Total Purses in the SIM

[George Knatz]

Or increase chase purses as they run longer so get paid less per minute than those sprinters.

Rich people are taxed more than poor people everywhere in real life. That penalises everyone who is successful in real life. The Sim wants to be realistic.

And of course, I'd adapt

Please stop with the SIM being realistic. I like this game as much as anybody but the realistic talk cracks me up. Immediate babies, horses mating while on different continents, how can we consider it realistic?

[Laura Smith]

Finally, a thread with some pro-tax people

Here's my proposal, using the SIM's wealthiest owner, April Eddy, as an example.

- A one-cent tax levied at the end of the year on SIM cash between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000. April would pay $90,000 from this bracket.

- A three-cent tax levied at the end of the year on SIM cash between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000. April would pay $450,000 from this bracket.

- A six-cent tax levied at the end of the year on SIM cash above $25,000,000. April would pay $5,208,991 - rounded to the nearest dollar - from this bracket.

Under this proposal, if the SIM year ended today, April Eddy would pay $5,703,991 in taxes, leaving her with a paltry $106,112,528.

Taxes collected from April alone would cover more than half of the year 54 purse cuts.

If the one-cent bracket *alone* were levied *only* on the wealthiest 50 players in the game, the amount collected would cover almost half of the year 54 purse cuts. I think trading the purse cuts for these very modest taxes is a very good deal that we can all get behind.

This, this, a million times this.

[Danny Derby]

This entire thread is the embodiment of why I don't enjoy playing the SIM nearly as much as I used to.

[Brian Leavitt]

Finally, a thread with some pro-tax people

Here's my proposal, using the SIM's wealthiest owner, April Eddy, as an example.

- A one-cent tax levied at the end of the year on SIM cash between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000. April would pay $90,000 from this bracket.

- A three-cent tax levied at the end of the year on SIM cash between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000. April would pay $450,000 from this bracket.

- A six-cent tax levied at the end of the year on SIM cash above $25,000,000. April would pay $5,208,991 - rounded to the nearest dollar - from this bracket.

Under this proposal, if the SIM year ended today, April Eddy would pay $5,703,991 in taxes, leaving her with a paltry $106,112,528.

Taxes collected from April alone would cover more than half of the year 54 purse cuts.

If the one-cent bracket *alone* were levied *only* on the wealthiest 50 players in the game, the amount collected would cover almost half of the year 54 purse cuts. I think trading the purse cuts for these very modest taxes is a very good deal that we can all get behind.

I like this

[Rebecca Rose Hepburn]

Finally, a thread with some pro-tax people

Here's my proposal, using the SIM's wealthiest owner, April Eddy, as an example.

- A one-cent tax levied at the end of the year on SIM cash between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000. April would pay $90,000 from this bracket.

- A three-cent tax levied at the end of the year on SIM cash between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000. April would pay $450,000 from this bracket.

- A six-cent tax levied at the end of the year on SIM cash above $25,000,000. April would pay $5,208,991 - rounded to the nearest dollar - from this bracket.

Under this proposal, if the SIM year ended today, April Eddy would pay $5,703,991 in taxes, leaving her with a paltry $106,112,528.

Taxes collected from April alone would cover more than half of the year 54 purse cuts.

If the one-cent bracket *alone* were levied *only* on the wealthiest 50 players in the game, the amount collected would cover almost half of the year 54 purse cuts. I think trading the purse cuts for these very modest taxes is a very good deal that we can all get behind.

Works for me

[Ali Hedgestone]

I believe, fwiw, the best realistic economical problem lies in the farms. To my knowledge, all the farms are player-owned. This is far from true in RL racing. Once a horse is in training, more often than not, the horse is stabled at the track or a nearby training center. In RL these expenses can really add up. In the SIM, as we know, the majority of horses are shipped to a privately held farm where expenses move from one player to another. If The Steward could institute a rule that, for example, all horses in training (those eligible to enter a race) must be kept at a track or game-owned training facility, all those expenses would be wiped from the game. It may also help reduce the number of suspect mares and stallions being bred.

There are probably some holes in my plan, this is a rudimentary example, I'm sure those smarter than me can work out better details.

I really like the idea of having training centers close to tracks. I think this should be in addition to player owned farms and player owned farms could still be a valid place to keep racing horses. A perk to a training center could be extra rest or better fitness gains.

Also think we should have training center where we can send yearlings to get fit and equipment figured out. I would pay bunches for that.

[Tammy Stawicki]

How about we increase the day rate from $5 a horse per day to $20 a horse per day.

Big money barns usually have lots of horses.

The problem with flat fees like this and those that are already exist in the sim is that they hit poorer stables a lot harder, and those stables are typically more vulnerable to quitting if their operation isn't making money. A "tax" like mine is not about punishing anyone; rather, it's just the most efficient way to take money out of the game without discouraging early growth. Plus, a 25 million dollar stable will hardly notice a $500k hit per year, especially if the purses go back to where they were.

This is why I like the wealth tax idea too. I have $22 million + I would fully expect to be taxed under any wealth tax proposal. I don't see it as punishing me for being successful. I see it like you said that I won't notice a small percentage of my money being taken away. I have more money then I know what to do with. So if taking some small percentage of my money away each year is going to strengthen the sim economy as a whole and make it easier for new players to get a foothold and build their stables so be it. While I realize with a universal percentage charged to everyone richer stables are still paying more but if you are a newer players trying to build your stable to compete with the "big boys" that couple % is going to frustrate you and you're going to feel it in a way I just won't.

Though I would argue we should start it at $10 million instead of $1 million. I think people in that $1-10 million range are still trying to build their stables and get some cushion particularly if they want to regularly participate in stewardbreds.

How about we place a special daily tax for stewardbreds.
All stewardbreds are taxed at a higher daily rate.

This would only affect the rich players owning all the steward breds.

Related: If stewies didn't come pre-insured, that's another what, $5-8 million on top of every sale?

The only problem I see here would be if a stewardbred got injured before someone had a chance to insure it. I would be rather irked if my mutlimillion dollar purchase immediately became useless. Maybe you could have an option to click something when bidding to instantly buy insurance on your purchase.

I believe, fwiw, the best realistic economical problem lies in the farms.

It is worth noting farms do take money out of the game as is. They cost $2 million to purchase and you have to pay $80,000 (I think thats the number) a year to run them. Admittedly if there weren't player owned farms potentially more money could come out but I feel this is a change that would cause mass consternation as people paid that $2 million with the hope of saving money on board or making money off board and it would also be a pretty substantial instant revenue increase on larger stables that have most of their horses at their own farms.

I say leave everything as it is.

Those who are willing to adapt will adapt to anything, and those unwilling to adapt will complain about anything.

So, just leave things as they are and we should be fine.

As has been mentioned we certainly don't handle change well but through the years this game has grown and expanded and became really amazing. So I am glad that the Steward and company keep working to evolve and improve this game even knowing all the whining and complaining those changes will bring in the short term. If it was me I would have said #$%$# you all I'm out a long time ago. I am forever amazed by the steward's patience and levelheadedness.

I think I'm all caught up.

[Rochelle Bos]

How about we increase the day rate from $5 a horse per day to $20 a horse per day.

Big money barns usually have lots of horses.

The problem with flat fees like this and those that are already exist in the sim is that they hit poorer stables a lot harder, and those stables are typically more vulnerable to quitting if their operation isn't making money. A "tax" like mine is not about punishing anyone; rather, it's just the most efficient way to take money out of the game without discouraging early growth. Plus, a 25 million dollar stable will hardly notice a $500k hit per year, especially if the purses go back to where they were.

This is why I like the wealth tax idea too. I have $22 million + I would fully expect to be taxed under any wealth tax proposal. I don't see it as punishing me for being successful. I see it like you said that I won't notice a small percentage of my money being taken away. I have more money then I know what to do with. So if taking some small percentage of my money away each year is going to strengthen the sim economy as a whole and make it easier for new players to get a foothold and build their stables so be it. While I realize with a universal percentage charged to everyone richer stables are still paying more but if you are a newer players trying to build your stable to compete with the "big boys" that couple % is going to frustrate you and you're going to feel it in a way I just won't.

Though I would argue we should start it at $10 million instead of $1 million. I think people in that $1-10 million range are still trying to build their stables and get some cushion particularly if they want to regularly participate in stewardbreds.

How about we place a special daily tax for stewardbreds.
All stewardbreds are taxed at a higher daily rate.

This would only affect the rich players owning all the steward breds.

Related: If stewies didn't come pre-insured, that's another what, $5-8 million on top of every sale?

The only problem I see here would be if a stewardbred got injured before someone had a chance to insure it. I would be rather irked if my mutlimillion dollar purchase immediately became useless. Maybe you could have an option to click something when bidding to instantly buy insurance on your purchase.

I believe, fwiw, the best realistic economical problem lies in the farms.

It is worth noting farms do take money out of the game as is. They cost $2 million to purchase and you have to pay $80,000 (I think thats the number) a year to run them. Admittedly if there weren't player owned farms potentially more money could come out but I feel this is a change that would cause mass consternation as people paid that $2 million with the hope of saving money on board or making money off board and it would also be a pretty substantial instant revenue increase on larger stables that have most of their horses at their own farms.

I believe, fwiw, the best realistic economical problem lies in the farms. To my knowledge, all the farms are player-owned. This is far from true in RL racing. Once a horse is in training, more often than not, the horse is stabled at the track or a nearby training center. In RL these expenses can really add up. In the SIM, as we know, the majority of horses are shipped to a privately held farm where expenses move from one player to another. If The Steward could institute a rule that, for example, all horses in training (those eligible to enter a race) must be kept at a track or game-owned training facility, all those expenses would be wiped from the game. It may also help reduce the number of suspect mares and stallions being bred.

There are probably some holes in my plan, this is a rudimentary example, I'm sure those smarter than me can work out better details.

As has been mentioned we certainly don't handle change well but through the years this game has grown and expanded and became really amazing. So I am glad that the Steward and company keep working to evolve and improve this game even knowing all the whining and complaining those changes will bring in the short term. If it was me I would have said #$%$# you all I'm out a long time ago. I am forever amazed by the steward's patience and levelheadedness.

I think I'm all caught up.

I like all this

[Art K Stables]

I guess what I was really trying to suggest is that game points should only be for simperior only and other ancillary things perhaps like jockey silks, head shots.. but everything else should be for game money.. and get rid of the exchange.. but the fact is those who do well enough will never have to pay another REAL dollar for anything, the exchange will do it all.. but if you get rid of the exchange, then everyone has to pay to play, In real money.. all the hypogrades, cats and goats, game point sires.. CHANGE IT TO GAME MONEY!!! Then game points would never affect the economy and all the crybabies with several millions wont have to cry about higher taxes.. But i suspect no one wants to do any of that and Im sure has been considered..You know this way its fair to everyone and we dont have to worry about dastardly socialism creeping into the game, and a game can be realistic without having to watch a mare give birth.. gee willikers

[Kent Saunders]

Seems to be alot of support for a graduated tax. I would make the cut off at around $5m. I'll leave it to management to figure the exact math but below $5m are newer players and those that would be committing a significant chunk of their bankroll to buy a Steward Bred. Above that level generally are veteran/older players who as has been pointed out can probably effectively deal with the tax (whatever it is) and for most it will be nothing but a minor annoyance that will quickly disappear the same as any unpopular game change. The only question is in 2-3 seasons are we making serious progress. A last suggestion is the total available $$ should be added to the stats in the new Spencer Sanctum so All players can monitor it regularly and see for ourselves how were doing...or not.

[Mr. Lord Rich]

Or we can all just adapt to the changes as the steward implements them and move forward

[Ronnie Dee]

Finally, a thread with some pro-tax people
---

Works for me

Of course, this would work for you. Arguably, your Sim assets are worth more than April Eddy's yet you would pay considerably less in wealth taxes than April under the "Tim Tax Plan".

April Eddy's Stable
vs
Rebecca Rose Hepburn's Stable

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

[Tim Matthews]

I think taxing those that have 1mil for example, might be a bit too extreme. I felt a cutoff of 10mil was fair and not too extreme right off the bat to cause a riot.

Though I would argue we should start it at $10 million instead of $1 million. I think people in that $1-10 million range are still trying to build their stables and get some cushion particularly if they want to regularly participate in stewardbreds.

I thought about this, but a 1% tax is so low that it would hardly be noticeable even to a new player. For example, an individual with $2 million in cash would only be paying $10,000 in taxes at the end of the year.

A last suggestion is the total available $$ should be added to the stats in the new Spencer Sanctum so All players can monitor it regularly and see for ourselves how were doing...or not.

Hard agree.


-- Post edited because I meant to quote Tammy in as well.

[Tim Matthews]

Works for me

Of course, this would work for you. Arguably, your Sim assets are worth more than April Eddy's yet you would pay considerably less in wealth taxes than April under the "Tim Tax Plan".

April Eddy's Stable
vs
Rebecca Rose Hepburn's Stable

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

This is an interesting point. I actually re-worded my original post since it is not technically a "wealth" tax, since it does not tax all assets; it only taxes liquid SIM cash. (A tax on horses based on quality would obviously be unworkable.)

But the issue at hand, of course, is not horse inequality or barn inequality. These inequalities cannot be solved and should not be solved. The issue at hand is the size of the SIM economy, and to a lesser extent the concentration of SIM dollars. My proposed tax addresses both. Are you arguing that such a tax would be unfair to someone like April?

[George Knatz]

I think taxing those that have 1mil for example, might be a bit too extreme. I felt a cutoff of 10mil was fair and not too extreme right off the bat to cause a riot.

I thought about this, but a 1% tax is so low that it would hardly be noticeable even to a new player. For example, an individual with $2 million in cash would only be paying $10,000 in taxes at the end of the year.

A last suggestion is the total available $$ should be added to the stats in the new Spencer Sanctum so All players can monitor it regularly and see for ourselves how were doing...or not.

Hard agree.

Please check your math. 1% of 2 million is 20k.