I object to all deregistration intentions because procrastinating the issue is k
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 3:42 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ienpw III and Bayushi have both previously objected before and may do > so again. I believe some people have coded scripts to check for this > sort of thing which automatically object. Has it already been a month > since ProofTechnique posted? Time flies. > > The other inactives are, I think, Murphy and omd, whose > deregistrations will always draw objections (Murphy is our longest > continual player and omd owns the lists) > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > > I intend to deregister Ienpw III without objection. > > I intend to deregister Bayushi without objection. > > I intend to deregister ProofTechnique without objection. > > > > Shall we find out? > > (No harm meant if any of you are around, I probably won't even go through > > with this I'm more just curious) > > (Everyone else seems to be active from my check, so...) > > > > > > On 2017-10-21 10:09, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> > >> The inactivity tax is necessary because we have several players who > >> cannot be deregistered due to objections, and because it serves a > >> different purpose than the wealth tax. The wealth tax is primarily to > >> disincentivse hoarding, and will only bring in really huge amounts of > >> money if the secretary increases it as an emergency measure. Inactive > >> players don't hoard because they think it makes economic sense, they > >> hoard because they're not paying attention. Having them keep large > >> amounts of money means that it isn't actively moving through the > >> economy, which means it's not doing anyone any good. I might consider > >> setting untaxed amount to be derived from the floating value, but I > >> rather like the simplicity of it depending on as few variables as > >> possible. > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > >>> > >>> Is the inactivity tax really necessary? Shinies of deregistered players > >>> already don't count towards the supply limit. I'm alright with the idea > >>> of a > >>> wealth tax, but you might want to tie your shiny values to the supply > >>> limit > >>> rather than hardcoding them so that it's futureproof. (Something like > >>> supply > >>> limit / two times the playercount as the minimum should work?) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2017-10-21 09:53, Aris Merchant wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Our economic troubles have gone on long enough. Printing money has > >>>> been rejected, despite it being what we had intended to use if we ever > >>>> run out. If we don't want to print money, we _need_ taxes. I intend to > >>>> write a tax proposal, but first we need to decide on the tax rates. > >>>> Income taxes won't really work, as they would incentivize hoarding. I > >>>> propose the following two taxes. > >>>> > >>>> 1. Wealth tax. Every month, X% percent of a persons wealth, rounded up > >>>> (where X is a value between 0 and 25 set in a regulation by the > >>>> Secretary/Treasuror, and defaults to 10, although these values could > >>>> be adjusted) is transferred to Agora. This incentivizes spending > >>>> because hoarded money can go away very quickly, but not without > >>>> warning. I suggest that the percent be applied only to the portion of > >>>> a persons wealth above 10 shinies, and that if contracts are adopted, > >>>> the tax should apply to all contracts not exempt from sustenance > >>>> payments. > >>>> > >>>> 2. Inactivity tax. If a person has neither claimed a reward nor spent > >>>> money (to limit our measures of activity to things the > >>>> Secretary/Treasuror already tracks) in the last month, the > >>>> Secretary/Treasuror CAN and SHALL take 80 percent (that number can > >>>> change if people don't like it) of all shinies past the first 10 for > >>>> Agora with notice. > >>>> > >>>> Let the debates begin. > >>>> > >>>> -Aris > > > > > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
