Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1182
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 18:34:00 -
[31] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:stuff
Actually we're dealing with classic hyper inflation.
The 'government' pumping money into the economy, without a rise in assets to go with that money.
That's where the imbalance is. Suck some of that money out (with taxes. because unlike real world taxes, that money is destroyed when it's removed), and you reduce the total quantity of money, in relation to the assets in the game.
So, the quantity of money / the assets in game becomes a more acceptable ratio, rather than the high value it is right now. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1182
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 18:36:00 -
[32] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote: Even thought that money is destroyed, sellers are going to look at their mineral costs and the tax costs and say "Well in order to make profit with the tax I need to raise my prices by X amount" and therefore prices will go up across the board.
That assumes fixed costs.
Which don't exist. There's also the option of paying less for the materials.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
166
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 18:41:00 -
[33] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote: Even thought that money is destroyed, sellers are going to look at their mineral costs and the tax costs and say "Well in order to make profit with the tax I need to raise my prices by X amount" and therefore prices will go up across the board.
That assumes fixed costs. Which don't exist. There's also the option of paying less for the materials.
The costs of production exist. They are called minerals which have prices set by the markets.
If you are paying less for the materials then it means someone took my suggestion of increasing the amount of miners and minerals in the market.
People aren't going to sell minerals any less than they can get away with.
Unless you mine your own minerals, but as anyone tells you, you are cheating yourself if you sell your products below mineral prices because of the time it takes to mine it. (Opportunity cost)
Let's say I sell something for 100 that costs 90 to make. Then there is a 10% tax. Now if I charge 100 I only get 90 which is my mineral cost which is basically me wasting my time manufacturing. So in order to sell this, I find a market to sell it at 110 so I pay the 10% tax and still make my 10 isk.
If you aren't making a profit why in the hell are you making the product then? If there is a tax you must increase your selling price or get the hell out of the market. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1182
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 18:43:00 -
[34] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote: Even thought that money is destroyed, sellers are going to look at their mineral costs and the tax costs and say "Well in order to make profit with the tax I need to raise my prices by X amount" and therefore prices will go up across the board.
That assumes fixed costs. Which don't exist. There's also the option of paying less for the materials. The costs of production exist. They are called minerals which have prices set by the markets. If you are paying less for the materials then it means someone took my suggestion of increasing the amount of miners and minerals in the market. People aren't going to sell minerals any less than they can get away with. Unless you mine your own minerals, but as anyone tells you, you are cheating yourself if you sell your products below mineral prices because of the time it takes to mine it. (Opportunity cost) Let's say I sell something for 100 that costs 90 to make. Then there is a 10% tax. Now if I charge 100 I only get 90 which is my mineral cost which is basically me wasting my time manufacturing. So in order to sell this, I find a market to sell it at 110 so I pay the 10% tax and still make my 10 isk. If you aren't making a profit why in the hell are you making the product then? If there is a tax you must increase your selling price or get the hell out of the market.
Prices fall, as well as rise. If no-one is willing to pay what the miners ask, then the miners won't get. So prices will fall. As demand will fall. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1197
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 19:14:00 -
[35] - Quote
The CCP Economist suggested raising taxes as a solution for inflation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7MZD6-vGQms
CCP Soundwave, the game designer, is trying to avoid doing it.
I agree with both in my own way. Tax High Sec more, to offbalance the massive benefits of high sec. Where I am. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
339
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 19:25:00 -
[36] - Quote
People won't leave high sec for a few %. Your change will have only 1 benefit and thats burning ISK from the game slowing down inflation. It won't change anything else because people won't go through the hassle of low if they can still sell in high.
People love Jita after all. So much that the gates are blocked everyday. |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1262
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 19:28:00 -
[37] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Pop quiz: What did President Ronald Regan do to combat inflation in the early 1980's? Nothing. There never was a President named "Regan". If you're not already part of a bloc, this is the best guy for CSM8. |
baltec1
Bat Country
5435
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 19:49:00 -
[38] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:People won't leave high sec for a few %. Your change will have only 1 benefit and thats burning ISK from the game slowing down inflation. It won't change anything else because people won't go through the hassle of low if they can still sell in high. People love Jita after all. So much that the gates are blocked everyday.
I would move my manufacturing to low if it was made worth doing. |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
557
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 19:57:00 -
[39] - Quote
Trying to apply rl macroeconomics 1:1 to Eve is ridiculous. At best it offers hints and insights, but suggesting a mirroring of actual policy is beyond farcical. |
RAP ACTION HERO
169
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:03:00 -
[40] - Quote
make the low sec tax 1/4 of high sec or something lol vitoc erryday |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4057
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:07:00 -
[41] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Trying to apply rl macroeconomics 1:1 to Eve is ridiculous. At best it offers hints and insights, but suggesting a mirroring of actual policy is beyond farcical. RL macroeconomics don't work that well on RL economies anyway. Malcanis for CSM 8 Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:13:00 -
[42] - Quote
the problem is that the difference between 0.5 and 0.4 sec might as well be the difference between 0.5 and -1.0 for certain activities. so simple nerfs and buffs just won't encourage anything as no CONCORD really is a deal-breaker. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
557
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:13:00 -
[43] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:Trying to apply rl macroeconomics 1:1 to Eve is ridiculous. At best it offers hints and insights, but suggesting a mirroring of actual policy is beyond farcical. RL macroeconomics don't work that well on RL economies anyway.
haha touche
a worthy addendum
|
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1197
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:27:00 -
[44] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
I agree with both in my own way. Tax High Sec more, to offbalance the massive benefits of high sec.
People won't leave high sec for a few %. Your change will have only 1 benefit and thats burning ISK from the game slowing down inflation. It won't change anything else because people won't go through the hassle of low if they can still sell in high.
People love Jita after all. So much that the gates are blocked everyday.[/quote]
Opinion.
Only one way to find out, and that is to do it. I guarantee you that even if 10% of the traders decide to offload more goods through low sec to save 1% on taxes, they will do so. Right now there is no incentive, so naturally there is no pressure or tendency to do so to increase competitiveness. Where I am. |
Bud Austrene
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:37:00 -
[45] - Quote
I do not believe that the not nice (PVPer's) low and null-sec people should have the same advantages as the nice (PVE's) high-sec people. The high-sec people live good moral lives and don't go around shooting and just generally griefing others. They should be rewarded for that.
The low-sec and null-sec people have ruined their part of the sandbox and should not be allowed to ruin the rest of the sandbox for others. If you feel that high-sec has such massive advantages then mend your ways and you to can have those advantages.
Or just accept that the disadvantages that you have to endure are the fruits of you evil ways.
Yes I am an alt. I see no reason to make it easy for bullies and greifers |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
622
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:38:00 -
[46] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote: Opinion.
Only one way to find out, and that is to do it. I guarantee you that even if 10% of the traders decide to offload more goods through low sec to save 1% on taxes, they will do so. Right now there is no incentive, so naturally there is no pressure or tendency to do so to increase competitiveness.
Unlikely.
Cost to benefit ratio is way out of whack for buyers and sellers. For sellers 1 loss in 100 successful sales nullifies any increased profits assuming any hubs you expect to arise in low if they function at similar prices to highsec. If they are priced higher there is no incentive for buyers to risk going to lowsec hubs, and infact would be penalized for it. If lower then sellers have no incentive to sell there as they would be taking more risk for the same or less isk.
So what you have suggested is a marginal, and likely unnoticeable difference which has no good way of being capitalized on. If this was done it would sink more isk from highsec and that is all. Lowsec would see no benefit. Not at the numbers proposed. |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1264
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:47:00 -
[47] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:So what you have suggested is a marginal, and likely unnoticeable difference which has no good way of being capitalized on. If this was done it would sink more isk from highsec and that is all. Lowsec would see no benefit. Not at the numbers proposed. I agree, it did seem rather marginal. Perhaps a 5% tax on high-sec transactions would be more "incentive"? If you're not already part of a bloc, this is the best guy for CSM8. |
Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 21:03:00 -
[48] - Quote
you could make it 10% and still no takers if you need a cyno alt and 4 jump freighter trips to haul the same cargo as one single freighter can take into a high sec hub.
trading through a low-sec hub would just be a massive PITA. I can't imagine any reasonable tax incentive making it worthwhile.
same goes for mining in low. rubbish money for the risk you're taking, you might as well go to null and rat in a BS if you're hanging out in a belt being an enormous target. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
623
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 21:05:00 -
[49] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:So what you have suggested is a marginal, and likely unnoticeable difference which has no good way of being capitalized on. If this was done it would sink more isk from highsec and that is all. Lowsec would see no benefit. Not at the numbers proposed. I agree, it did seem rather marginal. Perhaps a 5% tax on high-sec transactions would be more "incentive"? It would have to be high enough that it allows builders to make enough profit to make the risks worthwhile after accounting for potential losses while having prices still be low enough compared to highsec prices to entice buyers to brave those same dangers.
So thinking about it, what would it take in price difference for you to go to a lowsec Jita while NOT looking for PvP and wanting to make it through unscathed? 5%? Not for me. Typical lowsec without heavy population or draw needs 10% to be worth thinking about. And a lowsec trade hub? With the heightened traffic likely bringing with it more combat PvP when that is what buyers and sellers are not looking for when conducting their business, it would need to be considerably higher still.
But those are my personal thoughts, and that worth is subjective for each person looking at that decision. |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1198
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 22:03:00 -
[50] - Quote
Again, it's not about making everyone leave high sec. It's about giving an incentive to Low Sec.
If you convert 1 in 20 traders to doing more low sec trading to be competitive, they will dramatically change the face of Low Sec. Yes, so some people have to take some more risks, but if you talk about 200B isk in revenue a Month, 1% less taxes means 2B ISK in savings. Might not seem like a lot but if you build on that 1% you are talking about a lot of leverage for a trader. Where I am. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
623
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 22:07:00 -
[51] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Again, it's not about making everyone leave high sec. It's about giving an incentive to Low Sec.
If you convert 1 in 20 traders to doing more low sec trading to be competitive, they will dramatically change the face of Low Sec. Yes, so some people have to take some more risks, but if you talk about 200B isk in revenue a Month, 1% less taxes means 2B ISK in savings. Might not seem like a lot but if you build on that 1% you are talking about a lot of leverage for a trader. I never said anything about forcing anyone. I gave an analysis of your incentive and found it lacking. 1% isn't going to have a strong draw for either party considering the risks involved. |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1198
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 22:18:00 -
[52] - Quote
If you look at the kind of trade hubs that exist, there are basically 4 classes :
Mega Trade Hub == Jita, Assets from 20T ISK and higher
Major Trade Hub == Assets from 1T- 5T ISK . (i.e. Jita, Amarr, Dodixie, Rens, Hek)
Minor Trade Hub == Assets from 100- 200B ISK (i.e. Hek, Ishisomo, Emolgranlan)
Local Hub == Assets from 10-50B ISK.
Looking at Hubs you tend to have a pretty level Plateau on the size of hubs.
Local Hubs generally stop at around 50B ISK. Minor Hubs tend to block off around 1T ISK max, and then Major Hubs start at around 5T ISK. And Jita, as a Mega Hub is 3-4 times larger than the next largest Hubs.
The pattern there isn't really a coincidence. Although there are some exceptions, there is a noticeable "gap" between hubs in size. If you can promote more hubs to jump from "Local" to "Minor" hubs in low sec, you will generate a more dynamic economy. It doesn't actually take THAT MUCH economy to convert Local Hubs to Minor Hubs, if you can convince a small percentage of Minor Hub Traders to drop to promoting low sec Local Hubs and give them a boost by saving a percentage point or two on their 100B assets. Where I am. |
Shadow Love
Shadowfall Logistics
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 22:33:00 -
[53] - Quote
Highsec PVE industry corp CEO reporting in. How many people just cringed? Heh heh. One of the most obnoxious things I have to do almost every time I recruit a new player is explain why we will never move into lowsec. New players are interested in doing this in my experience almost all the time. I support them doing it, but explain that if industry is there preferred playstyle that it will never be worth it. This is fundamentally wrong and needs to be changed, and IGÇÖm tired of people on the forums deciding that their (whiney) voice is the voice of all PVE players across the game.
How this can change is up for debate obviously, but it needs to. Taxes are one way to go, nerfing highsec refine rates is another option I would be okay with. Both in conjunction would be okay. In highsec I have the most powerful mercenary corp in the game protecting me from harm at all times, and yet my corp pays nothing for this glorious service. You canGÇÖt just buff lowsec and nullsec to make them compete imo. If that were to happen, all of the PVE players in highsec would just whine more about how much longer they have to mindlessly chew ore to supply their six accounts with PLEX because of the inflation it would probably cause.
A nerf is needed; what should be nerfed or how is beyond me as I am relatively inexperienced in anything outside of lvl 4 mission running and minor industry activities. I do know that if it came down to it and we actually could make a move to lowsec and be viable, IGÇÖm in contact with 3-4 other highsec PVE CEOs who would probably be game to merge into one corp. If it took amassing more players into larger corps with more capability to defend themselves, I would make that change and give up my fancy little title.
TL;DR tired of my GÇ£voiceGÇ¥ on the forums being whiney PVErs who refuse to acknowledge change is needed. IGÇÖm the CEO of a corp with newbs who would be happy to mine/produce/live in lowsec if there was a reason to.
|
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1198
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 03:52:00 -
[54] - Quote
Any other thoughts?
Where I am. |
Ris Dnalor
L'Avant Garde Happy Endings
462
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 06:48:00 -
[55] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote: High security offers a wide variety of "advantages" and perks over Low Security. CONCORD, safer travel, no infrastructure burdens, etc. How do the Empires "pay" for this, in theory? Taxes. Then why is Low Sec, who gets a lot less infrastructure "advantages" pay the same taxes as high sec?
Either lower Low Sec Taxes, or preferably raise High Sec station taxes.
The market will feel the taxes (even a moderate doubling from 1% to 2%) will reduce inflation due to High Sec trading velocity, and it will promote the advantage of low security trade hubs even further. More dangerous? Sure? More valuable to struggle over? Yes. Low Sec = slightly improved.
We pay a very high tax for the safety of our current western world, as high as 20-30% of our income, on top of sales taxes, etc. Yet in EVE High Seccers barely pay even 1% on their taxes to do the same? Seems ridiculous.
Will it break the High Sec market? No way. It will just make all those greedy traders sit and look, "Man, if only we could have that space over there..." Greedy eyes.
/emote wonders what npc corp tax rates are like.... sort of related.
but back on track.
Let's be fair.
If you call an ambulance, you have to pay for the ride.
So, when concord comes to save your ass, they should charge your ass.
That'd be keeping within the spirit of eve, eh?
Figure a base fee, perhaps divided by sec status of system, reflecting a stronger CONCORD presence in 1.0 systems, and thusly less deployment cost for the saving of your arse.
Then modify it by the value of whatever has to be shot down, or even the value of whatever is being protected. Since the client computes values of kill mails ( ala FW ), I would assume the former would be easier, and possibly more representive of the effort that had to be put forth by CONCORD in order to ensure the saving of the arse.
So, yea, great idea. CONCORD should charge folks for being rescued. And if they can't afford it, CONCORD should deny them protection until their bill is paid. Can't believe someone didn't suggest this sooner!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2896
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 07:09:00 -
[56] - Quote
Ares Farway wrote:SO I have to sit in a low sec station to install my region wise buy orders and have an alt collect em? Same safety for me once I am there, and Jump clones are gonna be my best friend then :)
Taxes are paid by the seller. So... This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Arronicus
Vintas Industries Mistakes Were Made.
287
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 07:26:00 -
[57] - Quote
Posting in a...
In before...
Uhhh....
Uhh...
RAISE HIGHSEC TAXES! |
Fearghaz Tiwas
ZOMBIEBEACHPARTYPATROL Circle-Of-Two
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:16:00 -
[58] - Quote
I can't believe this thread made it to 3 pages and hasn't descended into the usual madness yet. It's actually led to a decent discussion. I think there really needs to be a two pronged approach to improving Hi/0.0 sec, starting with a massive buff to low and 0 sec industry.
It makes little sense to me that it would be more profitable to manufacture in somebody elses factory,than one owned by your own corp. I've also noticed how pitifully few manufacturing slots there are in low. I recently started an alt to do a bit of industrial stuff, as I knew basically FA about it. I learnt a bit in Hi, made some moderate amounts of ISK, then moved to 0.0 and realised that industry down there is a waste of time, so now he's just a salvaging alt. The number of slots needs to be increased by a significant amount, and the costs involved (as well as for refining) should be reduced.
Meanwhile, I would suggest more taxation in Hi. I'd agree with those suggesting that base level tax rates for sellers should be in the region of 5-10%, but then put an additional 5-10% on the buyers end too (maybe scaling with sec status so 1.0 = 10%, 0.9%). Skills can still be used to mitigate the effect of these taxes as it is now. This takes some of the impetus for change out of the sellers hands, and back into the buyers. Maybe a 5% tax wouldn't cause a hauler to move his stuff to lo-sec hubs, but if their customers choose to avoid this task by buying in other hubs, then they will have to adapt.
Now 5/10% is hypothetical, so don't get too excited if this seems out of whack, it's just an idea.
tl;dr Tax Hi sec more, create oppurtunities to build in lower secs
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1183
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:30:00 -
[59] - Quote
I'd suggest not slapping on a 10% tax, at least to start with.
Slow increases, so you can see how the market reacts.
I did like a suggested change I saw, based off FW control. (people who are losing have to pay a little more) FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
781
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:36:00 -
[60] - Quote
The problem you have with this is 1%, 2%, 10% would all be a small price to pay compared to these stations being perma-gamped from the second the server goes up, to the second the server goes down.
You don't open a convenience store in the middle of a minefield. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |