Reverse Interest for large $$$ accounts

The idea here would be to charge reverse interest for people hoarding money. The more money you have the more you have to pay to keep it. It would be a way to encourage people to spend their money. No one really gains anything from someone hoarding a large amount of cash. They are not using it in the way it was intented, as in adding something to the world. If they wish to hold on to such large amounts of cash then they should be charged for it.
Also people who release a large amount of money back into the economy should be given a tax break as a reward.
People are confusing sl$ wit real life. Sl$ won't collect interest, You don't need it for your retirement, save it up for a rainy day, Hey it dosn't rain.
People in rl save money to gain wealth. The wealth in this game is in the world around us not in sl$ sitting in somone's account.
Wealth in this game is what you add. By hoarding sl$ you're taking away.

I personally save up to build what I want. I also help by donating money to others ocassionally. When will it be considered hoarding? 10,000 + .... 20,000 +?

Im assuming that you mean cash only, yes? Not total worth.

Yes, this proposal would be for cash only.

Paul, the lower limit would probably be set somewhere between 10-20k to encourage saving for decent-sized projects...it's just to discourage people from hoarding gobs of cash and not using it for anything, which hurts the overall economy...

J

the more $ I have saved, the more I find I spend.

I don't think everyone has the hoarding mentality. Maybe some just need to get to a comfortable financial place before they start spending. What fun is being broke anywhere?

This seems a bit punitive. If this were ever the case, then there would need to be an equal reimbursement or decrease in taxes.

And.... what if someone has lots of $ and is spending and creating, which is why they have lots of $. Just because you have $ does not mean you are hoarding.


fen-

I don't think anyone should have a say in what I do with my money.....I don't hoard money by any means....I give money as prizes at OTHER people's events....I help out friends that need it with cash donations....I just make a lot of money off of things that I build.....

What would you prefer I do.....buy things I don't need? when I want something..>I build it....why should i have to pay taxes on my success....(Not bragging but I am obviously successful at what i'm doing....please don't take that as bragging just a statement of fact).....

I had a long talk with one of the Linden's about my money a couple nights ago.....I asked him if my large amount of LD was in anyway hurting the economy....his first response was...."our economy should be robust enough to handle success"...I didn't stop there...I expressed to him that My concern was that others would lose from what I gain....He spoke with the lead economy guy (I think)...and assured me that the amount of money that I had was not the cause of the lowered stipends...that there was a bug in the system and they are working on it.....I felt better about my money at that point but just to make sure I bought a bunch more land to get money back into the pool....I went from 75k cash to 60 something....and you think I should still be taxed more severely even though I am using that money to fund projects that I am or intend to work on?

Taxing success Is not something that should be implemented in this game....the bigger I build the more money I have to shell out in taxes.....I am already taxed for success in that respect....but my money keeps rising.....

what should i do? give more money out? hand out a thousand to every newbie that asks? I don't understand the mentality of dragging down those that provide to the community just because they earn money at the same time......

one last question....Who is to say who is hoarding and who is actually just at an equilibrium between spending and making money.....something to think about

(this is not directed at anyone in particular....just my thoughts on the subject)

double post.....oops

Repost from sometime back, as I C the (IMO) stupidity of a tax system really starting to huff the ol Scotchgard can here...Enjoy:

Why don't you hire some of the off-seasonal IRS toadies to put together a really, Really, REALLY big fat bloated UGLY hairy taxation system where we not only pay an arse load of SL bucks for stuff & property ownership,,, but we also have the chance to claim deductions & find loopholes & really just sponge & soak ya'll for stupid ammounts of cash??

Cause man,, if someone can figgure it out & get me money back from what I dole out in taxes.. that would be a service in HARD demand.

Also,, from a private chat: (my side only)

Zoli: so instead of gold it's backed by server resources???
Zoli: Ok,, so each LB = 1/x SR.. and how do they derive SR?

Zoli: Man,,, Once upon a itme...
Zoli: $= meat, then after a spell $=grain, then after more time, $=gold,, then $=Paper Now $=(-)electrons,,,, How many LB's dose it take to buy 1 electron,,, that's what I wanna know,, then...
Zoli: How do I purchase SR in it's raw form?

Hope this is both humorous & thought provoking... or just plain provoking N the very least.

I'm not sure this makes any sense. If you own any property or any objects the money in your account is being constantly taxed as it is.

My fear is that the economy in SL is too complex already. Every little tweak that is done to it now will make matters worse.

My assumption of course is that the economy is there to preserve resources and not as a way to make the game "more fun".

Horror scenarios that must be guarded against are numbered TWO in my opinion:

(1) One or more people accumulate enough money to essentially buy up all the remaining land. Supposed the rules lead to someones weekly allowance being so large that they couldn't spend it doing things they normally do, so they just decide to run amok and buy up everything. (I assume this is the sort of thing your proposal intends to prevent).

(2) Automatic weekly allowance becomes inadequate for new users to get a good start at enjoying the game.

These are related in some ways. If a few people have all the funds that can certainly freeze out the people at the bottom. On the other hand, your proposal wouldn't fix either scenario in all cases, and would potentially make (2) even worse.

I don't know that I have the solution to this problem. But here are some things to think about:

If LAND were the only resource being controlled the economy would be simple. Base the fixed part of the stipend on the amount of land available so that the total amount given to everyone each week EXACTLY matched the amount charged in taxes for land ownership. Of course some people might not want to own much land, in which case they could buy things (scripts, lets say for example) from other people (thus allowing the other people to own more land), but in no case could the additional land acquired by those selling scripts exceed the amount of land given up by those people buying the scripts. Like the old "Gold Standard" in the US economy, the relatively FIXED quantity of LAND would serve as the cap to runaway inflation, hording, and all sorts of other bad outcomes. Make sense?

The problem is that LAND is NOT the only thing being controlled, in fact, I'm not even sure it is the primary thing. The other things being controlled are OBJECTS, and SCRIPTS. I don't see that the number of objects or scripts are capped in any way. Money can exchange hands in all sorts of ways as the number of objects, scripts, and money are allowed to increase. What is out of control are activities that allow some people to make money without limit (other than the limit of having it all). If I build the coolest object in the world and convince everyone that they need to have a copy of it, and also fix it so that it goes poof once a day, then I set the price of that object to everyone fixed stipend, then pretty soon I can own everything, or close to everything and all I've done to earn it is invent one way-cool object. If the SL people respond to my success by pumping more SL$ into the system it might fix things for a while, but eventually there is more money in the system than there are things to buy (and I can always increase the price of my way-cool object to soak more of it up too). I don't think your tax on saving would fix it either.

Possible Solution: Simplification...

My own theory is that there needs to be a tax on land only. Add to that a stipend that EXACTLY pays for that land tax and let everyone spend their SL$s any way they want, essentially giving up land for objects scripts or even less tangable things. Bonuses for behavior, appearance, or whatever that are given to some, would have to be balanced by a reduction in the fixed stipend payed to everyone. So that the total amount of SL$ going into the system every week would exactly match the amount being taken out in taxes. To keep everyones account from being $0 at the end of the week you would come up with an amount of SL$ to be "in circulation" at any point. That amount would have to be fairly carefully monitored based on the number of users at a given time. Even with my simplified scheme it can get messy.

How about objects and scripts? Won't our framerates go to zero if we don't tax those somehow? Yes they will. In fact low framerates ARE the tax on those things. As a builder why would I want to so overload my land with objects and scripts so that nobody could move once they got there?

In summary, my point is that only land needs to be taxed, and that the number of things causing money to come into the system need to be small and set up in a way such that they can't generate more money than there is land to pay for. The ability to buy and sell objects, scripts, avatars, or anything else need not be taken away, but in buying something from another users you are giving up your ability to own some amount of land. The seller is in turn gaining the right to own more land. The fixed stipend will be enough for ANYONE, even the newest user to buy some fixed amount of land and start building on it. People who hoard money will of course lead to empty land, but then SOME empty land is a desirable thing I think. The temptation for those with lots of cash on hand to buy land will I think be enough to keep things in balance since they won't have to deal with the complexity of budgeting for their objects.

Sorry this is so long.
(Well, not really)
The number of horror scenarios is two. Three is RIGHT OUT!

This is an interesting idea... but you know, it's fun to be rich. And, to some extent we already do this because people who are rich don't get wellfare, i.e. they'll never get more stipend than their taxes if they have more than $3500.

Also the new stipend rules no longer depend on how much money people have in their pockets, so you'll no longer be penalized when someone else has alot of money. Hopefully this will make a "wealth tax" unnecessary.

[Edit]

Wow, lots of posts while i was writing this. This is a response to the first suggestion of the wealth tax.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I don't beleive that wealth = money in this game. To me wealth in this game is your objects being in world, land you own and the interesting builds you can maintain.

I don't really think it should be confused with a wealth tax because that's not the idea behind it.

Money in game is not money it's computing time. When you tie up large amounts of money you are holding up computing power.
It sends out a message that you're not adding anything to the world and you're not letting anyone else do so either. I think that's wrong.

Game wealth to me is the ability to put out objects, buildings and keep them out. It show's others in the game that you control enough resources to maintian it all.

Sitting on a large sum in an account does nothing and leaves people wondering why there isn't enough money to go around.

Let me ask you this....my money continues to go up for the most part....maybe 2k one day and down 1 k the next....but for the most part it's always on the rise? do you, for example, think that I do not contribute to the community? If so, what makes you think that? Is it just an assumption based on my net worth? (you cannot see my cash on hand).....If not, then how do you decide who is and who is not contributing....many people do not see contributions that most make.....I gave out 1200 in prizes at someone else's event...(I felt that the time it took for contestants to get ready was not covered by the 500 prize money...)....no one saw that....didn't want to make it seen....but it was a contribution none the less......Just because contributions cannot be seen....whether by advertising or by net worth reduction...does not mean contributions are not happening....who can say who is "contributing" and who is not? I wouldn't want to make that assumption? do you? (anyone in the community...not just you maxen

erg...gotta get back to work on my car....later

You were right -- the superhero costumes were worth far more than the $250 prize money for first place (the other $250 was for finding the billboard -- since the same person won both, kindof a moot point now). And I totally appreciated you stepping up and doing all that trivia =) Since you wouldn't at the time tell me exactly how much you paid out for trivia wins, I'm not sure if I compensated you enough (can't remember now how much I ended up paying you).

heheheh i didn't think about the superhero thing....I meant the fashion show...heheh oops _

Well see there, Val, I just proved your point for ya =) You DO keep money moving in world. (And you're not the only one who does so.)

It's a little harder for me to show my money moving. Most of my cash isn't actually mine, but rather the bank's (invested by other players). I have a few loans out. I buy things that I think are cool (but usually end up keeping them in inventory due to the tax situation -- I'm really optimistic about the upcoming economic changes -- I feel confident that they'll make it so I feel more comfortable putting more stuff in world).

yeah and there are other things that keep money in inventory....the lotto is another good example...all the lotto money that people use to buy tickets is pretty much all used to pay out at the end of the week......so that money cannot be spent....it has to be there so that the lotto winnings can be paid...so I guess in a sense it is hoarding....but it also get's put back into the economy.....

Here's how I see this ....( not attempting to be abrasive just explain my thoughts)

1. What I do with what I make is for me to decide.

2. It should not be assumed that anyone with a large bank account is hoarding.

3. Taxing the successful is one thing I think that hinders this game in the long run. The more successful I am the more I want to build....the more I build the more I'm held back....soon my stipend will not cover taxes....then my stipend + vote box will not cover taxes, till finally all of my income does not cover the taxes....Meaning I will go broke because I contributed too much to the community.....does that seem right? (in my opinion, no....) so for now one must balance what comes in with what goes out....that is in constant flux with all the changes recently....(so i haven't made any big decisions recently.....I don't want to go broke)

4. Don't always believe what you perceive...I've heard many different perceptions about many different things and have also seen those perceptions hurt or anger those being perceived...(weird sentence hehe)...talking is the best in these situations....(like we are doing here

I appreciate the concern about money stacking up in people's accounts rather than in the economy....and I know the linden's do as well....(I think this recent addition to the economy will help with all of that).....

With the new changes to the system do you still foresee a problem? Do you still feel there is a need to tax those with a lot of money?....

I still think you're thinking of sl$ as if it had some value in it's own right. I don't think it does.

By your examples you show that you do in fact put money back into the system which show's you're not hoarding so I don't see that as a problem, same goes for investing in other players. IN both cases money is being returned. You forget that in my first post I also suggested a tax break for putting money back into the system.

The aim of all of this is to encourage people to put money back into the world. The tax idea is there to encourage people to give up excessive amounts of built up cash, Release a large amount of cash back to the system and receive a break on your weekly taxes.

The idea is to keep the money moving about and giving people reasons why they should do it.

Maybe taxes isn't the best idea, The only real point I'm trying to make here is more people beifit from the money moving around then piling up in a few accounts.

Another point you brought up was about not being able to keep building forever becasue the taxes at some point would leave you broke. I think everyone knows they can't continue to build indefinately. Why then do you think it's ok to have money pile up in an account indefinately when in fact they both repersent the same thing, computer resources?

objects/land/buildings = computer resources= player limit
money = computer recsources = no player limit
see the problem?

Maxen, what more do you suggest that we spend on? We buy things, we do all the things listed above, and more. We are putting a significant amount of money back into the system. This is a sincere question -- how could each of us on the net worth leader board put, say, $10,000 each back into the system in the next week? I know especially recently, Val and I have been looking for ways to dump money back into the system.

Kerstin

Kerstin, teleport back and forth across the map a thousand times Just kiddin' hon, you can keep all your money I don't mind. Like Ian stated, current money holding doesn't affect anyone's stipend or taxing so I don't see any need to tax the wealthy...

I wish I knew, Sorry I don't have an answer.
I don't think we're at the point where people have too much money and I don't hold it against anyone either. I'm just arguing a point that's all.

Ok I dont know if this has been covered (ie I skimmed the posts not read them in detail) so here goes...

Couple of assumptions...

-Linden Bucks are money
No they are not, the LB is an expression of a fraction of a server resource (SR) as that was explained to me by a Linden (if I am wrong correct my thinking).

-Buying Land/Rezzing Objects costs money
No it does not. The land/objects return just as much money when you release them as you put into them to begin with. Ergo you are not paying anything, you are swapping one number for one object. a number that can be regained just by releasing that land/deleting that object.

In essences there is no *Total Net Worth* on SL. The LB's that you have are Unassigned SR's, the Objects/Lands that you have are Assigned SR's. But both are the same thing (Server Resources).

Now... You have land and lights and objects.. You pay taxes on those. What are you paying taxes on? Server Resources. Why are you paying those taxes? So that the load doesnt become to great for the servers by having too many things going.

If Land, Objects, and Lights are all SR's - and so are LB's - then it only makes sense that if you are going to tax one sort of Server Resources, that you tax them all.

So as an example.. You make 3,000 a week (just example). You have saved 30,000. With the new tax you have to pay 2% each week for every LB/SR over 10,000. So at the end of the week you pay 300 LB/SR back to the Lindens.

300 a week... on that model. Hmm that's two outfits/ less than one event/ usually 2 days voting results. (probably missing a ton of ways to make cash). Did it kill you? Did it make you poor? Did it pick just on you? no to everyone of those - anyone over 10k got hit, you may seem to have paid more - but you paid the exact same percentage as everyone else - it just happens that someone with 12k vs someone with 30k is gonna pay out a total LB/SR that is less in number if not percentage.

It all makes perfect sense (and is why I congratulate Maxen) if we just remember that there is no such thing as a LB. That it's just a a fraction of a Server Resouce - and that it is no different than a piece of Land, a rezzed object, or a shining light.


Thank you - bet I rambled alot - sorry - mind is going in too many directions.

regardless of what you call L$....money....server resources....whatever....it's still the currency in this game....it is what pays for our land....pays for our building's taxes.....pays for things we buy....is a reward for things done well.....it has worth in this game....calling it "system resources" is not gonna change the fact that it is game money....(just wanted to clarify that

As far as I can tell, it's not really the wealthy people who are having troubles with this so much as the people who are actively (even aggressively) contributing to the community.

That little step where other people give you their Lindens because they like what you're doing means a lot to a lot of people. There are several members of the community who have built quite a bit more than the average person because other people have entrusted them with a share of the resources they've been given.

The curious question is what part of what we do in Second Life is considered a PRIVELEGE, and what part is considered a RIGHT. When other people consistently, week in and week out, give you their resources, and that gives you the balance to build what you want, where is a line?

A major problem right now is that very little interesting new stuff is being constructed, except by a handful of individuals and some Lindens. A direct factor in this is that the economy is currently more complicated than most people care to comprehend, and has been in flux lately. It's the direct cause of the Catch-22 that's been referenced already.

It becomes a tug-of-war, then, in the minds of the people with "vast empires" and a reserve of cash. As things change, they never know where their balance may be. I'm sure many creators want to do more, but are worried that they'll stretch themselves too thin, go over the red line, and be forced to destroy the very things they created, no matter how good, for the sake of "economy."

And yet, at the same time, accumulating resources can have a social influence, causing the more community-inclined to "give back" to the community instead of (or in addition to) building themselves.

I don't have the answers. I barely grasp the questions. But I recognize some of the challenges facing Second Life, both for the players and the admins. What does the best good for Second Life itself? Where is the most benefit found? Is it among the philanthropists who have contributed so much and been appropriately "rewarded", or among the poorer people who may have brilliant ideas but just can't get the resources to accomplish them in a world where people with resources get rewarded with more resources? I honestly can't answer that, but I hope there's a solution to promote all sides.

I believe this is going to be addressed in part. There was a linden post that said the overal cost of land ownership would go down, but that some more expensive areas would be popping up.

And really the "primo" sim is the best idea for this I think. It is a way to dump a lot of money back into the pool for the rich, it allows them to show off, and it allows others to have a goal to aspire towards, and lets others see what is possible.

Limiting flying in some way (/me ducks from all the rotten veggies comming this way now) so that it would be -really- desirable to purchase vehicles would help. BUT I don't think it should be done now while lag is like it is, I don't think it should be done before vehicles are fully emplemented, and I don't think flying needs to be taken out. There are several options from slowing down the speed (still faster than walking etc. etc. etc.), having a stamina like attribute that drained while you flew, and more I am sure.

What is needed (warning high level, low detail idea ahead) are "things" (items, places, people, whatever) that have a much greater perceived value than a straight $10 / primitive value, that the money goes back into the system. That is how you tax the rich. You make them want to spend lots of money on things with very high perceived value. "Primo land" is such an idea. I'm not sure vehicles are, with or without flying changes.

Here are some others:
- Expensive script calls. Make script calls that deduct an amount of LD each time they are called. Make them fancy, things that can't be done with other calls. And things that show. These would be for objects that only the rich would buy, show off. Be careful though. If it is too basic of a thing there will be an uproar about people's rights to create whatever they want (although I don't know where this right came from). It even makes sense, fancy scripts use more resources, so they should cost more. Also don't make it scripts that will lag everyone out.

- Expensive primitive functions. Or primitives that cost more than $10 to build. Sorry this is a random idea, I don't really build much. I don't know if it makes sense, if there are any complicated primitives that would work with this.

- Linden Bank. Weird idea. A way where people who want can put their money back into the system. They get interest but have a 1 day delay before they can use money they pull out. Could also/alternatively sell bonds. SL person buys a bond for L$10,000. If they pull it out in 2 weeks they pull out $10,000. Pull it out earlier and there is a penalty. Pull it out later and get some minimal interest, 1% per week or something. (Just for clerification all numbers are random and not well thought out or based on any semplance of reality).

- Unlockable AV sliders. Want a trench coat? Pay an extra $$ amount (per outfit created with it) to add an "Extra Length" coat slider. Want your hair to reach the ground? Pay extra $$. The AVs should still be as customizable as they are currently. This should only be for truly extra features. Or (different idea) pay more to increase the range of sliders, perhaps done on a page level. Pay $1000 to increase the range of sliders on the Hair page by 10% each direction, etc.


============

In conclusion:
Yeah some of those ideas are bad. Some a lot of people will hate. I really feel very strongly though that although everyone who pays for the game is entitled to the same opportunity to get everything, do everything as everyone else, I don't think everyone is entitled to be able to do it out of the box. If you think about it and that is the core difference in our arguments, then yeah we will have to agree to disagree. No hard feelings, but your wrong. J/K . I think the game is more interesting and has a longer play life when there are things to do in the game you can't do straight out of the box. Others view it as working, others think they -have- to have those things.
<shrug>

- Ama

Ok, I lost my point in my ramblings then.

It does *not* pay for land. It *is* land, it *is* objects, It *is* lights.

LB's and the things you buy with them are *exactly* the same thing - bits and bytes. Because you get *exactly* the same amount back as you put into them. Your not buying, your changing your lil byte's shape. *thats* it.

If you dont have a problem paying a tax on land/lights/objects - then why a problem paying on LB's? It's all the same thing.
You get deducted xx amount of bits/bytes for every xxx amount of bits/bytes you have. Call them what you will - they are all just pieces of server code.

P.S. not ment as an attack - and Val, yes I know you give back to the community. But riddle me this.... If you see one person who is active and supportive of the community does that mean every single person you meet is going to be active and supportive?

I dont like the idea of paying taxes anymore than anyone else. But I think if a tax is needed, I dont deserve to be excluded just cause I dont like it.

Maybe it doesnt seem like we are going to need this tax right now. The Lindens say we dont. But come go live time - potentially thousands more will be joining us (maybe even many many thousands). Now is Linden Labs gonna say " Oh no, you cant buy our product! we have too many people"? of course not. They will try to get more servers up to handle the load. But what is a viable economy now - may not be enough when that time comes. If something like this could help to keep the economy in check - it's something that needs to be added *NOW* during the beta - not retrofitted later when the game is live.

Because mark me Us Beta Testers are a royal pain in the arse (Yes Dear Lindens, I know my faults). But we are NOTHING compaired to the bitchy lil consumers who paid to be here and gosh darn nabbity crickets! are gonna get what they paid for!!!!!


umm which brings up my next question.. cant we keep this game all to our beta luvin selves? Huh Daddy can we can we?????



Sorry if I seemed a bit strong Val - ya know it was the whiskey and hookers - nothing personal