These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Isk Sink.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#81 - 2012-08-13 07:54:59 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Americe Zane wrote:
I think I lost some IQ points reading OPs circular non-logic.

I made this char after taking a break from Eve because I messed up training my first char, then bio massed it. I was flying T2 ships within the first 2 months, when 200m was a lot of money for me. T2 isn't a luxury. It is more of a specialized role you choose. You don't fly interdictors because you have more money than you know what to do with, you fly them because it helps you achieve a goal. You would be hard pressed to find a T2 ship that doesn't have a specialized role, or fills a role that doesn't exist in the current T1 ships (name a T1 frigate than can cloak and launch bombs).

The closest thing, ship wise, that could be considered luxury items would be faction ships, and that could be argued as specialized as well, I'm sure.

Well fair enough I will not bother with ideas for isk sinks.

The net effect is greater than this would have been.

If you like inflation don't complain when things cost a fortune.


But ISK sinks have to be worth it, or else no one will spend their ISK on them. which means rich players will have less ISK, but really awesome stuff, you won't have. Still a hard trade off.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Frying Doom
#82 - 2012-08-13 08:05:50 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Americe Zane wrote:
I think I lost some IQ points reading OPs circular non-logic.

I made this char after taking a break from Eve because I messed up training my first char, then bio massed it. I was flying T2 ships within the first 2 months, when 200m was a lot of money for me. T2 isn't a luxury. It is more of a specialized role you choose. You don't fly interdictors because you have more money than you know what to do with, you fly them because it helps you achieve a goal. You would be hard pressed to find a T2 ship that doesn't have a specialized role, or fills a role that doesn't exist in the current T1 ships (name a T1 frigate than can cloak and launch bombs).

The closest thing, ship wise, that could be considered luxury items would be faction ships, and that could be argued as specialized as well, I'm sure.

Well fair enough I will not bother with ideas for isk sinks.

The net effect is greater than this would have been.

If you like inflation don't complain when things cost a fortune.


But ISK sinks have to be worth it, or else no one will spend their ISK on them. which means rich players will have less ISK, but really awesome stuff, you won't have. Still a hard trade off.

and the 100 isk you have today will still have the buying power of 100 isk tomorrow.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#83 - 2012-08-13 08:13:53 UTC
Yeah true, but it is just not easy to have.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Frying Doom
#84 - 2012-08-13 08:18:15 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Yeah true, but it is just not easy to have.

No and this is why some times things to be done that people don't like.

If things were just done for what people liked the bounties would be tripled and everyone would become rich really quickly but then they would not be able to buy much.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Americe Zane
The Lucky Punx
#85 - 2012-08-13 08:21:33 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Americe Zane wrote:
I find it odd that a luxury tax proposed to tax the rich turned into a flat tax on everyone. Perhaps looking up what luxury means is in order.

I really would love to meet these newbies who fly T2 ships.

Quote:

Luxury goods are products and services that are not considered essential and are associated with affluence.The concept of luxury has been present in various forms since the beginning of civilization. Its role was just as important in ancient western and eastern empires as it is in modern societies. With the clear differences between social classes in earlier civilizations, the consumption of luxury was limited to the elite classes.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_good

So yes T2 ships and Capitals are not an essential good they are a luxury, this would be why they are a better version of a T1 good.


Quote:
A luxury tax is a tax on luxury goods: products not considered essential. A luxury tax may be modeled after a sales tax or VAT, charged as a percentage on all items of particular classes, except that it mainly affects the wealthy because the wealthy are the most likely to buy luxuries such as expensive cars, jewelry, etc. It may also be applied only to purchases over a certain amount; for instance, some U.S. states charge luxury tax on real estate transactions over a limit.

A luxury good may be a Veblen good, which is a type of good for which demand increases as price increases. Therefore the effect of a luxury tax may be to increase demand for certain luxury goods. In general, however, since a luxury good has a high income elasticity of demand by definition, both the income effect and substitution effect will decrease demand sharply as the tax rises.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax

So happy now?



I was a newbie that flew T2 ships (SB to begin with, followed by AF, all within the first few months of play).

T2 ships have a specialized role, roles that are often essential. You can perform logistics in a T1 ship, but can be more efficient in a T2. T1 ships are more of a general use, like a hammer, where as T2 are designed for a certain role to fill, like a roofing hammer.

You will find it impossible to convince anyone that has played this game longer than a day that T2s are in any way associated with affluence. If you had tried to make a case that faction items were luxuries, you would probably find it easier to sell your idea. To further the concept, look at what is taken out to PvP with. It is common to see T2 items, as their use is justified, where faction items are generally not justified (with possible exception of the Mach).
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#86 - 2012-08-13 08:23:46 UTC
But in ratios it could be the same, wether 100 isk or 2000 isk. Anyhow, you should be gaining some skills to make the ISK making better as well as knowledge.

I suppose your idea of luxury, is false skill or false knowledge, and should be taxed, in order to make it better or stronger. That is up for debate really on which items are like that. Just be hard for me to support that so early on. Like winning the debate on judging items would be a hard one, and very hard to be a victor in.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Frying Doom
#87 - 2012-08-13 08:26:52 UTC
Americe Zane wrote:

I was a newbie that flew T2 ships (SB to begin with, followed by AF, all within the first few months of play).

T2 ships have a specialized role, roles that are often essential. You can perform logistics in a T1 ship, but can be more efficient in a T2. T1 ships are more of a general use, like a hammer, where as T2 are designed for a certain role to fill, like a roofing hammer.

You will find it impossible to convince anyone that has played this game longer than a day that T2s are in any way associated with affluence. If you had tried to make a case that faction items were luxuries, you would probably find it easier to sell your idea. To further the concept, look at what is taken out to PvP with. It is common to see T2 items, as their use is justified, where faction items are generally not justified (with possible exception of the Mach).

Yes and I'm sure if you ask soccer mums they would say 4WD's are an essential item.

As to PvP a thorax is not as good as a demios but the added features are just that added features. They are hardly an essential.
As to faction items the trade is so small by comparison there would be no point to a tax on them, it would be a drop in the bucket.

But as I have said before you love inflation, don't ***** about the price of things.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Americe Zane
The Lucky Punx
#88 - 2012-08-13 08:41:29 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

Yes and I'm sure if you ask soccer mums they would say 4WD's are an essential item.

As to PvP a thorax is not as good as a demios but the added features are just that added features. They are hardly an essential.
As to faction items the trade is so small by comparison there would be no point to a tax on them, it would be a drop in the bucket.

But as I have said before you love inflation, don't ***** about the price of things.


Yes, because added DPS or survivability is just an added feature and not in any way essential to winning a battleRoll

Maybe you can explain how T2s are tied to showing affluence and not used for their specialized roles. Maybe show how the role bonus of an interceptor is just an added feature that doesn't help it fill their designed role.

Make a comparison of a luxury item IRL. Often times they don't provide anything extra over a standard item. Any added functionality is nice to have, but not essential.

Faction item trade may be small, but doesn't change anything. Of course luxury item trade is small compared to regular goods, isn't that kind of the point?
Frying Doom
#89 - 2012-08-13 09:00:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Americe Zane wrote:


Yes, because added DPS or survivability is just an added feature and not in any way essential to winning a battleRoll

Maybe you can explain how T2s are tied to showing affluence and not used for their specialized roles. Maybe show how the role bonus of an interceptor is just an added feature that doesn't help it fill their designed role.

Make a comparison of a luxury item IRL. Often times they don't provide anything extra over a standard item. Any added functionality is nice to have, but not essential.

Faction item trade may be small, but doesn't change anything. Of course luxury item trade is small compared to regular goods, isn't that kind of the point?

Yes as the 4WD has a specialist role of taking the kids to school, ask any soccer mum they will tell you.

Yes I understand you don't want to do anything that would cost you an isk.

As to essential to winning a battle, I take it you have no idea what made the Goonswarm a fighting force. Hint it had nothing to do with T2.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Americe Zane
The Lucky Punx
#90 - 2012-08-13 09:21:02 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Americe Zane wrote:


Yes, because added DPS or survivability is just an added feature and not in any way essential to winning a battleRoll

Maybe you can explain how T2s are tied to showing affluence and not used for their specialized roles. Maybe show how the role bonus of an interceptor is just an added feature that doesn't help it fill their designed role.

Make a comparison of a luxury item IRL. Often times they don't provide anything extra over a standard item. Any added functionality is nice to have, but not essential.

Faction item trade may be small, but doesn't change anything. Of course luxury item trade is small compared to regular goods, isn't that kind of the point?

Yes as the 4WD has a specialist role of taking the kids to school, ask any soccer mum they will tell you.

Yes I understand you don't want to do anything that would cost you an isk.

As to essential to winning a battle, I take it you have no idea what made the Goonswarm a fighting force. Hint it had nothing to do with T2.



4WD is essential if you need to go off roading. Though I doubt that a soccer mom picks a vehicle simply for it's off roading capabilities. Often times it comes with a vehicle that is big enough to carry many passengers or pull a trailer. If a vehicle is picked for its 4WD, it is either needed (because they live in rural area) or seen as a luxury feature.

Everything I do cost me ISK. Needlessly spending ISK on a half baked idea is something I would want to avoid, even more so if it won't really do much of anything to combat what idea was proposed to do.

As far as Goonswarm goes, from what I am aware of, it has to do with numbers and people capable of effectively directing large numbers. But that is just one instance. You need to become familiar with force multipliers, which a lot of T2 fall in that category. If you are a smaller force, force multipliers are essential to winning a battle.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the difference between a Rolex, Timex and a specialized diving watch. Only 1 of those is a luxury and the other 2 are essential, even though 1 has extra features and cost more.
Frying Doom
#91 - 2012-08-13 09:56:51 UTC
Americe Zane wrote:


4WD is essential if you need to go off roading. Though I doubt that a soccer mom picks a vehicle simply for it's off roading capabilities. Often times it comes with a vehicle that is big enough to carry many passengers or pull a trailer. If a vehicle is picked for its 4WD, it is either needed (because they live in rural area) or seen as a luxury feature.

Everything I do cost me ISK. Needlessly spending ISK on a half baked idea is something I would want to avoid, even more so if it won't really do much of anything to combat what idea was proposed to do.

As far as Goonswarm goes, from what I am aware of, it has to do with numbers and people capable of effectively directing large numbers. But that is just one instance. You need to become familiar with force multipliers, which a lot of T2 fall in that category. If you are a smaller force, force multipliers are essential to winning a battle.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the difference between a Rolex, Timex and a specialized diving watch. Only 1 of those is a luxury and the other 2 are essential, even though 1 has extra features and cost more.

You if you use it for this its and essential is rather pointless as almost anything could be classed as a neccessity if you add in the but in this case category.

As to the watches the specialized diving watch is the luxury for the USA Tax , the Rolex maybe depending on value and the timex again depending on value.

Quote:
Other aspects of the United States Luxury Tax:

In America, Luxury Tax is levied in diverse areas, apart from luxury goods. One such area is sports. From the sports point of view, Luxury tax is considered as a surcharge, levied on the collective team payroll.

source: http://www.economywatch.com/tax/united-states/luxury.html

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Americe Zane
The Lucky Punx
#92 - 2012-08-13 10:12:29 UTC
Let's keep this simple, since you want to argue semantics.

What is the purpose of your proposed luxury tax? Is it to tax the rich in Eve or to tax everyone?
Frying Doom
#93 - 2012-08-13 10:33:23 UTC
Americe Zane wrote:
Let's keep this simple, since you want to argue semantics.

What is the purpose of your proposed luxury tax? Is it to tax the rich in Eve or to tax everyone?

Like all taxes of this type to charge people in relation to the amount of these goods they buy while not harming newbies at all and then increasing the amount they pay as they get richer.

And as I have previously said this tax would be 1/10 the amount the tech crisis cost players while benefiting those who actually produce their own ships, for their own use.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Americe Zane
The Lucky Punx
#94 - 2012-08-13 11:11:12 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Americe Zane wrote:
Let's keep this simple, since you want to argue semantics.

What is the purpose of your proposed luxury tax? Is it to tax the rich in Eve or to tax everyone?

Like all taxes of this type to charge people in relation to the amount of these goods they buy while not harming newbies at all and then increasing the amount they pay as they get richer.

And as I have previously said this tax would be 1/10 the amount the tech crisis cost players while benefiting those who actually produce their own ships, for their own use.



That is different than what you have stated in your OP. You wanted to tax the rich and leave newbies and low ISK players alone.

This does not accomplish that goal. I am far from rich (prob have 3b if I sold everything I own), yet it would tax me more than a super rich trader that doesn't fly T2 stuff. And again, I was flying T2 when I was a newbie, so your premise fails on 2 accounts of what you stated in your OP. This proposal only seems to tax the people that rely on T2 to make an income, not all of them being rich.

I see it as pointless debating this further as it appears to me a moving goal post situation. Any argument made against your idea will be met with a different rebuttal that will constantly change in your favor.

At this point, you could just as well recommend increased broker's fees.
Frying Doom
#95 - 2012-08-13 11:22:57 UTC
Americe Zane wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Americe Zane wrote:
Let's keep this simple, since you want to argue semantics.

What is the purpose of your proposed luxury tax? Is it to tax the rich in Eve or to tax everyone?

Like all taxes of this type to charge people in relation to the amount of these goods they buy while not harming newbies at all and then increasing the amount they pay as they get richer.

And as I have previously said this tax would be 1/10 the amount the tech crisis cost players while benefiting those who actually produce their own ships, for their own use.



That is different than what you have stated in your OP. You wanted to tax the rich and leave newbies and low ISK players alone.

This does not accomplish that goal. I am far from rich (prob have 3b if I sold everything I own), yet it would tax me more than a super rich trader that doesn't fly T2 stuff. And again, I was flying T2 when I was a newbie, so your premise fails on 2 accounts of what you stated in your OP. This proposal only seems to tax the people that rely on T2 to make an income, not all of them being rich.

I see it as pointless debating this further as it appears to me a moving goal post situation. Any argument made against your idea will be met with a different rebuttal that will constantly change in your favor.

At this point, you could just as well recommend increased broker's fees.

Actually I re-read my OP and someone with 4 bill in assets is not a new player nor does 4 bill count as low isk.
No, arguments of I am selfish and don't want to pay an isk more (insert tight wallet stereo type here) will be met with rebuttal. Yes I noticed you were fact averse.

As to a newbie flying a T2, yes you can fly a frigate T2 after 23 days but if you include the skills to actually us it this blows out to over 100 days but frankly if you can follow the adage "Don't fly what you can't afford to loose" and still fly a T2 after your first 100 days you could afford a 10% tax especially as the price of T2 ships is falling so fast.

Increased broker fees would effect actual newbies.



Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Americe Zane
The Lucky Punx
#96 - 2012-08-13 11:50:50 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

Actually I re-read my OP and someone with 4 bill in assets is not a new player nor does 4 bill count as low isk.
No, arguments of I am selfish and don't want to pay an isk more (insert tight wallet stereo type here) will be met with rebuttal. Yes I noticed you were fact averse.

As to a newbie flying a T2, yes you can fly a frigate T2 after 23 days but if you include the skills to actually us it this blows out to over 100 days but frankly if you can follow the adage "Don't fly what you can't afford to loose" and still fly a T2 after your first 100 days you could afford a 10% tax especially as the price of T2 ships is falling so fast.

Increased broker fees would effect actual newbies.





I am not claiming to be a new player now. But I could fly T2 when I was new (not fly well, but could contribute). I could afford to lose an interceptor as I could make that money back. Always fly what you can afford to lose is true. It's cheaper and fits my play style better to lose an interceptor over a drake.

3b in assets certainly doesn't make me low ISK, but neither does it make me rich. So your premise of taxing the rich still falls flat.

It's not a function of being selfish and wanting more money, its a function of sustainability. I use a T2 to protect space where I earn money to continue to PvP, I am simply trying to continue playing the way I like to play.

10% tax may be affordable if prices keep falling, but what happens if prices rise? Would the tax have to be constantly adjusted to keep them affordable for people that use them? Mind you, T2 isn't for a look at me and how much money I have thing. Its a best tool for the job thing.

All in all your idea is seriously flawed as a "tax on the rich" as it kicks in soon after a pilot starts playing. Might want to revise the OP and simply state that you want to tax anyone with a play style that involves the use of T2. Funny that your tax the rich plan doesn't do anything to the rich mission/incursion runner in super expensive faction fitted BS. It's a slanted tax that has nothing to do with in game wealth, but rather a tax on play style.

You might also want to define what a newbie is as well. It might help on the not touching newbies part of your argument. That way at least half of your argument holds merit.
Frying Doom
#97 - 2012-08-13 12:23:33 UTC
So your saying Mission runners don't use T2 ships?

A newbie is a player within there first 90 days or there abouts.

3 billion would definitely put you in the area I want the tax to start to effect.

It strangely would effect mission runners/miners/PvP types/Traders so not really out to get one playing style is it.

T2 is the best tool for the job or T3 depending on the Job just like a Mercedes is a better tool for the Job of driving than a Santana. Guess which one would be most likely to be covered by a luxury tax.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!