Stewardbreds and Taxes

[Tom Lin]

In terms of partnerships, in real life, I'm pretty sure people set them up to profit and not for fun. I know this is a game, not real life but I don't see a problem with people wanting to profit off of a partnership. Not like only select people can form these. So whilst yes I agree that same people forming multiple partnerships and getting more SB's that way is wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with partnerships standing studs for example.

As for TBS auctions/horses, some people make it sound as if people with a lot of money in the game are just lucky to have that money. Sorry, but this is not like real life in this case. You can't be lucky enough to be born into a super rich family or something like that, everyone starts at the bottom and has to work their way up. Why should the elite be punished for it? By that I mean, if they can afford to own the current limit of SB horses, let them. They deserve it. I think it would be an awful idea to reduce the number from 3 to just 1. And I get it, it's frustrating for players like you or me to see the big stables consistently winning top races and not getting those kind of results yourself. But perhaps instead of being jealous of those people and trying to bring them down, you can look at what they do and try to emulate it. And this includes, Steward bred horses. There's no rule that says you cannot look at SB horses' pedigree and figure out why certain crosses work. I think my main point is, stop focusing on what other people are doing and focus on your own stable.

Someone ^^^^ who "gets" it IMO

[Tom Lin]

life isn't perfect and no game I ever played has been either. I like and respect Em greatly for many reasons and have never felt "Cheated" even when decisions or rules didn't go my way. At some point you have to trust management or why play? I do now and will continue to do so. I love the game...I like the players (by and large and it a great hobby that is much cheaper than Bowling or Golf...lol!

^^^^^^^^ x1000.

ditto x 1000

[Rochelle Bos]

On Ronnie's Baker's Dozen - my number's a little skewed, because I pick up stakes-winning pensioners out of AJ. 90 of my 155 are pensioned, and most of that group have a history of my purchasing them post-pension (another bunch were picked up post-retirement). The 65 active horses range from ages 14 to 2, with several of them being picked up post-retirement. That said, I would still expect to be on the high end of owners with Steward-breds even with those adjustments because have one of the higher bankrolls, buy at every TBS auction and pick up the occasional pinhook.

I was going to say something similar, some players on that list have been in the sim a very long time and it’s kinda expected that they have more stewardbreds

[Ali Hedgestone]

Soo.. Instead of taxes, what about capping the amount of money we can have? All money earned above that cap gets sent back to the game?

[Rochelle Bos]

The people who will be effected most by taxes/increased fees are newer players and those with smaller barns, because as someone said earlier it will hardly dent their account. So sure it’s taking money out of the game, but it’s also hindering the growth of smaller barns (new player and veterans alike). I feel like that will cause people to quit, it already takes a long time to build a great barn and now people want it to take longer?

I did like the suggestion of increasing the cost of sending yearlings to GP. At this very moment there are 2219 yearlings owned by AJ. So instead of the game making $2,219,000 it could have made $22,190,000 if it was $10,000

A bank account cap is also an interesting idea

[Danny Derby]

What about an option on the breeding page for a special veterinary treatment that can improve the range of the random slide for a giant cost? Numbers below are hypothetical but for example...

$100K Supplement - Bottom 5% of random slide removed
$250K Supplement - Bottom 10% of random slide removed
$500K Supplement - Bottom 15% of random slide removed
$1M - Bottom 25% of random slide removed

So for example, if breeding Mare X to Stallion Y would result in a foal that could range between 0-10 points, spending the $100K supplement would make that range .5-10. $250K would be 1-10. $500K would be 1.5-10 and $1M would be 2.5 - 10. Not guaranteeing you a freak, but improves chances the foal will be better. It's something I bet all players with extra cash would use on their better mares. Price and percentages can be adjusted as management sees fit.

[Rochelle Bos]

What about an option on the breeding page for a special veterinary treatment that can improve the range of the random slide for a giant cost? Numbers below are hypothetical but for example...

$100K Supplement - Bottom 5% of random slide removed
$250K Supplement - Bottom 10% of random slide removed
$500K Supplement - Bottom 15% of random slide removed
$1M - Bottom 25% of random slide removed

So for example, if breeding Mare X to Stallion Y would result in a foal that could range between 0-10 points, spending the $100K supplement would make that range .5-10. $250K would be 1-10. $500K would be 1.5-10 and $1M would be 2.5 - 10. Not guaranteeing you a freak, but improves chances the foal will be better. It's something I bet all players with extra cash would use on their better mares. Price and percentages can be adjusted as management sees fit.

So the rich get to breed better horses than those with less money? The rich get richer?

[Danny Derby]

What about an option on the breeding page for a special veterinary treatment that can improve the range of the random slide for a giant cost? Numbers below are hypothetical but for example...

$100K Supplement - Bottom 5% of random slide removed
$250K Supplement - Bottom 10% of random slide removed
$500K Supplement - Bottom 15% of random slide removed
$1M - Bottom 25% of random slide removed

So for example, if breeding Mare X to Stallion Y would result in a foal that could range between 0-10 points, spending the $100K supplement would make that range .5-10. $250K would be 1-10. $500K would be 1.5-10 and $1M would be 2.5 - 10. Not guaranteeing you a freak, but improves chances the foal will be better. It's something I bet all players with extra cash would use on their better mares. Price and percentages can be adjusted as management sees fit.

So the rich get to breed better horses than those with less money? The rich get richer?

If you want to take money out of the game, you need to offer players something to use their money on. It's not the rich getting richer, it's the rich being able to spend their money on something other than Stewies. As it stands as a rich player I can keep my older mares alive by paying a huge fee, I view this as a similar option.

[Nena Olson]

What about an option on the breeding page for a special veterinary treatment that can improve the range of the random slide for a giant cost? Numbers below are hypothetical but for example...

$100K Supplement - Bottom 5% of random slide removed
$250K Supplement - Bottom 10% of random slide removed
$500K Supplement - Bottom 15% of random slide removed
$1M - Bottom 25% of random slide removed

So for example, if breeding Mare X to Stallion Y would result in a foal that could range between 0-10 points, spending the $100K supplement would make that range .5-10. $250K would be 1-10. $500K would be 1.5-10 and $1M would be 2.5 - 10. Not guaranteeing you a freak, but improves chances the foal will be better. It's something I bet all players with extra cash would use on their better mares. Price and percentages can be adjusted as management sees fit.

I vote no for this. I'd rather take my chances with everyone having equal slides than having to worry about increased number of freaks in the TB divisions. We don't need the issues that the mixers have crossing over into the TB world too. I'd rather pay $50k to the vet to get my equipment without having to hit 'vet this horse' 20,000,000 times to find out that it is bandages or even $100k to get the gallop piece.

[Ali Hedgestone]

What about an option on the breeding page for a special veterinary treatment that can improve the range of the random slide for a giant cost? Numbers below are hypothetical but for example...

$100K Supplement - Bottom 5% of random slide removed
$250K Supplement - Bottom 10% of random slide removed
$500K Supplement - Bottom 15% of random slide removed
$1M - Bottom 25% of random slide removed

So for example, if breeding Mare X to Stallion Y would result in a foal that could range between 0-10 points, spending the $100K supplement would make that range .5-10. $250K would be 1-10. $500K would be 1.5-10 and $1M would be 2.5 - 10. Not guaranteeing you a freak, but improves chances the foal will be better. It's something I bet all players with extra cash would use on their better mares. Price and percentages can be adjusted as management sees fit.

I vote no for this. I'd rather take my chances with everyone having equal slides than having to worry about increased number of freaks in the TB divisions. We don't need the issues that the mixers have crossing over into the TB world too. I'd rather pay $50k to the vet to get my equipment without having to hit 'vet this horse' 20,000,000 times to find out that it is bandages or even $100k to get the gallop piece.

How about a system where you pay a "assistant trainer" to work and equipment check all your yearlings? Basically it would lock down the yearlings that were enrolled in the program. Pay some amount of money for each yearling, end up with a fit 2yo who's got 2 works done and their equipment figured out? And then you would be mostly hands off?

[Danny Derby]

How about a system where you pay a "assistant trainer" to work and equipment check all your yearlings? Basically it would lock down the yearlings that were enrolled in the program. Pay some amount of money for each yearling, end up with a fit 2yo who's got 2 works done and their equipment figured out? And then you would be mostly hands off?

Can they also enter my horses for me once they're ready? I'd pay huge for that.

[Ali Hedgestone]

How about a system where you pay a "assistant trainer" to work and equipment check all your yearlings? Basically it would lock down the yearlings that were enrolled in the program. Pay some amount of money for each yearling, end up with a fit 2yo who's got 2 works done and their equipment figured out? And then you would be mostly hands off?

Can they also enter my horses for me once they're ready? I'd pay huge for that.

Naw.. You've got to find a RL assistant trainer for that.

[Rochelle Bos]

How about a system where you pay a "assistant trainer" to work and equipment check all your yearlings? Basically it would lock down the yearlings that were enrolled in the program. Pay some amount of money for each yearling, end up with a fit 2yo who's got 2 works done and their equipment figured out? And then you would be mostly hands off?

Can they also enter my horses for me once they're ready? I'd pay huge for that.

Naw.. You've got to find a RL assistant trainer for that.

Like me, I do that!

[Dave Trainer]

The people who will be effected most by taxes/increased fees are newer players and those with smaller barns, because as someone said earlier it will hardly dent their account. So sure it’s taking money out of the game, but it’s also hindering the growth of smaller barns (new player and veterans alike). I feel like that will cause people to quit, it already takes a long time to build a great barn and now people want it to take longer?

I did like the suggestion of increasing the cost of sending yearlings to GP. At this very moment there are 2219 yearlings owned by AJ. So instead of the game making $2,219,000 it could have made $22,190,000 if it was $10,000

A bank account cap is also an interesting idea

How do you work that out?

Taxes could be introduced in many different ways none of which would affect newer players.

Examples. Only tax those with more than x amount in the bank at end of season. If that amount is over maybe 3m its very unlikely that would affect a new player.

Tax on horse numbers over x amount. Any player with over x number of horses pays extra daily fees. Say first 500 are still $5 then add a sliding scale so they pay more as the number increases. This wouldn't affect new players or small barns.

The same could be done with a foal fee as Glenn suggested.

Tax the earnings or profits a stable makes in a season. Again it can be a sliding scale so the first x amount isn't taxed.

Yes this would hit those with big stables and those with lots of money.

NEWSFLASH if you want money taken out of the game these are the best players to hit as they have the most money . These are the players who buy the Steward breds and stop new players getting them by bidding high amounts.

Don't expect those who have money or a big stable to be in favour of anything that reduces their powerbase.

[Ronnie Dee]

I personal had always thought partnerships where dum ! Am I one now yes have too. But they also cost money and most will lose money I bet !

As managing partner of the "Puck" partnership, I think partnerships are great. It gave an old rich guy the opportunity to partner with a hall of fame trainer and expert bloodstock agent.

Plus, I get the opportunity to design some new silks. So far, I am thinking about something with a golden knight, maple leaf, hockey stick, and puck. But nothing yet seems to work out quite right. Does anyone have any suggestions?

I think this partnership would be really awesome if I could add 2 Sim rich partners. The mission statement of the Puck partnership is "Have fun winning races -- the bigger, the funner". If you are Sim rich and interested, contact me directly.