Quick poll

[Mr. Lord Rich]

I don’t understand why this conversation is happening…again.

[Gwayne's World]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0zaebtU-CA

[Savina Lazaki]

*EDIT: I suspect people would try to get around this by just lowering stud fees. Bring that on! Lol

I can only suspect people would raise stud fees accordingly.

[Tim Matthews]

Clearly, I'm perfectly fine going around in circles on this topic once every few months (it is fun to me).

I don’t understand why this conversation is happening…again.

Because Danny posted the thing about purse cuts and I thought man, purse cuts are annoying, if only there was a better way. You don't have to read the thread lol. You can do anything else instead! Add to the discussion though, if you are going to post. It is obvious that some people want to engage on the subject.

I still think it's a good idea, though, to have a minimum balance or graduating brackets. Taxing people with balances of less than $100k doesn't make much sense to me. $8k or $9k to them (including myself, at the moment, but hopefully not for much longer) is another two weeks of board, maybe another horse bred, another claim. I also think new players should be exempt - would suck to be introduced to a game and immediately get hit with tax.

Definitely. This thread just assumes that IF the sim economy is too big, then what's the best way to go about solving that issue? For more details my rough original proposal can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=405716#p405716

Taxes/tithes will almost certainly never be implemented in the game because most people get VERY confused and angry when they even see the word. So it's fun to rile people up.

I love getting money taken from me for no good reason after years of working my butt off for it...

The "good reason" is that the economy is apparently too big, according to the game administrators. So I'm assuming there's a problem, and I'm proposing a way to fix it.

Why do we keep talking about taking money out of the game? I don't see how taking money from new players benefits the game. Veterans who have put in time and effort shouldn't be penalized for being successful either.

Who's talking about taking money from new players?

I'm confused by all this "I'm being punished, I've worked so hard" from people. No one's getting penalized. That makes no sense. As noted above, the SIM economy is apparently too large. IF we are going to take money out of the game, it would be most efficient to take a little bit more money from players who have way more money. What does punishment or penalizing have anything to do with it?

You' would still have WAY more money than poorer players. You would still have the exact same luxuries you enjoy now. It's not about moralizing, or rewarding one style of play, or triggering people's victim complexes. The goal is literally to remove money from the game, ideally in the simplest, most efficient, and least disruptive way possible.

[Tom Lin]

Likely an unpopular opinion here, but maybe just a tithe on stud fee income specifically could be useful? Stud fee income is sorta income earned by doing nothing... You've campaigned that horse, which earned you cash, and then you get to stand him at stud and literally just watch money come in all season long. Perhaps after each rollover, stables should have to pay back 10% off all the cash they made off their stud's fees that season... Whether the total income was $30,000 or $10,000,000, you pay back 10%.

It's going to draw less cash out than a tiered tithe system, but it's not punishing the "hard work" that players are putting in entering races and managing their stables all season long. Keep your cake, but get taxed on the frosting, so to speak.

*EDIT: I suspect people would try to get around this by just lowering stud fees. Bring that on! Lol

I would suggest that stud fees would be increased to compensate for the added tax. There is already a fee of $50K to stand a stud. Maybe that could become a yearly fee? It might make someone think twice about standing a stallion for future seasons.

[Sara Julin]

How about this solution.
You cannot have more than 50 million in the bank. Period. That way when you reach 49 million you need to spend money and send it back into the game, otherwise you loose that money. To me this sounds like the most fair way to do it. And besides, 50 million is more than enough to survive a sim year and still eat your caviar and drink your don perignon

[Dave Trainer]

How about this solution.
You cannot have more than 50 million in the bank. Period. That way when you reach 49 million you need to spend money and send it back into the game, otherwise you loose that money. To me this sounds like the most fair way to do it. And besides, 50 million is more than enough to survive a sim year and still eat your caviar and drink your don perignon

That definitely isn't the most fair way to do it. Its also an easy thing to get around paying and could lead to a lot of players having 49m in their bank. What it might do is spread the wealth around more evenly but that isn't what this topic is about.

The fairest system is a tiered level as was suggested earlier. The more a player earns the more they pay. But whether its in the form of purse cuts or a tax doesn't really matter. The richer players will pay more either way as they usually win the bigger races.

Players earning money from stud fees doesn't increase the amount in the Sim economy as it just comes from other players.. The only ways to get studs is by them earning enough in prize money to become one or buying one if Em creates one.

I like Cleo's idea of adding extras which players can pay for if they wish.

[Tim Matthews]

These results confirm my suspicion that many players will happily sacrifice their own purse money out of spite. Here's a reframe to the question:

The SIM seems to have decided to fix the size of the economy. (If it did not decide that, then the purse cuts wouldn't be happening.)

So, IF the SIM wants to fix the size of the economy, would you rather run for smaller purses or for bigger purses? Notice how this question is identical to the original question. Both options reduce the size of the economy, so the question simply asks if you like smaller purses or bigger purses.

Me personally, I prefer runing in races with bigger purses. When I win a race, I like it when the purse is bigger, rather than smaller. I think it is more fun. But that's just one man's opinion!

[Carole Hanson]

I initially voted for lower purses but actually reading through this thread and some good ideas put forward for a tithe system, I might be changing my mind.

ETA: and as someone who runs TR, seeing the gigantic purse cuts and some races dropped in grade hurts, even if some of them deserve it.

[Rochelle Bos]

I voted for tithing. I would much rather have the purses be high and take money out another way.

The tiered tithing is really the best option.

[Dave Trainer]

I voted for tithing. I would much rather have the purses be high and take money out another way.

The tiered tithing is really the best option.

I'd rather run for reasonably high purses and cut the extravagantly high ones. The sim cpuld cut the enormous ones and introduce a tiered system to remove more from the economy. It doesn't have to be either one or the other, it can be a mix of both.

[Durzo Blint]

Can someone explain to me why "having too much sim $" in the sim economy is a bad thing?

In RL, if there is massive amounts of inflation, then basic costs rise and hurt the low income people. I do not see boarding fees increasing or stud fees or shipping costs or any of the basic costs needed to live in the SIM. The players with a ton of money are able to buy any Stewardbred horse they want, but that will still be the case in all the proposed situations above. The limits imposed on auctions and stewardbreds allow for the players with not crazy bankrolls to be able to grab one, not by taking money away from the top top players.

Maybe I'm just missing something? Is the thought that the top players will become bored and give their money away? Or would everyone just start to increase the basic costs?

I mean does it matter if the top players have $40M instead of $60M in their sim bank accounts?

[Nick Gilmore]

We got used to a one time charge ($50k) to stand a horse at stud and I’m sure we could get used to an annual tax/tithe. How it would be balanced out with all players is for smarter people than me to calculate, I’m no economics major. New/junior player can certainly learn the cost of living, even if at a cut rate.

I do like the idea of cutting purses AND a tax/tithe charge combination.

And of course a part of me wants to yell and say ‘don’t take my money, it took too long to build up!’

[Kris Bobby]

I believe the growing money problem, if it is indeed a problem, lies in daily horse expenses. For example, I have 194 horses accumulating daily expenses equaling $970. This is far from realistic. Whether the problem is player-owned farms or something else, if expenses were more costly and paid to "the game" as opposed to wealthy players that own farms, there would be a more realistic money drain. I believe it would also lead to fewer breedings/year as there would be a penalty for owning a bunch of so-so horses because we have a farm and it costs nothing.

Just my opinion, but I enjoy the banter.

[David Howard]

Another alternative is to keep purses as they are and raise the entrance fee for the stakes races. Currently it's 1% so that means that the steward currently has to create 88% of each stakes races prize money. If the entrance fee was 5% then the steward would only be creating 40% new sim bucks. This change could be introduced gradually with a 1% annual increase to see how it goes.