479 online at 08:41:07

BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Sale tax based on salary

Sale tax based on salary

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
55
299885.1
Date: 5/24/2019 4:35:24 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
14901490
Make the sale tax exponentially dependent on the salary or age of the player being traded. Sale tax was introduced to prevent daytrading of young players and has been largely ineffective. This is because of 2 reasons:
- young players with high potential are cheap in salary
- sale tax reduces over time so daytraders are incentivised to hold these players as whatever they pay in salary they will recover from a lower tax

Make the tax dependent on salary or age. High salary players cannot be daytraded because the cost of the player going unsold is not negligible, older players are either more expensive or not that likely to reach their potential so no problem there.

This Post:
00
299885.3 in reply to 299885.2
Date: 5/24/2019 6:16:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
14901490
Yes, either lower age higher tax or lower salary higher tax.

Could be more lenient to the other side of the spectrum (oldies and high salary), but not really bothered by it. The aim should be stopping people from buying 10-15 draftees with high potential very cheap and then trying to flip them in the following several weeks for hundreds of thousand of $ or firing them (after all they only need to sell 1 or 2 to make a profit and they have no incentive in listing these players at $1 because sales like that affect the numbers of transaction that increases the tax)

Last edited by Lemonshine at 5/24/2019 6:21:21 PM

From: LA-Vecx
This Post:
00
299885.4 in reply to 299885.3
Date: 5/27/2019 3:54:45 PM
Tide of Fire
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
352352
I rarely write here.

I do think something should be done to discourage the handful of players who mop up cheap players at the draft for $1000 and then hike the prices to $500k+ a few weeks later hoping to trick a newer player into buying them. It encumbers new players from being able to progress and works against the spirit of the transfer market. I consider these sorts of tactics an exploitation of the transfer market to gain economic advantage over those of us who do not wish to trick unsupecting players out of their money.

This Post:
22
299885.5 in reply to 299885.2
Date: 5/27/2019 4:04:41 PM
Tide of Fire
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
352352
Why not just make it so that you cannot sell a player for more than 20% of the purchase price for the first 13 weeks after purchase?

Last edited by LA-Vecx at 5/27/2019 4:05:09 PM

From: Aizen

This Post:
11
299885.6 in reply to 299885.5
Date: 5/27/2019 5:00:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4141
you wanna target those players exploiting the sale of new draftees not everyone else... i myself have botched purchases and ended up selling them and replacing them. those measures would punish new players even more than those players taking advantage of them.

This Post:
11
299885.7 in reply to 299885.6
Date: 5/28/2019 6:47:47 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
14901490
I'm in favour of allowing managers to rebuild faster than 1 season (which is the case now because the tax will hit you the same way for 2k salary players and 200k salary players, old and young). The tax in general is harmful to the Transfer List's liquidity because it stops people from relisting players faster and makes it more likely that players will be fired rather than sold. This much was always evident and I have said this since the day the tax was introduced.

The tax was introduced with the declared aim of stopping daytrading, in particular for cheap young players with high potential. Most teams in the B3 were buying 20-30 draftees very cheap and then tried to flip them in the following weeks, often making enough money to allow them to afford a higher payroll. The tax does nothing to stop this behaviour because the cost of holding these players is low and you only need a couple of sales to recoup your money with the tax as currently implemented. I still remember that some people were selling so many youngsters that they had a NEGATIVE value of sale proceeds when the tax was introduced (they were getting -2% from the sale, so they would have had to pay rather than receive money lol).


A few people (myself included) demanded the tax is calculated and applied on the profits, rather than the sale amount. Why should you pay the tax if you buy a player for 2m and sell him 2 weeks later for 1.5m? You are already making a loss without the tax, you really are not getting any benefit from trading. Marin and others as usual refused to listen and you still see people do this 20 seasons later.

So the only solutions I see are:
1. Include the age or salary of a player in the calculation for the tax (lower salary or age = higher tax)
2. Change the tax from a sale tax to a profit tax (plus the 3% flat tax on the sale as it was in the past)
3. Include the 'potential sales' in the calculation. So if you try to sell 10 players at the same time, the 10th you list will get a tax based on your closed transactions + the 9 previous listings. I would not advocate this because it makes general rebuilding worse than it is now, but it would definitely hamper managers speculating on a large number of draftees as they would at least need to prioritise among the garbage they are trying to sell.

2. would be best, 1. would be ok as a patch to prevent daytrading on draftees, 3. would have some effect but it would also harm teams with old players just trying to rebuild and therefore is not ideal to address this problem.


You would hope they fix this before introducing an app which would allow people to exploit the TL even more than now.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 5/28/2019 7:04:25 AM

This Post:
00
299885.9 in reply to 299885.8
Date: 5/29/2019 6:19:10 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
14901490
I pick up 3, 4 cheap players and train them a whole season
Then it wouldn't affect because the tax would revert to the minimum as it does now, after 10-12 weeks or so.

I realise it may have not been clear from my suggestion, but by linking to age or salary I mean increase the steepness of the curve not shifting the whole curve based on which the tax is calculated. Changing the steepness means reverting to 3% in more or less the same time as now but starting from a lower point, shifting would mean also increasing the time to revert to 3%.

So a daytrader's youngster will be worth less after 10 weeks because he will not be trained. Their chance of selling an untrained youngster actually decreases with time (or the price achievable decreases). For a trainer like yourself it's quite the opposite. So I really don't see the problem. This is simply to discourage people flipping young trainees within a few weeks, flipping trainees over a longer period would stay the same pretty much.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 5/29/2019 6:22:00 AM