Total Purses in the SIM

[Mr. Lord Rich]

Annual Race Earnings Income Tax would be awesome
Have a sliding scale.

New Players 0% annual tax
Junior Players 2% annual tax
Intermediate Players 3% annual tax
Advanced Players 4% annual tax
Veteran Players 5% annual tax
Expert Players 6% annual tax
Partnerships 6% annual tax

The money can be pooled and used to fund all new player account opening bank roll when created along with their 2nd and 3rd supplements when they reach milestones. That way the money is not just being created out of thin air and pushed into the game, but pulled and recycled.

[Kent Saunders]

Good suggestion Pete

[Glenn Escobar]

Good suggestion Pete

Agreed!

[Laura Smith]

5- Players in favor of SIM taxation own a very, very small slice of the game’s biggest trophies. They thrive on the middle levels of achievement and wish to limit others to the same.

6- Think #5 is mean? Add up the Grade 1, 7-figure purses being won by those in favor of taxes vs. others. You’ll find that the taxation crowd would prefer to dilute he Trophies rather than work harder for them.

Dude! I was just agreeing with you fourteen hours ago and then you pull this out of your hat
Besides the ridiculous blanket statement you make in #5, I fail to see what taxation has to do with trophies, and I definitely fail to see how, under taxation, the top trophy-getting players would somehow be robbed of their trophies in the dead of night, crying helplessly while watching their precious winnings being melted down into bar form and distributed equally to the lazy, shiftless SIM welfare recipients?! Sorry for the imagery, it was a pretty good caricature in my head. But besides that, I'm not buying this. If the game takes a few percent of Laura F's income each season, that literally changes nothing about her barn or ability to win trophies. The game might take a couple percent less from my ten-ish million than it does from her, but I don't know how you can take that fact and spin it into something involving a nefarious middle-class plan to win races without "working hard" for them.

On another note, though, I'm pretty impressed... when was the last time we had a post that grew ten pages in 24 hours but stayed this civil? (knock on wood...) Hurray for us!

[Ronnie Dee]

....
"5- Players in favor of SIM taxation own a very, very small slice of the game’s biggest trophies. They thrive on the middle levels of achievement and wish to limit others to the same."
...
You state 5 as if its a fact. Where do you get that from? There are many players who have won a lot of trophies that haven't posted one way or the other. I don't think Regina would take kindly to being told she has a very small slice of them and she is in favour.

Since you are bringing up Regina's support of taxation, I am re-posting (below) her very condescending remark about her fellow Sinsters.

As one of the wealthiest players in the game, I have always been pro-taxation. I think the main reason for so much hostility about taxation is that few understand the "sliding scale" thing. Most seem to think to think that if you have a lot of money then the SIM is going to take it all (in taxes) to get your balance down to a level of more average players; when, in fact, somebody like me, while paying more taxes than most everyone, would still be left with more money than most everyone -- it just wouldn't be as much money, thereby resulting in overall less money in the game.
(emphasis added)

Who are these many Simsters that lack an understanding of such elementary math concepts?
Are the Simsters that I interact with the "best and brightest" or just very good at hiding their ignorance?

[Brian Leavitt]

Good suggestion Pete

Agreed!

Ah yes, a system where I can pay more in taxes than April Eddy despite generally never exceeding more than 2% of her bankroll is the most sensible idea this thread has come up with.

[Mr. Lord Rich]

Good suggestion Pete

Agreed!

Ah yes, a system where I can pay more in taxes than April Eddy despite generally never exceeding more than 2% of her bankroll is the most sensible idea this thread has come up with.

Hey Now, April made $6,039,760 last season meaning she would have to pay $362,385 in taxes in my system.
You made $6,550,760 last season meaning you would pay $393,045.

Not that much more. Plus your money spends, hers does not.

[Rebecca Rose Hepburn]

How much more valuable are Rebecca Rose Hepburn's horses than April Eddy's horses? $100 million? $200 million?

I doubt that 200 million figure but thank you for that, that honestly bumped up my optimism and made me feel better about my barn lmao.

April made more last year than I did, 6,039,760 to my 5,880,020; not a huge amount but still more. According to my financial summary, I came out -616,729 in money over the year so the notion that I'm blowing April's stable out of the water isn't 100% accurate. I don't think the potential value of my horses somehow effects how much I should pay in tax, that's just an even more mythical version of fake money until and unless a transaction with money takes place

[Laura Smith]

Good suggestion Pete

Agreed!

Ah yes, a system where I can pay more in taxes than April Eddy despite generally never exceeding more than 2% of her bankroll is the most sensible idea this thread has come up with.

If it's a tax on income and not just on bank balance, presumably you'd still pay a reasonable amount. I admit I missed the word "income" the first time I read it, heh.

...ok I looked up both of your race earnings and damn, you did make more than her last year... *on the track.* Assuming everything including stud fees (of which I assume she also pulled in at least 3m last year) AND exchange income (which may seem silly as a percentage of it is already taken away at the time of transaction -- but what if we did away with that and just added it to tax instead?) are included... presumably her cashflow far exceeds the 6m and change that it shows on the thing.

I hear you, though. I've been playing this game for longer than probably 98% of active SIM players. I don't crack the top 50 in the rankings by money. It's not because I suck or I can't manage my money or my horses never win. It's just the way I play. To be taxed the same percentage as someone that has ten times my bankroll just by virtue of how long I've been playing would be kinda unfortunate but I also get it.

[Danny Derby]

At least the invented money problem isn't going to get worse with a Derby/Dubai contest this year.

[Glenn Escobar]

5- Players in favor of SIM taxation own a very, very small slice of the game’s biggest trophies. They thrive on the middle levels of achievement and wish to limit others to the same.

6- Think #5 is mean? Add up the Grade 1, 7-figure purses being won by those in favor of taxes vs. others. You’ll find that the taxation crowd would prefer to dilute he Trophies rather than work harder for them.

Dude! I was just agreeing with you fourteen hours ago and then you pull this out of your hat
Besides the ridiculous blanket statement you make in #5, I fail to see what taxation has to do with trophies, and I definitely fail to see how, under taxation, the top trophy-getting players would somehow be robbed of their trophies in the dead of night, crying helplessly while watching their precious winnings being melted down into bar form and distributed equally to the lazy, shiftless SIM welfare recipients?! Sorry for the imagery, it was a pretty good caricature in my head. But besides that, I'm not buying this. If the game takes a few percent of Laura F's income each season, that literally changes nothing about her barn or ability to win trophies. The game might take a couple percent less from my ten-ish million than it does from her, but I don't know how you can take that fact and spin it into something involving a nefarious middle-class plan to win races without "working hard" for them.

On another note, though, I'm pretty impressed... when was the last time we had a post that grew ten pages in 24 hours but stayed this civil? (knock on wood...) Hurray for us!

I still consider you a friend and I agree with you almost all the time on everything. Sometimes I troll for the sake of trolling. This may or may not have been one of those times.

[Tim Matthews]

Let’s recap this thing, 137 posts deep.

...

3- Some players, particularly those running mid to low volume barns, wish to see the reductions come NOT from those purses, but rather from the pockets of other players.

Rhetoric. Stop mischaracterizing my position. I want it to come from my pocket too. Also, no matter what, the changes come from the pockets of other players... that's the nature of taking money out of the game dude.

4- Human beings in general aren’t resistant to change, just to change that involves loss. So of course the players who would be taxed more see no upside to adding taxes, with a few exceptions.

Actually, the exception is the wealthy trainers who OPPOSE taxes. It's pretty clear if you've been paying attention to uh, the posts in this thread.

5- Players in favor of SIM taxation own a very, very small slice of the game’s biggest trophies. They thrive on the middle levels of achievement and wish to limit others to the same.

6- Think #5 is mean? Add up the Grade 1, 7-figure purses being won by those in favor of taxes vs. others. You’ll find that the taxation crowd would prefer to dilute he Trophies rather than work harder for them.

Others have dunked on you for this being just plainly not true, but I'd like to add on to the pile and say this is not only untrue but completely beside the point. Why would you look at the people who support a proposal rather than the proposal itself, and its merits? I'll also use this opportunity to say that I have one of the nicest small operations in the game that competes and wins at the highest levels of racing.

Still - explain to me, in detail, how such a small tax rate would limit huge barns and dilute trophies. Please just explain and back up one thing that you've said.

7- We’ve debated various tax mechanisms, but it doesn’t matter that much. Income or Estate Taxes would both be difficult in the SIM, even if you prefer one over the other.

No they wouldn't. Explain how an "estate tax" would be difficult. You literally said before that it was simple.

8- A Tax schedule (weekly, yearly, etc) is also difficult to figure out.

No it isn't.

10- The current system of purse regulation is probably the easiest road forward, for many reasons including the fact that it’s already in place.

The purse cuts are obviously unpopular, and as evidenced by the original post, they don't take as much money out of the game as taxes would.


So after I set you straight on your mythical SIM auditors, you go and double down with this nonsense. Honestly, Glenn - and I mean no disrespect - are you joking with these posts? Or are you just consistently wrong about everything in this thread? NOTE: Now I see your recent post that says you're trolling. Ok bud lol play the troll card once you get owned by everyone

[Tim Matthews]

I am curious about the actual effects of large bank balances that sit mostly untouched and thus have little effect on the SIM economy. Taking money away that will never be used won't affect the player or the economy, in my opinion.

What separates the wealthiest players from the less affluent? It's the mares. What if the daily rate for mares over 250 or 500 or another number was increased to maybe $20? Would that not take money out of the economy and perhaps encourage some affluent owners to redistribute breeding stock?

The more affluent racing barns are typically larger than less affluent barns. What if there was an increased daily rate for more than some number of horses in an owners racing barn? Would that not take money out of the economy and, again, encourage redistribution of racing stock?

Wanted to quote Glenn Larson back in here because this is an interesting post that was glossed over, unfortunately. I'm skeptical about the suggestion of icnreasing the rate for mares, but I think a gradauated day rate based on total number of horses is worth discussion.

Why not income over wealth?

I think this has been roughly explained a couple times in the thread, but the basic idea, to me at least, is that income taxes discourage large investments and have the theoretical potential to tax a stable into the negative. "Wealth" taxes, as you call it (though it's not strictly accurate), have the advantage of a much larger pool of stagnant cash. More money raised, and no harm to players investing in racing or breeding stock. A wealth tax may also encourage economic activity as players seek to pay less in taxes. (I'm skeptical of this, but I'm sure some would spend just out of spite. Which is fine, same end result.)

[Tim Matthews]

Woops, we're getting posts deleted. Time to take a break. Everywhere is a beach, even the forum

All in fun



edi: YES i am old enough to drink now okay!!!

[Ronnie Dee]

How much more valuable are Rebecca Rose Hepburn's horses than April Eddy's horses? $100 million? $200 million?

I doubt that 200 million figure but thank you for that, that honestly bumped up my optimism and made me feel better about my barn lmao.

By the way, before making the comparison to April, I compared your stable to two other, what I thought were, similar stables. When making this 3-way comparison, your stable strongly dominated the other two stables. So your stable was used for the comparison to April's stable.