Bolts Tax system

[Boltgreywing]

I just thought I try out a really strange idea for a tax system.

10 - 90 points will have a tax bracket of 30%

100 - 900 points will have a tax bracket of 15%

1000 - 9000 points will have a tax bracket of 7.5%

I like a bit of help from the community since I am kind of new at this thing. I know it is not perfect it could use a bit of perfecting.

[Syntax]

Well normally those tax brackets would be reversed. I'm not really sure what you're going for here though. 

[Anoua]

Will you just collect the taxes as a way to get the money out of the system? Or are you going to do something with the collected money?

I think taxes in a game can be a pain, but might work if you do something more than make those credits disappear but something for the community, or at least make it feel that way. Otherwise the points are just disappearing.

Also 30%, especially for such a low amount of money feels explotive to me (I feel like this in real life too but), why are taxes higher on those with less?

What are goals with a tax system? And when would a players money be taxed?

Edited April 28, 2017 by Anoua
Was sent before done.

[Nate]

I've just added a similar "tax" system to what ive been coding all this week - Trading.

Essentially it works something like this (although these values are subject to change).

When gold (the main currency) is received through the trade system, the trader is taxed 10% of it, so 10% is removed from the economy.

For just 500 gold, they can upgrade their tax level to level 2, reducing this value to 9%, 1,000 gold to upgrade to level 3 etc.
 

This goes all the way up to level 10 and changes their tax % to 0.001% (rounded up). The total cost for all 10 upgrades is 2 million gold.
 

There is also an avatar unlock to reach level 10. This means that 2 types of people will do these upgrades:
- Serious traders who want the big discount
- and Avatar collectors.
 

Not sure if this helps you?

[Boltgreywing]

On 4/27/2017 at 8:42 AM, Syntax said:

Well normally those tax brackets would be reversed. I'm not really sure what you're going for here though. 

@Syntax: Yeah I am using weird logic. The lower the tax bracket the more you pay.

On 4/28/2017 at 5:32 AM, Anoua said:

Will you just collect the taxes as a way to get the money out of the system? Or are you going to do something with the collected money?

I think taxes in a game can be a pain, but might work if you do something more than make those credits disappear but something for the community, or at least make it feel that way. Otherwise the points are just disappearing.

Also 30%, especially for such a low amount of money feels explotive to me (I feel like this in real life too but), why are taxes higher on those with less?

What are goals with a tax system? And when would a players money be taxed?

@Anoua Good question. The tax system that I have in place will be on a yearly basis or a biyearly basis either sometime in the summer or a combination of summer and winter. It will take money out of the system since I currently don't know what to do with the extra points. However I am open to ideas of how to do other things with it. The thirty percent thing takes only 3 coins out of the 10 coins from one player. However the player who has a hundred coins is charged a 15% tax which takes out 15 coins out of the system which is 5 times as much as the one with 30% tax applied to it. As the tax bracket gets lower the users higher up have to pay more. It kind of works backwards.

10% can only be charged on users in the 10 category, 1% tax can only be charged to users in the 100's category and .1% can only be charged to users in the 1000 range and so on.

I am guessing the taxs could help fund features I am guessing.

 

On 4/28/2017 at 9:24 AM, Nate said:

I've just added a similar "tax" system to what ive been coding all this week - Trading.

Essentially it works something like this (although these values are subject to change).

When gold (the main currency) is received through the trade system, the trader is taxed 10% of it, so 10% is removed from the economy.

For just 500 gold, they can upgrade their tax level to level 2, reducing this value to 9%, 1,000 gold to upgrade to level 3 etc.
 

This goes all the way up to level 10 and changes their tax % to 0.001% (rounded up). The total cost for all 10 upgrades is 2 million gold.
 

There is also an avatar unlock to reach level 10. This means that 2 types of people will do these upgrades:
- Serious traders who want the big discount
- and Avatar collectors.
 

Not sure if this helps you?

@Nate.Tube:  This sounds kind of like the system I have but its kind of like a big experiment. I don't know if this will actually work well.

[Sparren]

@Boltgreywing

If the primary goal of the tax is to remove money from the economy it makes more sense to tax rich players the same as the poor (if not more).

Yes, quantitatively the rich will be paying much more in a 30% tax rate than the poor (the number will be bigger...), but qualitatively the amount is equal (you are taking away the same percentage of their buying power each way which is inherently fair).

Furthermore, generally those who have a lot of money have an easier time making more since they have more influence, access to resources, and capital to invest. Poorer players generally will not have those resources or much capital they can invest in attempts to earn more money so every penny is harder to come by for them and being disadvantaged by a tax rate skewed in the way you propose would be frustrating. Essentially, at the same tax rate a rich player will pay a much larger amount, but the poorer player will often still 'feel' the tax more even though they pay less.

Also, on a similar note to what @Anoua was saying I think there needs to be some 'fair excuse' for such a tax. A lot of games have a small trading post tax which is rather unintrusive because it is in exchange for a service (essentially it is purchasing the right to list a trade/auction). A flat annual tax not tied into some gameplay feature or event could ruffle some feathers in my opinion though (or in the very least trigger some very clever but undesirable tax evasion attempts among your playerbase). It will seem like you're just taking their money for no reason. It's generally better to set up your sinks in a way that feels fair and voluntary like allowing players to spend money on some kind of upgrade (like lair expansions in Flight Rising), adding expensive cosmetic items for them to purchase and collect, or exacting a fee for certain common game activities (like the trading post fee I mentioned).

Those are just my thoughts though.

[Syntax]

17 hours ago, Sparren said:

Also, on a similar note to what @Anoua was saying I think there needs to be some 'fair excuse' for such a tax. A lot of games have a small trading post tax which is rather unintrusive because it is in exchange for a service (essentially it is purchasing the right to list a trade/auction). A flat annual tax not tied into some gameplay feature or event could ruffle some feathers in my opinion though (or in the very least trigger some very clever but undesirable tax evasion attempts among your playerbase). It will seem like you're just taking their money for no reason. It's generally better to set up your sinks in a way that feels fair and voluntary like allowing players to spend money on some kind of upgrade (like lair expansions in Flight Rising), adding expensive cosmetic items for them to purchase and collect, or exacting a fee for certain common game activities (like the trading post fee I mentioned).

@Boltgreywing Pushing this a little further, taxes in the real world are for a purpose, supporting the governmental bodies. In a game this usually isn't necessary which is why tax systems don't usually get implemented(that and people generally hate taxes). If your taxes aren't supporting any other system financially, they are literally pointless. If you're using taxation as just an economic sink, stop. Instead, where users would normally earn 100, just reduce it to 85. In the tax scenario, your users will have felt like they earned 100, and feel negatively about only have 85 whereas in an income reduction scenario your users will be happier because they felt like they earned 85 and it's all theirs.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Syntax

[Boltgreywing]

20 hours ago, Sparren said:

@Boltgreywing

If the primary goal of the tax is to remove money from the economy it makes more sense to tax rich players the same as the poor (if not more).

Yes, quantitatively the rich will be paying much more in a 30% tax rate than the poor (the number will be bigger...), but qualitatively the amount is equal (you are taking away the same percentage of their buying power each way which is inherently fair).

Furthermore, generally those who have a lot of money have an easier time making more since they have more influence, access to resources, and capital to invest. Poorer players generally will not have those resources or much capital they can invest in attempts to earn more money so every penny is harder to come by for them and being disadvantaged by a tax rate skewed in the way you propose would be frustrating. Essentially, at the same tax rate a rich player will pay a much larger amount, but the poorer player will often still 'feel' the tax more even though they pay less.

Also, on a similar note to what @Anoua was saying I think there needs to be some 'fair excuse' for such a tax. A lot of games have a small trading post tax which is rather unintrusive because it is in exchange for a service (essentially it is purchasing the right to list a trade/auction). A flat annual tax not tied into some gameplay feature or event could ruffle some feathers in my opinion though (or in the very least trigger some very clever but undesirable tax evasion attempts among your playerbase). It will seem like you're just taking their money for no reason. It's generally better to set up your sinks in a way that feels fair and voluntary like allowing players to spend money on some kind of upgrade (like lair expansions in Flight Rising), adding expensive cosmetic items for them to purchase and collect, or exacting a fee for certain common game activities (like the trading post fee I mentioned).

Those are just my thoughts though.

@Sparren: I do need to think as to how my users will react to a tax system. The maximum poor people limit I want are users who have up to 5,500 points in cache. I am thinking of breaking my tax system down into 4 different tax system. Each will be calculated independentally so that one can't really be taken advantage by the others available.

Pouch: Will be in its own tax bracket

Bank: Will be in its own tax bracket

Shop: Will be in it own tax bracket

Donations: Will be in its own tax bracket

2 hours ago, Syntax said:

@Boltgreywing Pushing this a little further, taxes in the real world are for a purpose, supporting the governmental bodies. In a game this usually isn't necessary which is why tax systems don't usually get implemented(that and people generally hate taxes). If your taxes aren't supporting any other system financially, they are literally pointless. If you're using taxation as just an economic sink, stop. Instead, where users would normally earn 100, just reduce it to 85. In the tax scenario, your users will have felt like they earned 100, and feel negatively about only have 85 whereas in an income reduction scenario your users will be happier because they felt like they earned 85 and it's all theirs.

@Syntax: I see, I do agree with you in that respect. One of my biggest considerations right now is trying to find where to draw the line from tax considerations. The tax system will be an additional add on to any tax on services. I want it to be a bit more realalistic. What I am looking to find is which users income get marked as 0% tax and which get marked at a higher bracket.

 

This is the US tax system from 2017:

Table 1. Single Taxable Income Tax Brackets and Rates, 2017

Rate	Taxable Income Bracket	Tax Owed
10%	$0 to $9,325	10% of Taxable Income
15%	$9,325 to $37,950	$932.50 plus 15% of the excess over $9325
25%	$37,950 to $91,900	$5,226.25 plus 25% of the excess over $37,950
28%	$91,900 to $191,650	$18,713.75 plus 28% of the excess over $91,900
33%	$191,650 to $416,700	$46,643.75 plus 33% of the excess over $191,650
35%	$416,700 to $418,400	$120,910.25 plus 35% of the excess over $416,700
39.60%	$418,400+	$121,505.25 plus 39.6% of the excess over $418,400

[Sparren]

55 minutes ago, Boltgreywing said:

Donations: Will be in its own tax bracket

@Boltgreywing

When you say donations do you mean you'll tax paid currency (currency players purchase by donating real money)? If so I very strongly advise against it.

As a player who often likes to support the games I play by donating nothing would anger or discourage me from doing so more than having a portion of the currency I purchased with my real hard earned cash poofed away just because. I paid for that currency. I should be able to spend it. Deliberately parting me from it non-voluntarily is like theft. Especially since as the game owner you have a vested interest in wanting players to need to buy more (since that is where your profit would likely come from)... I'd see it as very underhanded.

In my opinion paid currency should never be taxxed. It's amount should already be limited enough (the primary - if not only - source of this currency should be donations). If somehow there gets to be too much in the economy you simply need to push out more content or upgrades for players to spend it on or consider reducing the exchange rate (so that each real dollar buys fewer paid credits).

Realism is a noble goal, but not always a good one. When it comes to developing I game I think you sometimes have to compromise between realism and fun. I could be wrong, but a true to life tax system may be realistic, but I doubt it will be fun or appreciated by the average player.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Sparren

[Boltgreywing]

38 minutes ago, Sparren said:

@Boltgreywing

When you say donations do you mean you'll tax paid currency (currency players purchase by donating real money)? If so I very strongly advise against it.

As a player who often likes to support the games I play by donating nothing would anger or discourage me from doing so more than having a portion of the currency I purchased with my real hard earned cash poofed away just because. I paid for that currency. I should be able to spend it. Deliberately parting me from it non-voluntarily is like theft. Especially since as the game owner you have a vested interest in wanting players to need to buy more (since that is where your profit would likely come from)... I'd see it as very underhanded.

In my opinion paid currency should never be taxxed. It's amount should already be limited enough (the primary - if not only - source of this currency should be donations). If somehow there gets to be too much in the economy you simply need to push out more content or upgrades for players to spend it on or consider reducing the exchange rate (so that each real dollar buys fewer paid credits).

Realism is a noble goal, but not always a good one. When it comes to developing I game I think you sometimes have to compromise between realism and fun. I could be wrong, but a true to life tax system may be realistic, but I doubt it will be fun or appreciated by the average player.

@Sparren: When I was talking about donations I was referring to points instead of real money. Basically a group of users donate points to another user in form of points. I am not planning on using real currency with my site. The donation box will feature a retrieve button where the user retrieves the amount in the box for a small fee to use the feature. Only on retrieval will points be subtracted but not on donating to it. I am looking to use it for point commision artist.

One of the key things I want as a gameowner is for people to use my site within reason, I don't want individual users to be on 24/7 all the time or even being addicted to it. Those are things that don't really help me out.

Taxing the donation box during tax season will only occur once or twice per year which will be a small chunk of the revenue. The taxes i collect would have a potential effect on the soup kitchen so that it keeps running. If the soup kitchen doesn't get enough points through taxes it will shut down. The points would be used to buy the bowls of soup to keep it running. Each owner or pet could visit it for a free meal and for those with points a portion of the money would be taken out to help the less fortunate.

[Digital]

In the case of taxation, you need a reason for it. You cannot apply a tax without a reason. This has social requirements as well as legal reasons in the real world. A government won't be in power long if they tax the people without those taxes filtering back down in some form. Here in the United States, in most cases our taxes are filtered down through social and public programs designed to attempt to solve social or infrastructural issues. It isn't a perfect thing, but that is the purpose of the taxes.

Rather then how to implement, perhaps consider the social reasonings why you want to do  a tax system, then your system can be created as a means to solve the issue. As a game designer, it isn't always "how to implement it from a programming or numbers standpoint" but rather "why is this system here"

--

Taxes in games are traditionally done in transactions, usually through taxes through trading, transactions, or services. If you have a trading post, you would tax on each auction or trade. If you are doing transactional, say a stock market, you would tax on each trade of stocks. In the case of a service (say bank account), you could charge a user a fee to upgrade their account, thus receive a higher interest rate.

Bi-yearly, or yearly taxes in games are almost non-existent, since it unlikely you will have many players that play that long. I can honestly admit to only three games that I have ever played more then a month or two in my entire life. Such large systems don't really apply well into games.

[Nate]

@Digital - if i could "like" your post, I would, however since that is disabled, I fully agree with everything you say - especially about not having many people who would play it for long term.

[Boltgreywing]

9 hours ago, Digital said:

In the case of taxation, you need a reason for it. You cannot apply a tax without a reason. This has social requirements as well as legal reasons in the real world. A government won't be in power long if they tax the people without those taxes filtering back down in some form. Here in the United States, in most cases our taxes are filtered down through social and public programs designed to attempt to solve social or infrastructural issues. It isn't a perfect thing, but that is the purpose of the taxes.

Rather then how to implement, perhaps consider the social reasonings why you want to do  a tax system, then your system can be created as a means to solve the issue. As a game designer, it isn't always "how to implement it from a programming or numbers standpoint" but rather "why is this system here"

--

Taxes in games are traditionally done in transactions, usually through taxes through trading, transactions, or services. If you have a trading post, you would tax on each auction or trade. If you are doing transactional, say a stock market, you would tax on each trade of stocks. In the case of a service (say bank account), you could charge a user a fee to upgrade their account, thus receive a higher interest rate.

Bi-yearly, or yearly taxes in games are almost non-existent, since it unlikely you will have many players that play that long. I can honestly admit to only three games that I have ever played more then a month or two in my entire life. Such large systems don't really apply well into games.

@Digital: I will have to give my system a bit more thought. I still need to figure out my sinks and sources before I can do much of anything else.

[Digital]

1 hour ago, Boltgreywing said:

@Digital: I will have to give my system a bit more thought. I still need to figure out my sinks and sources before I can do much of anything else.

Don't think so much as sinks as sources as much as think of it a flowing system. Try and keep the concept the fluidity in mind when you think things over. Remember, most terms in a financial or economic sense are worded in terms of liquidity for a reason.

[Boltgreywing]

23 hours ago, Digital said:

Don't think so much as sinks as sources as much as think of it a flowing system. Try and keep the concept the fluidity in mind when you think things over. Remember, most terms in a financial or economic sense are worded in terms of liquidity for a reason.

@Digital: I kind of have a hard time seeing things from a financial concept as I don't see the whole picture that well. I find it easier for me to see most things in the form of parts.