Second Life Forums Archive - This is a Tax on the Economy

Anna Bobbysocks

Registered User

Join date: 29 Jun 2005

Posts: 373

07-17-2006 12:34

Let's not mistake this for anything else - it is a tax on the economy.

Rather than charging you a % of every purchase or a % of your income, the government of SecondLife has decided to tax you by simply growing the money supply.

Is this a bad idea?

Well, they do have to become profitable.

However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow.

Xplorer Cannoli

Cache Cleaner

Join date: 18 Sep 2005

Posts: 1,131

07-17-2006 12:38

From: Anna Bobbysocks

However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow.

Very Valid Point. However, do we really want SL to grow too fast? There will be its time and day when I think the grid could support the growth.

X

Kelly Nordberg

Registered User

Join date: 12 Mar 2006

Posts: 116

07-17-2006 12:59

From: Anna Bobbysocks

Let's not mistake this for anything else - it is a tax on the economy.

Rather than charging you a % of every purchase or a % of your income, the government of SecondLife has decided to tax you by simply growing the money supply.

Is this a bad idea?

Well, they do have to become profitable.

However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow.

Did you read the same post as everyone else did?

LL is cutting Stipends (reducing money supply) and selling $L (require backing of actual USD$ instead of giving them away for free through dwell and other means.

Really, where do you go to business school so I won't send my kids there.

*I blame my nasty-ness on the Sunny Monday when I'm trap in the office.*

_____________________

Kelly Nordberg
~~ Maiden Guard Armory ~~

Lex Neva

wears dorky glasses

Join date: 27 Nov 2004

Posts: 1,361

07-17-2006 13:23

From: Anna Bobbysocks

Let's not mistake this for anything else - it is a tax on the economy.

Rather than charging you a % of every purchase or a % of your income, the government of SecondLife has decided to tax you by simply growing the money supply.

Is this a bad idea?

Well, they do have to become profitable.

However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow.

Wait, no, I think they're stopping shrinking the money supply. They say they're not ever going to sell more than the existing L$ sinks (think Land Search fees, upload fees, classified fees, etc). Before, they were collecting your L$ and... throwing it on the floor. It takes them money to host your textures and such, and they were collecting monopoly money to pay for it. Now they're selling the monopoly money back to you, with a net result of collecting, say, about 3 cents per upload. Seems reasonable to me.

Jopsy Pendragon

Perpetual Outsider

Join date: 15 Jan 2004

Posts: 1,906

07-17-2006 13:26

From: Anna Bobbysocks

Let's not mistake this for anything else - it is a tax on the economy.

Rather than charging you a % of every purchase or a % of your income, the government of SecondLife has decided to tax you by simply growing the money supply.

Is this a bad idea?

Well, they do have to become profitable.

However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow.

'Grow' in what way?

Population is growing thanks to account registration changes.

Volumes traded are growing... presumably because population has grown.

More land is being bought and created.

The currency float is growing too.

Which part is it you're thinking will grow slowly?

(and yes, in part, I am being sarcastic.)

Anna Bobbysocks

Registered User

Join date: 29 Jun 2005

Posts: 373

07-17-2006 15:40

From: Xplorer Cannoli

Very Valid Point. However, do we really want SL to grow too fast? There will be its time and day when I think the grid could support the growth.

X

Well, this hurts content creators. Some of us need SL to grow just stay in business.

Anna Bobbysocks

Registered User

Join date: 29 Jun 2005

Posts: 373

07-17-2006 15:45

From: Lex Neva

Wait, no, I think they're stopping shrinking the money supply. They say they're not ever going to sell more than the existing L$ sinks (think Land Search fees, upload fees, classified fees, etc). Before, they were collecting your L$ and... throwing it on the floor. It takes them money to host your textures and such, and they were collecting monopoly money to pay for it. Now they're selling the monopoly money back to you, with a net result of collecting, say, about 3 cents per upload. Seems reasonable to me.

Think it through. The money supply is growing in leaps and bounds right now. Instead of reducing this by removing stipends, they're going to remove stipends but then sell us the differential right back to us.

It's a tax, anyway you look at it.

Jack Harker

Registered User

Join date: 4 May 2005

Posts: 552

07-17-2006 16:42

From: Anna Bobbysocks

Think it through. The money supply is growing in leaps and bounds right now. Instead of reducing this by removing stipends, they're going to remove stipends but then sell us the differential right back to us.

It's a tax, anyway you look at it.

It's actually a way of raising the amount of money they make from Premium accounts, without raising the actual *price* of a premium account, by taking away a benifit that used to go with a premium account, (That extra $L100 a week.) and selling it seperately.

Personally, I'm pretty doubtful about how good an idea is overall, but it's probably the one that's likely to cause the least amount of complaints, whereas directly raising the price of a Premium account *would* have caused screaming, yelling and a lot of people dropping their Premium accounts in protest.

Gigs Taggart

The Invisible Hand

Join date: 12 Feb 2006

Posts: 406

07-17-2006 17:19

From: Anna Bobbysocks

Let's not mistake this for anything else - it is a tax on the economy.

Rather than charging you a % of every purchase or a % of your income, the government of SecondLife has decided to tax you by simply growing the money supply.

Is this a bad idea?

Well, they do have to become profitable.

However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow.

Of course it is, so are stipends. It's just changing a fixed tax to a dynamic one they can control. A very good thing.

_____________________

Svar Beckersted

Registered User

Join date: 14 Apr 2006

Posts: 783

07-17-2006 18:05

From: Anna Bobbysocks

It's a tax, anyway you look at it.

True but in the last 4 weeks $1,172,073 worth of L$ were purchased. $10,000 more only amounts to .85% tax so it is very small.

Anna Bobbysocks

Registered User

Join date: 29 Jun 2005

Posts: 373

07-17-2006 18:24

From: Svar Beckersted

True but in the last 4 weeks $1,172,073 worth of L$ were purchased. $10,000 more only amounts to .85% tax so it is very small.

Yeah, I agree with this, ratio wise it is very small, but -

- there is no precedent for virtual worlds
- this will all be happening at the margin, where the impact is magnified.

But, I agree, it looks like it could work out ... and could get LL over the finish line to become profitable. I just hope they don't get lazy and start going to the well too often.

Imagine, for a moment, having a credit card and you don't have to pay the bills (except maybe you have to cut some stipends here and there).

That's what the lindex is about to become.

This is a Tax on the Economy
Anna Bobbysocks Registered User Join date: 29 Jun 2005 Posts: 373	07-17-2006 12:34 Let's not mistake this for anything else - it is a tax on the economy. Rather than charging you a % of every purchase or a % of your income, the government of SecondLife has decided to tax you by simply growing the money supply. Is this a bad idea? Well, they do have to become profitable. However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow.
Xplorer Cannoli Cache Cleaner Join date: 18 Sep 2005 Posts: 1,131	07-17-2006 12:38 From: Anna Bobbysocks However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow. Very Valid Point. However, do we really want SL to grow too fast? There will be its time and day when I think the grid could support the growth. X
Kelly Nordberg Registered User Join date: 12 Mar 2006 Posts: 116	07-17-2006 12:59 From: Anna Bobbysocks Let's not mistake this for anything else - it is a tax on the economy. Rather than charging you a % of every purchase or a % of your income, the government of SecondLife has decided to tax you by simply growing the money supply. Is this a bad idea? Well, they do have to become profitable. However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow. Did you read the same post as everyone else did? LL is cutting Stipends (reducing money supply) and selling $L (require backing of actual USD$ instead of giving them away for free through dwell and other means. Really, where do you go to business school so I won't send my kids there. I blame my nasty-ness on the Sunny Monday when I'm trap in the office. _____________________ Kelly Nordberg ~~ Maiden Guard Armory ~~
Lex Neva wears dorky glasses Join date: 27 Nov 2004 Posts: 1,361	07-17-2006 13:23 From: Anna Bobbysocks Let's not mistake this for anything else - it is a tax on the economy. Rather than charging you a % of every purchase or a % of your income, the government of SecondLife has decided to tax you by simply growing the money supply. Is this a bad idea? Well, they do have to become profitable. However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow. Wait, no, I think they're stopping shrinking the money supply. They say they're not ever going to sell more than the existing L$ sinks (think Land Search fees, upload fees, classified fees, etc). Before, they were collecting your L$ and... throwing it on the floor. It takes them money to host your textures and such, and they were collecting monopoly money to pay for it. Now they're selling the monopoly money back to you, with a net result of collecting, say, about 3 cents per upload. Seems reasonable to me.
Jopsy Pendragon Perpetual Outsider Join date: 15 Jan 2004 Posts: 1,906	07-17-2006 13:26 From: Anna Bobbysocks Let's not mistake this for anything else - it is a tax on the economy. Rather than charging you a % of every purchase or a % of your income, the government of SecondLife has decided to tax you by simply growing the money supply. Is this a bad idea? Well, they do have to become profitable. However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow. 'Grow' in what way? Population is growing thanks to account registration changes. Volumes traded are growing... presumably because population has grown. More land is being bought and created. The currency float is growing too. Which part is it you're thinking will grow slowly? (and yes, in part, I am being sarcastic.)
Anna Bobbysocks Registered User Join date: 29 Jun 2005 Posts: 373	07-17-2006 15:40 From: Xplorer Cannoli Very Valid Point. However, do we really want SL to grow too fast? There will be its time and day when I think the grid could support the growth. X Well, this hurts content creators. Some of us need SL to grow just stay in business.
Anna Bobbysocks Registered User Join date: 29 Jun 2005 Posts: 373	07-17-2006 15:45 From: Lex Neva Wait, no, I think they're stopping shrinking the money supply. They say they're not ever going to sell more than the existing L$ sinks (think Land Search fees, upload fees, classified fees, etc). Before, they were collecting your L$ and... throwing it on the floor. It takes them money to host your textures and such, and they were collecting monopoly money to pay for it. Now they're selling the monopoly money back to you, with a net result of collecting, say, about 3 cents per upload. Seems reasonable to me. Think it through. The money supply is growing in leaps and bounds right now. Instead of reducing this by removing stipends, they're going to remove stipends but then sell us the differential right back to us. It's a tax, anyway you look at it.
Jack Harker Registered User Join date: 4 May 2005 Posts: 552	07-17-2006 16:42 From: Anna Bobbysocks Think it through. The money supply is growing in leaps and bounds right now. Instead of reducing this by removing stipends, they're going to remove stipends but then sell us the differential right back to us. It's a tax, anyway you look at it. It's actually a way of raising the amount of money they make from Premium accounts, without raising the actual price of a premium account, by taking away a benifit that used to go with a premium account, (That extra $L100 a week.) and selling it seperately. Personally, I'm pretty doubtful about how good an idea is overall, but it's probably the one that's likely to cause the least amount of complaints, whereas directly raising the price of a Premium account would have caused screaming, yelling and a lot of people dropping their Premium accounts in protest.
Gigs Taggart The Invisible Hand Join date: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 406	07-17-2006 17:19 From: Anna Bobbysocks Let's not mistake this for anything else - it is a tax on the economy. Rather than charging you a % of every purchase or a % of your income, the government of SecondLife has decided to tax you by simply growing the money supply. Is this a bad idea? Well, they do have to become profitable. However a tax will hurt the economy, and the more fuel they siphon from the tank, the slower SL will grow. Of course it is, so are stipends. It's just changing a fixed tax to a dynamic one they can control. A very good thing. _____________________
Svar Beckersted Registered User Join date: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 783	07-17-2006 18:05 From: Anna Bobbysocks It's a tax, anyway you look at it. True but in the last 4 weeks $1,172,073 worth of L$ were purchased. $10,000 more only amounts to .85% tax so it is very small.
Anna Bobbysocks Registered User Join date: 29 Jun 2005 Posts: 373	07-17-2006 18:24 From: Svar Beckersted True but in the last 4 weeks $1,172,073 worth of L$ were purchased. $10,000 more only amounts to .85% tax so it is very small. Yeah, I agree with this, ratio wise it is very small, but - - there is no precedent for virtual worlds - this will all be happening at the margin, where the impact is magnified. But, I agree, it looks like it could work out ... and could get LL over the finish line to become profitable. I just hope they don't get lazy and start going to the well too often. Imagine, for a moment, having a credit card and you don't have to pay the bills (except maybe you have to cut some stipends here and there). That's what the lindex is about to become.

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

This is a Tax on the Economy