|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jan 31, 2021 18:12:20 GMT
I don't think these need much doing apart from fixing the numbering, but feel free to make suggestions. People may want to use this to familarise themselves with the defaulting rules. I've been letting this slide a bit while loans made before that was put in the rulebook were paid off, but this will be enforced for all new loans. The Shylocks are no longer willing to lose more than they gain each year.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Feb 2, 2021 19:18:55 GMT
I reread the short section on loans and gifts and I am confused by the comment regarding Shylock loans. It seems straight forward so what was sliding? Why are Shylocks losing more money than they gain?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 2, 2021 19:35:22 GMT
I reread the short section on loans and gifts and I am confused by the comment regarding Shylock loans. It seems straight forward so what was sliding? Why are Shylocks losing more money than they gain? Broadly, before the default rules, people were taking out maximum loans without a second thought and then ordering "I go to the front until I die and get a new character or pay it back". The Shylocks were a glorified gambling table. And they were losing far more money to that then they were making through interest. The new rules don't preclude people doing that, but add a level of strategic decision to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Feb 2, 2021 19:38:58 GMT
And I assume that they were leaving the money to their next character or someone else in trust to the next character, hence the 50% gift tax.
Are there any limitation on loans between characters?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 2, 2021 19:52:41 GMT
And I assume that they were leaving the money to their next character or someone else in trust to the next character, hence the 50% gift tax. Not quite next characters, but yeah, that one was at risk of being a serious loophole in terms of how it was being utilised. Only taxes. But the other big limitation is that they are now based entirely on honour so you're taking a risk if you loan to someone you can't trust! |
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Feb 3, 2021 12:40:00 GMT
Only taxes. But the other big limitation is that they are now based entirely on honour so you're taking a risk if you loan to someone you can't trust! But are loans also subject to those taxes, or only gifts? (suggestion: to avoid abuses if loans are not, set a time span after wich, if not reourned, they are considered a gift and the receiver has to pay the taxes) |
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 3, 2021 12:54:54 GMT
Loans are treated as gifts by the state to avoid abuses.
Apart from I think an exception for merchants. I might write up rules to allow them to act as moneylenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Feb 15, 2021 13:00:29 GMT
Loans are treated as gifts by the state to avoid abuses. Apart from I think an exception for merchants. I might write up rules to allow them to act as moneylenders. Just one question about this: how would then join investments (as the one led by Sieur Guiy d'Avranches (RIP) last spring) be handled? |
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Feb 15, 2021 15:13:16 GMT
It could go either way but I would argue that participating in a joint venture there is no transfer of wealth between PCs and hence not a taxable event. There is no transfer of wealth because the PCs still own interest in the investment and gain benefit or owe cost based on their share in the investment.
If the share of the investment is transferred between PCs as a gift or as inheritance, taxes would be owned on the amount transferred.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 15, 2021 16:49:44 GMT
I agree with coltredhead. This is pooling of resources, not a loan/gift and doesn't need taxing.
Although in many cases I suspect people will get AAD to handle their investments because of the higher level of interest.
Speaking of which, it's not in the rulebook yet but it's now official that AAD doesn't have to deal with taxes on monetary transitions, allowing him to act as a respectable alternative to the Shylocks. Didn't think anyone would object to that and it helps flesh out the Merchant subgame.
Naturally, anyone using him as a go between to send gifts to another PC will find there's a risk of everyone being hauled up on charges of tax evasion!
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Feb 15, 2021 17:22:07 GMT
And what about selling/buying among non-merchant characters (i'm thinking mostly in houes or racehorses)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 15, 2021 17:57:57 GMT
Selling/buying fine; it's why an advocate is paid to oversee it. Gifts obviously will be taxed.
|
|
