otherwise there wouldnt be any inflation at all.
So lets say 90% of all gold gets drained again (which is, i think, a very optimistic estimate).
We also dont know, how much the tp drains compared to all gold sinks, again i will estimate optimistic and say the tp is responsible for 75% of overall gold drained.
So 900g get drained each week, and 675g are tp fees and taxes.
15% of that will be double taxed adding up to 101.25g extra gold drained which can be reallocated to rewards for the general player base.

That would be an increase of 10% gold rewards for every player but i expect my estimates of 90% gold drained overall and tp fees and taxes accounting for 75% quite high (in fact too high because with these numbers, we could only drain an additional 100g in the first place).

Feel free to do the math with other estimates.

But even if we go with 10% more gold rewards for every player from in game activities (except the tp), how do you expect this to change the status quo?
The average player will still compete for items with all the other average players, who also justz got a bump in revenue.
They still cant compete with those rich people that paid for it, so no change there.

So how exactly does the general player base benefit from a progressive tax?

We seem to be skipping over the implied assumption that an additional 15% tax on high frequency traders would only hurt the traders.

Spread and velocity would be severly damaged across all items, and this would mean lower returns for farmers, and longer wait times for listers.

The more traders competing against each other means a better economy for the normal player. Treating this extra 15% tax as a poor vs rich argument ignores the actual consequences.

Dreamslayer.7659:

The progressive tax rate in the US applies to income earned through wages which is how most of the middle class earn money.

The wealthy generally become wealthy through other mechanism which are taxed quite differently.

It is not a stretch at all to say that the progressive tax system is what keeps the middle class from becoming wealthy.

Now you can argue about whether this was the intent or just an effect but it’s been understood to be this way for most a century so we can surmise that this effect is acceptable to the people who write the tax code.

All in all, I agree with your post. I just wanted to add some clarification on two items (not necessarily directed towards you, but at the thread in general):

1. The US tax code was created about 100 years ago. It’s been amended a few times, but the basic structure is still designed around the idea that everyone is making their money off of wages. It is an antique, which is why it is having such significant negative impacts on the middle class.

2. The wealthy let their money work for them in the various markets (similar to the Trading Post in GW2). We’ve experimented with different tax rates on “capital gains” (the profit you make when selling stocks, bonds, and property) and found that if you set the rate too high (high being relative to potential profit margins), trading volume disappears and tax revenue actually declines.

If the OP’s suggestion were to be implemented, we’d see less trading overall as the players simply avoided trading into the higher brackets which would cause an increase in money supply inflation.

The goal of the Trading Post is two-fold:
A. To allow players to convert any/all items they don’t want into currency that they do want.
B. To remove currency from the game in order to limit the rate of inflation.

Any suggestion that runs counter to these goals is not going to gain any traction.

Wanze.8410:

Ok, lets go with 15%.

Now we have to estimate, how efficient a gold sink the tp is.
Lets assume 1000g are generated by the whole player base in a week.
We know that all gold sinks in game combined dont drain all gold out of the economy, otherwise there wouldnt be any inflation at all.
So lets say 90% of all gold gets drained again (which is, i think, a very optimistic estimate).
We also dont know, how much the tp drains compared to all gold sinks, again i will estimate optimistic and say the tp is responsible for 75% of overall gold drained.
So 900g get drained each week, and 675g are tp fees and taxes.
15% of that will be double taxed adding up to 101.25g extra gold drained which can be reallocated to rewards for the general player base.

That would be an increase of 10% gold rewards for every player but i expect my estimates of 90% gold drained overall and tp fees and taxes accounting for 75% quite high (in fact too high because with these numbers, we could only drain an additional 100g in the first place).

Feel free to do the math with other estimates.

But even if we go with 10% more gold rewards for every player from in game activities (except the tp), how do you expect this to change the status quo?
The average player will still compete for items with all the other average players, who also justz got a bump in revenue.
They still cant compete with those rich people that paid for it, so no change there.

So how exactly does the general player base benefit from a progressive tax?

It’s not 10-15% of total wealth……it’s 10-15% of players who control 60, 70, 80%? of wealth. So it would be a tax on that.

The status quo that I have mentioned is that simple of the current structure that remains very rng based (luck), offers poor rewards for almost all activities, has regulations in place for almost all activities (tp excluded), and is extremely focused on the tp.

For this bit (I know ya’ll will jump all over) I believe that despite increased taxes on those who it would affect, trade would not slow. It would not slow because of two reasons.

1) Increased on the bottom end increases items/gold to which is put into the tp. This in turn creates more opportunity at the high end.

2) Very bluntly avarice. Players on the top end tend to always want more. Even if taxes were increased it would still be the most profitable venture by far, thus they would continue in it. I doubt they will go from an activity that lets say makes them 1000g per week to one that makes them 200g per week because taxes took that 1000g down to 800g. I very much doubt they would forgo that 600g, not to mention that increased opportunity would probably push that original 1000g number up.

Essence Snow.3194:

It’s not 10-15% of total wealth……it’s 10-15% of players who control 60, 70, 80%? of wealth. So it would be a tax on that.

The status quo that I have mentioned is that simple of the current structure that remains very rng based (luck), offers poor rewards for almost all activities, has regulations in place for almost all activities (tp excluded), and is extremely focused on the tp.

For this bit (I know ya’ll will jump all over) I believe that despite increased taxes on those who it would affect, trade would not slow. It would not slow because of two reasons.

1) Increased on the bottom end increases items/gold to which is put into the tp. This in turn creates more opportunity at the high end.

2) Very bluntly avarice. Players on the top end tend to always want more. Even if taxes were increased it would still be the most profitable venture by far, thus they would continue in it. I doubt they will go from an activity that lets say makes them 1000g per week to one that makes them 200g per week because taxes took that 1000g down to 800g. I very much doubt they would forgo that 600g, not to mention that increased opportunity would probably push that original 1000g number up.

But you are assuming that different groups of people are the same players.
You said your progressive tax will be applied to those that pick up a certain amount of gold from the tp during a week, as an example 1000g.
You are assuming that people who pick up more than 1000g per week from the tp are the top 15% of wealthy players, which isnt the case. If you want to tax those, you cant take picked up gold from the tp as qualification.

I may grant you that the top 15% of players may control 60-80% of the wealth but that doesnt mean they are responsible for 60-80% of the trade volume, this is where your suggestion of a progressive tax fails to provide an efficient solution.

1) Well, i disagree. In my opinion, the thread of losing your listing fee after a certain amount of time will lead to a hoarding mentality, so overall the percentage of any given item listed on the tp will decrease compared to the amount of items in peoples storage.
This is bad in times of high demands because price spikes will happen more quickly and severe. If a player listed an item at 3 times its current market value a year ago, it will still be listed under the status quo and help meet demand. IF that item was stored in the players storage, its not accessible, unless the player lists it. The chance of the player not being online or having left the game for good is also higher.
It also encourages regular players to sell directly instead of demanding a higher price for their items. This favours veteran tp players, who have a better understanding of markets and know at which price they can list their items and will eventually sell before the listing fee expires.

2) You think 1000g picked up on the tp equals 1000g profit which isnt the case.
A player had to acquire the items he sold first, so he had to make investments before.
Maybe he had to pay 900g to get all the items and he got 1000g back. Thats only 100g profit. If he now has to pay an additional 150g in taxes, it becomes unprofitable.
So you just punished someone, who only made 100g profit per week on the tp, which isnt your intend.
At the very least, the value of items bought on the tp should be deducted from the gold picked up to more efficiently measure profits on the tp.
So someone bought 9k gold worth of items in a week and picked up 10k gold. In that case he reaches the 1k gold barrier and subject to an extra 150g in taxes.

In theory I wouldnt have a problem with this but there are still too many flaws in there for it to work efficiently. First and foremost, the amount of gold raised by that progressive tax will be miniscule because you are not taxing 50% of the overall wealth anymore but only a fair few players who really make 1000g profit per week.

1) I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I feel that players who do not focus on trading unlist their own items after elongated periods of not selling. Since they are less focused on realized losses like a focus tp player.
2) I already acknowledged that as an issue. This was by no means a finished suggestion, merely a starting point. That means that it can and should be improved upon to accommodate for things such as this. That’s standard methodology.

Essence Snow.3194:

1) I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I feel that players who do not focus on trading unlist their own items after elongated periods of not selling. Since they are less focused on realized losses like a focus tp player.
2) I already acknowledged that as an issue. This was by no means a finished suggestion, merely a starting point. That means that it can and should be improved upon to accommodate for things such as this. That’s standard methodology.

Well, suggestions for progressive taxes have been made before and failed to address this.
So i dont see why you should suggest it again without further improvement.

There is a very toxic environment here were several posters are relentless in their attempts to stifle anything regarding change or other player concerns.

Why not be just as relentless in keeping these open to discussion? You know..an eye for an eye.

Here’s the thing, the status quo is the status quo for a reason, and that reason is that it is accomplishing its goal and a better way has not presented itself. Unless you can provide a good reason for change the status quo it will remain the status quo.

All of the suggestions for a progressive tax lack one thing: a reason why ArenaNet should commit resources to implementing the change. You can debate the methodology of implementation until the game shuts down, but if you cannot provide a good reason for changing the status quo then all of that debate was simply wasted time.

mtpelion.4562:

Here’s the thing, the status quo is the status quo for a reason, and that reason is that it is accomplishing its goal and a better way has not presented itself. Unless you can provide a good reason for change the status quo it will remain the status quo.

All of the suggestions for a progressive tax lack one thing: a reason why ArenaNet should commit resources to implementing the change. You can debate the methodology of implementation until the game shuts down, but if you cannot provide a good reason for changing the status quo then all of that debate was simply wasted time.

Imagine if we took that stance for everything. Yikes that scary! No reason to improve on a bad thing if it works. We’d never get anywhere.

Essence Snow.3194:

Imagine if we took that stance for everything. Yikes that scary! No reason to improve on a bad thing if it works. We’d never get anywhere.

That isn’t what I said.

You haven’t actually shown that your suggestion is an improvement, which is why the currently working system will remain in place.

Did I not mention the efficiency of the sink? Thought I did.

Essence Snow.3194:

Did I not mention the efficiency of the sink? Thought I did.

I pointed out how your idea was actually less efficient than the status quo, due to the fact that a higher tax will result in less trade volume.

Your percentage per transaction would be higher, but the overall reduction in the number of transactions would lead to a net reduction in gold being sunk (similar to the same concept in play that has occurred 3 times over the history of the capital gains tax in the US where tax revenue in total went down after capital gains taxes were increased because people simply stopped engaging in taxable behavior).

Essence Snow.3194:

Did I not mention the efficiency of the sink? Thought I did.

Its not very efficient in terms of applying it to the type of players you want.
IF your goal is just to add a new gold sink, there are easier ways to do it.

That’s an assumption just as mine is one that it would be higher due to increased potential and no alternatives available with comparable capacity. In rl trading slows b/c there are other options with relative potential. Here we simple don’t have those options.

Wanze.8410:

Essence Snow.3194:

Did I not mention the efficiency of the sink? Thought I did.

Its not very efficient in terms of applying it to the type of players you want.
IF your goal is just to add a new gold sink, there are easier ways to do it.

It’s not the only purpose. It also gives more of a balance/equality sense, while not changing things that much.

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s an assumption just as mine is one that it would be higher due to increased potential and no alternatives available with comparable capacity. In rl trading slows b/c there are other options with relative potential. Here we simple don’t have those options.

If you raise the taxes on the wealthy, they will simply sit on their money to avoid paying the taxes. They can afford to do this, as they are wealthy.

They’ll still engage in some highly profitable transactions, but just enough to come up to the tax line without going over it.

They got wealthy by playing smart. If you raise the taxes they’ll just find a new way to play smart.

My assumption is based on multiple historical models where governments instituted progressive tax rates. It turns out that smart behavior is very predictable. It’s the irrational behavior that you can’t predict.

Like I noted……comparative alternatives are not available in this game. The ones this would be effecting are way way past necessity. They don’t continue to amass wealth for any other reason than they like doing it. I contend for that same reason they will continue to do so via the exact same means that would still remain the most productive.

Also to note that it is completely possible for anet to increase liquidibility (how in the world is that spelt?) via other means.

Essence Snow.3194:

I’ll keep it simple and suggest 2 things.

1) Progressive Taxation~ The more you make from the trading post the more you pay in taxes.
example) If a player makes 100g in a week, they pay 15% like we currently do. If they make 1k g a week, they pay 30%.

What would this accomplish?

Essence Snow.3194:

Imagine if we took that stance for everything. Yikes that scary! No reason to improve on a bad thing if it works. We’d never get anywhere.

To quote JS

John Smith.4610:

I’m not sure we’ve all agreed that’s a problem.

John Smith.4610:

I don’t agree. The best result for the game and therefor the best result for ArenaNet is for the markets to work as efficiently as possible (usually). Fortunately, the nature of the trading post provides a lot of natural force for markets to work efficiently. While nothing is 100% perfect, the large majority of every part of the game’s economy runs incredibly efficiently and we put a lot of effort into making sure that they remain that way.

That’s not having the effect you want it too. It shines a negative light on him.

What part of “the large majority of every part of the game’s economy runs incredibly efficiently” sounds bad?

Your preexisting biases are what’s causing you to see negativity in John’s quotes. For those of us who understand economies and businesses, we see a well mannered employee trying to explain complicated concepts to laymen.

If you can’t figure it out I can’t help you, besides I think we both know you’re a bit beyond that.

Essence Snow.3194:

I’ll keep it simple and suggest 2 things.

1) Progressive Taxation~ The more you make from the trading post the more you pay in taxes.
example) If a player makes 100g in a week, they pay 15% like we currently do. If they make 1k g a week, they pay 30%.

2) Listing Time Limits~ After a set amount of time your listing is returned to you.
example) After 3 months of not selling items are returned to the sender minus the listing fee, which is kept as a carrying fee.

Too much like real-world govt interference. The last thing the TP needs is MORE realism. I’m all for your system if there is a welfare system that redistributes those taxes for those of us who make less than 100g a week.

Essence Snow.3194:

If you can’t figure it out I can’t help you, besides I think we both know you’re a bit beyond that.

Dont give up OP. It is hard to come at the TP forums with a good idea. Most people that read this section of the forum only want to keep the system they way it is now to keep flipping stuff and dont care about if it is good for the game as a whole or not. It is the same as go to the (insert FoTM broken class here) section as for a needed nerf, the players using it will complain and use bad argumentation to keep their broken build running.