no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Suggestions / New attempt to create a tax based on income Search Forum | |||||||
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 12 13 14 > >| | |||||||
| Rating: | |||||||
Poll: Create a tax for seasonal gains of a manager depending on his status and bankroll?,
Poll closed,
votes: 216
|
|||||||
| Poster | Message | ||||||
|
Firenze
|
posted: 2016-12-29 16:22:53 (ID: 100094572) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
pete wrote:
Firenze wrote:
What would it be like if you excluded Top Managers from receiving benefit from this proposal? So top managers pay only, but do not receive? 93 receivers of $17,684,197 each, where the weakest team pays nothing into it, and the strongest team pays still 10 million less than it gets back... Yes, top managers pay only. The strongest team in that instance is still a manager without a full stadium (yes?), therefore not likely to make big profits. Top managers shouldn't need any profits, as they are already established. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2016-12-29 16:24:14 (ID: 100094573) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
Sounds good to me...
|
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Firenze
|
posted: 2016-12-29 16:27:56 (ID: 100094574) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
pete wrote:
Sounds good to me... If 17 million for those teams is too much, reduce the percentage taken from top teams. I could see a situation where teams intentionally don't build a full stadium to be eligible for this benefit. But I think they would lose out on more ticket income in the long run. Or if the number of non top managers becomes so small that they receive 30+ million per season. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2016-12-29 16:28:37 (ID: 100094575) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
I really like this idea, although i did consider the third option as it made me laugh
 |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-12-29 16:29:31 (ID: 100094576) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
This would favor established teams over newer teams.
For example: Team A joined in season X, built its stadium in season X+1 and then saved $50M a year for 5 seasons => $250M in the bank. Team B joined in season 22, built its stadium in season 23 and now wants to save $50M a season it will have to save $50M + TAX to have the same balance. Now it will take team B more time to catch up with team A and build a $250M bank balance. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2016-12-29 16:32:35 (ID: 100094578) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Firenze wrote:
pete wrote:
Sounds good to me... If 17 million for those teams is too much, reduce the percentage taken from top teams. I could see a situation where teams intentionally don't build a full stadium to be eligible for this benefit. But I think they would lose out on more ticket income in the long run. Or if the number of non top managers becomes so small that they receive 30+ million per season. I could go for this. Or other option Is to spit pot between 1.1 and 2.2 teams only At 30/70 spilt As many rookie mangers who need help should be in 2.2 |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2016-12-29 16:33:05 (ID: 100094579) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |||||||
|
@Meitheisman: I cannot repair the past, just prepare for the future...as said many many times
Last edited on 2016-12-29 16:33:48 by pete |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Firenze
|
posted: 2016-12-29 16:33:10 (ID: 100094580) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Meitheisman wrote:
This would favor established teams over newer teams. For example: Team A joined in season X, built its stadium in season X+1 and then saved $50M a year for 5 seasons => $250M in the bank. Team B joined in season 22, built its stadium in season 23 and now wants to save $50M a season it will have to save $50M + TAX to have the same balance. Now it will take team B more time to catch up with team A and build a $250M bank balance. Hmm, yes...that is a problem. Maybe you are excluded from paying this tax on your first 5 seasons? |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-12-29 16:41:31 (ID: 100094582) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | ||||||
|
pete wrote:
@Meitheisman: I cannot repair the past, just prepare for the future...as said many many times I know Pete but by limiting weekly salaries instead of yearly profits you would avoid penalizing newer teams. Is there any reason why you would not want to do that? Maybe I have not thought of some downside to it. Edit: Maybe add a "luxury tax" kind of like the NBA does. So for every dollar spent on weekly salaries over $x you pay a tax to the league. So if say, we decide that the tax is 10% on every dollar spent over $4M on weekly salary if I decide to spend $5M on my players I would have to pay an extra $100K ($5M - $4M * 10%) to the league each update. The numbers are just an example, I have no idea what the real limit should be and how high the tax should be. Last edited on 2016-12-29 16:44:25 by Meitheisman |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2016-12-29 16:42:50 (ID: 100094583) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
I cannot limit salaries from one season to the other. This would be a transition, of about 10 or 12 seasons...but I can add a tax over night, literally
|
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| reply Mark this thread unread | |||||||
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 12 13 14 > >| | |||||||
| Main / Suggestions / New attempt to create a tax based on income | |||||||
