|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Dec 29, 2012 8:39:17 GMT -6
This is going to be a large issue we're going to need to hammer out before we lay down a settlement.
I'll put out a disclaimer now: I am against taxation for the ethical reason that I do not endorse the initiation of force. Taxation is the appropriation of property that happens whether or not the party that owns the property chooses to make the transaction. In this game, there's no chance for them to choose otherwise - the money is simply collected from their accounts at a certain recurring time (from the sounds of the blog and dev posts on the board).
Taxation takes away from the use of that lost property by individual actors to suit their needs - if you take a thousand dollars from me, that's a thousand dollars I couldn't spend on a car or home improvement or investing into Tony's Breadmaking Company, or whatever. Inherently, use by a bureaucracy is more inefficient than each individual actor deciding what is most needed for him.
However, absent taxes does NOT mean absent revenue! My contention is not that we shouldn't request money/work on revenue streams, just that we shouldn't do so without consent on both sides. The other advantage to a 0% tax rate is that it will make us a haven for outside crafters, merchants, etc - why stick with Town A (15% tax) when you could come to us and keep 100%? The increase in population and productive people - who will often feel a sense of psychological debt to you for providing them a safe haven to practice their trade. Also, if/when some of them choose to donate, you'll incur a strong sense of fellowship (Seriously, people feel more indebted to you if you have them do you a favor and then thank them - so the first time they donate, the more likely they are to continue donating).
With that said, here are some alternate ideas for revenue streams:
Guild Events: Organized PVE specifically for the generation of revenue. Shamelessly stealing this from Andius over at The Empyrean Order. He set his percentage of this fundraiser at 50/50 - 50% of what you find/take you keep, 50% goes to the coffers. Price is adjustable and these specifically noted events are 100% voluntary.
"Guild" Stores: Through donation of time, money, and loot, these shops can sell items at market price with the knowledge that 100% of the revenue goes to the coffers.
Donations: Members (and outsiders) may choose to make donations in any amount at any time, but are not required to.
Suggestions, thoughts, requests?
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Dec 29, 2012 10:00:38 GMT -6
I'm not sure if it's any better for promoting good will among merchants, but I noticed some guilds brought up the sugestion that out of guild buisnesses could pay a fixed rent for space inside of a settlement. I'm guessing that under that arrangement there would be 0% tax.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Dec 29, 2012 10:24:41 GMT -6
I'm not sure that assumption has basis, Chai. Paying rent would be like "Ok, you can set up a shop in our town, subject to all of the requirements of anyone else in town, like tax." Rent usually buys permission, not privilege.
On the subject of taxes, I have to disagree that the taxation is involuntary. It is half of an agreed upon transaction. We give you the benefits that come with being a member of our organization, in return, you pay us taxes. Assuming being a member of the organization is of some non-zero value, the payment in kind should also be non-zero. Now, that said, I *am* an advocate of a low tax rate, ala 2-5%. Enough to provide for the regular upkeep of shared resources. Leave it up to individuals to decide whether or not to support new projects and undertakings by the organization.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Dec 29, 2012 10:37:38 GMT -6
Paying rent of land is something I'm okay with - it's a direct transaction with clearly dilineated service agreements. Sort of similar to when we agree to maintain your servers at work - you pay us $AB.CD/mo, we ensure 99% uptime blah blah blah.
My hesitance over taxes greatly stems from the real world, where they are de facto involuntary. The other issue with taxation, from an ethical point, is that tax money can never be used to do something that the person paying wouldn't want (in the real world, wars of aggression, death penalty, enforcement of laws they disagree with, etc). Rent/possible low (2-5%) taxation is something The Empyrean Order was discussing. Like them, I would prefer it if we started out, at least, with a 0% tax - and if it turns out we're not generating enough money for upkeep and infrastructure, then we may have to institute a tax.
What makes tax much, much more palatable to me in PFO is that the barriers for avoiding taxation (if you so choose) are incredibly low. Unlike in the real world, where it would mean finding a location without taxation, getting a job there, and moving your worldly possessions (and the fact that the only non-taxed locations are in fact taxed by warlords), in PFO you move your Avatar to another location. Nice and easy. Nor are most of the settlements/factions going to hunt you down across PFO for tax evasion. This makes it much more of a voluntary contract, and one I can (hesitantly) get behind, if absolutely necessary. I would prefer it if we tried a tax-free approach first.
I also expect that most members will voluntarily be contributing to the guild - Keepers of Steel will likely be shoveling money into Iron/Crystal for equipment and into Earth for construction of walls. We're all in this together, but I'm definitely a rationalist with strong convictions of individual rights.
I'm not sure if I'm making myself as clear to you as I am in my head, because I spend roughly 10 hours a week reading philosophy books/articles and actively browse the Mises Institute's backlog of Austrian Economics papers. So if you have questions, definitely ask them.
Also, I will never, ever, ever belittle you or think less of you for your ideas and stances. I may disagree with them (and will tell you so) but I do not tolerate (in myself or others) being cruel or abusive. It's not productive. I'm a fan of the marketplace of ideas, and how can I/we learn if we never address our disagreements?
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Dec 29, 2012 10:51:08 GMT -6
Some of the other real world alternatives to taxation aren't well translatable into the game - contract enforcement, for example, is handled by game mechanics. One thing we could do would be to implement a lottery system - You can purchase Lottery Item 1-1000 (at X coin/Item) and the payout would be 50% of what is paid in - so if it's 10 coin/Item, the payoff (assuming all 1000 are sold) would be 5000 coin - you're paying for the chance to win big, but also voluntarily choosing to donate some of that money to maintenance. We could institute different lottery levels (5/10/25/50/100/500/1000) as time goes on to generate more revenue.
We could offer multi-party ownership of in-game buildings - if Bob The Builder builds you a factory with 75% of the capital supplied by you, you could work out a contract to each pay 50% of the costs of upkeep, but split 50% of the profits too. That's just an example, there are dozens of ways this could play out.
Players could pay for other similar gambling opportunities (Guild-hosted duels/tournaments, etc) where a portion of the proceeds goes to maintenance and the like.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Dec 29, 2012 10:51:11 GMT -6
I think this is an important point, too. It's not like we set the tax once and have to completely re-form the settlement if we don't like it. It can be changed. I actually think running the first month or two of Early Access tax free may not be a bad idea. It'll allow the players to set up their own personal supply of funds during a period where we don't have to worry about damage/loss of settlement facilities (since it won't be implemented in game yet =P)
That said, I do still think long run a small tax is probably going to be better for the settlement. It means that if something does have to be done at the organizational level, we don't have to wait to amass funds if it's time-sensitive. That said, if the coffers are filling up and we think we can cut back for a bit, great.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Dec 29, 2012 10:56:40 GMT -6
Some of the other real world alternatives to taxation aren't well translatable into the game - contract enforcement, for example, is handled by game mechanics. One thing we could do would be to implement a lottery system - You can purchase Lottery Item 1-1000 (at X coin/Item) and the payout would be 50% of what is paid in - so if it's 10 coin/Item, the payoff (assuming all 1000 are sold) would be 5000 coin - you're paying for the chance to win big, but also voluntarily choosing to donate some of that money to maintenance. We could institute different lottery levels (5/10/25/50/100/500/1000) as time goes on to generate more revenue. This I actually have to come out as strongly against. I think random allocation like that is a very poor way of handling things. I'd rather see people contribute in to a communal account from which loans and the like can be taken as needed. if Bob The Builder builds you a factory with 75% of the capital supplied by you, you could work out a contract to each pay 50% of the costs of upkeep, but split 50% of the profits too. This works if the building generates some sort of revenue on it's own, separate from that of any PC crafters involved. If it only serves as the necessary facilities for PCs to perform their crafting, or provides some other non-monetary advantage to the settlement, I think it would be better handled as a loan. Otherwise you're actually talking about partial ownership of the factory worker's net income, which is just a private tax.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Dec 29, 2012 11:12:09 GMT -6
This I actually have to come out as strongly against. I think random allocation like that is a very poor way of handling things. I'd rather see people contribute in to a communal account from which loans and the like can be taken as needed. My intention here is that you buy into the Lottery with a chance to win back a fixed amount (50% of the money paid into the Lottery), but that the rest of it would go to a fixed Guild Account - the same account Guild Stores/Events revenues would flow to. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. This works if the building generates some sort of revenue on it's own, separate from that of any PC crafters involved. If it only serves as the necessary facilities for PCs to perform their crafting, or provides some other non-monetary advantage to the settlement, I think it would be better handled as a loan. Otherwise you're actually talking about partial ownership of the factory worker's net income, which is just a private tax. What I'm getting at is that if you and Bob decide together to provide all of the funding and work for the building and the production from it, then you've made an investment worth collecting on. In this case, if you charged a leasing fee (10% or whatever) to other crafters who wanted to use the building, you would be able to. If we can only have one of each building type in the settlement, I would be surprised - and more likely to do fundraising by the guild to support each building than to put it into private hands (which would be creating a de facto barrier to entry for other entrepreneurs). Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Dec 29, 2012 11:13:30 GMT -6
Also, I missed your mention of loans the first time around - absolutely, I think we should operate a sort of Guild Bank for members with fixed rate loans and investment opportunities. It's a great way to help new players get more involved before they've acquired the capital to do so and the loans will go towards keeping a healthy fund for operating the settlement.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Dec 29, 2012 11:29:13 GMT -6
This I actually have to come out as strongly against. I think random allocation like that is a very poor way of handling things. I'd rather see people contribute in to a communal account from which loans and the like can be taken as needed. My intention here is that you buy into the Lottery with a chance to win back a fixed amount (50% of the money paid into the Lottery), but that the rest of it would go to a fixed Guild Account - the same account Guild Stores/Events revenues would flow to. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. No, I got that part. But what you have is a situation were "Organization raises X money. X/2 goes toward guild business. X/2 is randomly distributed." The idea behind it is that without the potential payout, the guild would have raised less than X/2 simply soliciting donations through some other system, which may or may not be the case. And has the added cost that half the money raised is taken from the community at large, concentrated, and then doled out randomly to one source.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Dec 29, 2012 11:35:56 GMT -6
It's intended as an additional measure to revenue from donation/potential low levels of taxation. It's gambling where the guild will take a cut. Sort of voluntary fundraising with an incentive to do so. We've seen lotteries play out in the real world where people will spend inordinate amounts of money for the chance to win big - in the US, that money goes mostly to local school (or it does in the STL area/midwest, anyway) funding.
I'm not saying we can fund the guild entirely this way, because I seriously doubt that - I'm saying it's a potential avenue for collecting money otherwise not donated/spent on an approach that may convince people to throw in for it. The lottery would be open to whoever bought lottery items, so it could potentially be paid to outside the guild members/settlement - this could bring in revenue from outside to the guild as well. Is X/2 less than X? Absolutely. But if we have X/2 (lottery), Y (donations), and Z (guild fundraising from the shops/events), and T (taxation), we've got a diversified revenue stream. I'm loathe to minimize our options for revenue, and I'm kinda coming around to taxes in PFO. I just don't want them to be a burden on members/businesses.
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Dec 29, 2012 11:44:36 GMT -6
I wonder if a lottery system would effect the alignment of a settlement? Maybe it would make it more chaotic? Then again that's probably going to become clear when more of the game system becomes clear.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Dec 29, 2012 11:52:34 GMT -6
If you're looking for a fundraising with incentive, I think I'd rather see something run for individual projects with an investment/returns strategy. Guild plans new project, will require X coins. Members invest in Y it and for T time receive a percentage of the profits. At the end of that time, it revert to full guild ownership. Then you could also allow members to sell off their interest in the venture to other members.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Dec 29, 2012 11:56:46 GMT -6
@chai
I'm not sure if it would have much or any effect, unless lotteries are provided for by the system. I think it would be hard to measure.
@dario
I love this idea. I think it would fit well with having a guild-run banking organization. That seems the purview of Gold for management?
What's your opinion on private ownership of buildings/projects? Are you against a Guild Lottery specifically, or lotteries in general?
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Dec 29, 2012 12:15:43 GMT -6
I'm not so much against lotteries as I think they are an inefficient way to raise funds in a community less than about a thousand people. Because they're based on the whole "X/2 is more than we'd be able to raise through other means" they're predicated on the thinking that people will not support their community without a chance for direct incentives (vice indirect incentives such as improved community resources/capabilities). This is true in large communities, but less so for organizations small enough for individuals to identify themselves as part of the community at large, rather than a limited subset that may not benefit from organizational improvements from the lottery.
I have no problem with private ownership of things, I think it can be beneficial in a lot of regards for some aspects. I only mentioned projects reverting to guild ownership because I think individuals securing investors for private property/projects isn't really in the purview of guild oversight.
|
|