|
Post by Augustine on Dec 29, 2012 13:09:32 GMT -6
I do like the idea of a 0% tax rate while we getting settled into the game and as far as a low tax is concerned, I also agree. I think a 3% tax, long term, would be good enough. Its low enough to encourage others to join our settlement, but it could still provide enough revenue for the most basic of needs for the settlement. I can tell you right now that I would give some, if not all, my loot items from battle to the guild crafters and merchants to further the settlement's needs or goals.
|
|
|
Post by WxCougar on Dec 29, 2012 13:48:57 GMT -6
I also agree starting out 0% at the beginning is a good idea. When I mentioned earlier, I thought we were talking sales tax rather than essentially 'property tax/income tax'. Though, having no sales tax is rather nice (being from Oregon we don't have it), it did make it so that other ways are taxed more to make up for it. So you can take that with some measure of thought. However, the ability to do guild fundraisers by going out to collect items for the express purpose of selling them in the Guild shop is also a good way to do it.
It's possible we can make do with a voluntary "tax" system where Person A donates X amount each month, while Person B donates Y amount each month based on what they feel is right. It really depends on the devotion, which I don't think is a problem with this group, but might be as we get much bigger.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Dec 29, 2012 14:35:17 GMT -6
I think understand your position now much better than I did, Dario. Some limited taxation may end up being necessary, and we should rely more on direct-to-guild fundraising. Is this accurate? Maybe one of our trusty Keepers of Gold can do a personally run lottery. Gambling is good money, even if not directly going to the Guild. Starting with a 0% tax, guild events, donations (including scheduled automatic, if that's possible?), loan/banking, and the guild shop - Any other ideas on Guild Revenue? Maybe a finder's fee for missions from outside groups? @akem: I think a lot of us are going to fall under the "would willingly give a lot to advance the guild" grouping. Glad to see your dedication. >:] WxCougar (Is Cougar an appropriate handle to refer to you by?): I would definitely prefer a 0% sales tax. I could foresee good cause for taxes from people who own property in town, as long as that tax is set on the property value of the land itself (I'd consider it a voluntary contribution to the protection you get from being in our town - a known cost of purchasing ahead of time). I would prefer not to see an income tax though.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Dec 29, 2012 14:48:30 GMT -6
As I see it, we have to identify the cases where the settlement needs money.
A) Upkeep. B) Unexepected time sensative situations (hopefully infrequent) ex. Attacked and outnumbered, need to hire mercenaries. C) Development projects
In my opinion, A is best handled with a simple, low tax. It provides a reliable, moderately predictable revenue stream to handle a regular, semi-fixed expense. A viable alternative would also be fixed membership dues. Effectively a flat tax rather than a percentage one. I would argue that the flat tax would be disproportionately hard on new players, which is why I advocate for the percentage.
B could be handled through a savings of surplus taxes/event raisings and income from the shops.
C could be handled through directed fundraising (Events for the purpose of supplying the project), donations from the guild account (B), and investment by the members.
|
|
|
Post by kvalandur on Dec 29, 2012 14:50:37 GMT -6
I think starting out wit a 0% tax at the beginning and see how it goes, is a good way to approach the taxation issue. We can always try different funding methods to see how effective they are during that time. I've been reading past GWBogs and info, to see what sort of plans they have talked about already and in one it mentions building roads and the maintenance of roads, buildings. We will have to see how much these things cost first, then ensure we will have enough money to keep stuff maintained. They do mention caravans for the transport of goods and materials a lot in the blogs. I've given some thought to perhaps trying to provide fully set up caravans for hire services. Not sure what you guys think about this idea though? Or if it would even work
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Dec 29, 2012 14:53:43 GMT -6
It seems that the role of money is going to be a little different in Pathfinder Online than in the table top RPG. In the TTRPG character wealth can form a large portion of that character's overall strenght.
I remember seeing something along the lines of a "20th" level character will be about 5 times stronger than a 1st level character. It's hard to translate that directly to TTRPG terms, but in general I have not doubt that 20th level TTRPG levels are MUCH more powerful comparitively than 20th level PFO characters. I'm not sure how exactly many 1st level characters would be needed to challenge a 20th level TTRPG character, but I would imagine it would be DOZENS.
This means that PFO characters get less power from both "levels" and their equipment. In short, giving money to the Circle is going to hurt the player's overall power level less in the PFO game as compared to in the TTRPG.
I like this since, in a way I would like to play my character as almost an ascetic outlook. In the TTRPG, I've had inclinations to play similar characters, but it really doesn't work. Without proper eqiupment the PC lags too much in power.
So in short, yeah Orboros will probably donate heavily too, for RP reasons among others.
|
|
|
Post by WxCougar on Dec 29, 2012 14:58:16 GMT -6
Cougar works fine, its been my online nickname forever. Gambling is certainly one way to raise funds and has been around forever. It certainly can help but its not something I would necessarily rely on until we learn if it would be popular enough or not. As to income tax, I was trying to find the correct term for general tax. Econ was not my favorite subject in school
|
|
|
Post by kvalandur on Dec 29, 2012 15:18:44 GMT -6
One thing I'm seeing in the blogs is that player settlements won't be in the game until close to, or even at release of the game. So we will have quite a bit of time to lay the groundwork, find a location and start saving money and materials so that when they do add settlements, we will be ready to set ours up.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Dec 29, 2012 15:41:40 GMT -6
From the Land Rush post on the forums:
So they'll exist in limited, fixed form at the start, and capabilities will be phased in over the early access.
|
|
|
Post by kvalandur on Dec 29, 2012 17:07:59 GMT -6
From the Land Rush post on the forums: So they'll exist in limited, fixed form at the start, and capabilities will be phased in over the early access. Ah, what I read was from early in 2012, Feb I believe. So they changed it a bit. That's cool. I did learn that the whole material refining and crafting process will be a lot more in depth then most games, that's really nice. Can't wait to see how it all works.
|
|
|
Post by Fruben on Dec 30, 2012 6:21:40 GMT -6
[the following is based on the assumption that the settlements can be "inhabited" and facilities and services utilized by both members and non-members of the chartered company] Overall approachKeepers: I would like to see an atmosphere develop, where success or failure is measured primarily through the success of the Circle as a whole. Success as a team is (for me at least) many times more rewarding compared to individual glory. I would like to see keepers to be encouraged (though not enforced even indirectly) to work for the benefit of the Circle as a whole whether it be chasing down bandits, exploring ancient ruins, hunting for rare resources, manufacturing goods or playing to market to maximize profits. I would like to see whatever system is eventually adopted to promote efficiency. Let those who are good and enjoy fighting fight, same for explorers, gatherers, crafters, traders etc. Ensuring that resources are optimally distributed. While 100 coin may be exactly 100 coin if they remain in the bank account of a lazy cleric, the same amount may be multiplied within a matter of days in the hands of an industrious Warden of Gold. Residents: I would like our settlement (if and when we are able to set up one) as a safe haven with low (if any) taxation etc. We should, however, encourage residents to donate excess wealth they may have for common good, such as new construction projects, as well as keep track and appropriate reward the benefactors. TaxationKeepersI would be fine with anything between 0-90 % (though I would like some pocket change for ale and entertainment ). Obviously the higher the tax rate, the more the Keepers would rely on the Circle to provide necessary equipment and other resources to carry out their tasks (but a higher tax rate would obviously also enable the Circle to better do so). As an alternative to a (high) tax, a donation system might achieve the same outcome. Or if you want to go with a more capitalistic approach, allowing the keepers to "invest" in the Circle and thereby providing the Circle capital needed to build it to an economic and militaristic powerhouse. From a purely philosophical point of view I personally would prefer either a fairly high (but of course voluntary in the sense that joining the Circle is completely voluntary and anyone could reside in the settlement and even work with Circle members without subjecting themselves to the tax) or structured donation system. ResidentsFully agree on the initial 0 % approach, as the primary goal is likely to be growth. If and when a decent size is achieved, the tax rate could be set on a level which is sufficient to cover the maintenance costs (and potentially to generate a tiny profit). The Circle should be open to donations from grateful residents and the Circle should not hesitate to ask support from the residents for major constructions etc. Other revenue generationKeepersThe need to extra curricular revenue rallies would likely depend on how effective the primary revenue generation (taxation, donation, investment etc.) would be. In case the level of the primary revenue generation would on an be around or greater than 50 % of your average Keeper's income, there would probably be no need for separate fundraisers as all (profitable) Circle activity would effectively at the same time be a fundraiser. A treasure trail, resource rally, manufacturing mayhem or caravan convoy with other Keepers would hopefully be great fun in its own right, raising some additional funds to the Circle would just be an added bonus. Residents, visitors and othersI would leave it up to our Wardens of Gold to come up with effective (yet ethical) ways to maximize the Circle revenue from ancient artifacts, rare resources, exquisite equipment and in general whatever resources the Circle can come up with but does not directly need to equip the Keepers, shore up the defenses etc. [sorry for the wall of text, but this is obviously a fascinating topic]
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Dec 30, 2012 7:00:15 GMT -6
My principle concern with the high tax/Circle provides approach is that it will lock players into the organization. They would be effectively broke if they decided the Circle wasn't a good fit for them, and if we were required to remove a member for some reason, we could be perceived as milking them, then kicking them to the curb. I worry that this might pose a significant problem for both our reputation in the community and our ability to attract new members.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Dec 30, 2012 8:01:38 GMT -6
I think, as with the non-Keepers in the settlement, we should start our internal tax (however the mechanics end up doing that) at 0% - and raise it from there if we experience a tragedy of the commons. But only after a vote, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by kvalandur on Dec 30, 2012 9:38:05 GMT -6
As a new person coming into the settlement. I think a having a lower tax rate will attract more people that want to settle down in our area. Also, things like lotteries, or other diverting ways for members to gain some extra coin (I think) will help solidify their decision that settling in our area was the right one. My view as a member of the ring of Earth, is that the majority of what I do will be for the guild/settlement. That doesn't mean that all Earth members must feel this way, it's just a personal feeling. So the settlement will have raw materials, finished goods to do with as it sees fit. I'm very glad that cooking will be a part of the game. Hopefully they will also have fishing! I'm still unclear on if people will need to eat, drink in game. But a selection of foods will certainly be available for distribution or resale. Obviously any of this is subject to change depending on the desires of the group as a whole. Whether by vote or popular decision
|
|
|
Post by kvalandur on Dec 30, 2012 12:17:37 GMT -6
Without starting a new thread, I wanted to find out if there is any interest in members being part of a for hire transport/caravan group that moves goods from one settlement to another, or from say a gathering operation to a settlement? This would not be guild transport so much as it would be a service we could offer that would provide income to the guild as well as providing income to those involved with the actual transport of goods. I figure we would need guards, drivers, scouts. Even healers and mages would be welcome. Being as we don't know how wild the areas between settlements are, this is just a planning exercise really. At least at this point. It's a thought I has prior to joining. Coming from the transport/logistics field it's something I'm fairly familiar with but I wanted to see if there was any interest in being a part of such an operation. Obviously the biggest thing would be exactly how much time is required to complete a job. We won't know that until we can get in the game, see the distances, the speed of the transport vehicles and difficulty of the terrain needing to be crossed. Not to mention what sort of obstacles such an operation would face like bandits, wandering monsters or humanoid groups that might stand in the way.
|
|