Please change taxes...

[Zigkid3]

Nalien:
that's because the models have different requirements, just because one uses more advanced forms of math doesn't make the other not true. How do I into numbers, i don't even.

Sotek:
Because by imposing a tax for every price adjustment, if your item does not sell you either relist it and pay another tax, or let it expire and then relist to pay another tax. if they have to readjust the price even once or more than it will cost more each and every time. at some point most people will be selling at the same price once it hits equilibrium, then not only are you selling something but a ton more other people. you'll be incurring a loss, and thus the best move would be not to play.
No one would pick B obviously because the cost would be so high. There are so many players in the game that once you list a trade good, chances are someone will undercut you (if not at equilibrium) within the next hour, and yay now everyone is forced into scenario B because of your idea.

[Sotek]

Everyone is not forced into B, they wait until the undercutter sells, then theirs sells, because they'd rather avoid the tax. It's that bleedin' simple. There simply are not enough new suppliers for their undercutting to force your to adjust price, the only thing forcing a price adjustment at the moment is the fact that people who've already put items up can, and will, adjust their price the moment they're undercut. If there are enough new suppliers, the in all likelihood the price is too high for the supply/demand anyway, in which case you're taxed for overpricing the item to begin with. Once an item reaches equilibrium, being undercut by a negligible amount becomes a completely non-issue, because the price/demand/supply should all be such that your item moves regardless of being undercut...

I mean seriously... You're talking about equilibrium and a stable market, yet you're defending a system that freely allows for an item to constantly be undercut by the same people, before anything even sells... That is the opposite of stability... Prices fluctuate wildly, not because the game is still new, but because there is absolutely no reason for them to remain stable. There is zero reason not to adjust your price when you're undercut right now, short of being away from the market, and that means prices are completely fluid. Again, that is not stability.

[Danieros]

The game seriously needs a tax for changing prices or putting an item for sale. Like 1% (then the sales tax is reduced to 4% to compensate).

Otherwise, it takes only two extremely active people to undercut each other to profit smithereens, on items I sell with 4-5 people in the competition for the lowest price, it gets pretty ludicrous. If there was a tax only considerable and slow undercuts would be made (which would mostly be done by people first placing their item for sale), instead of 1 gil undercuts every 2 minutes.

[Conradus]

As for the last thing.....
I also have no clue why the different cities have different tax rates. It would make sense for each city to have their own fluctuating tax rates if the markets in each city were separate from each other, that way it would encourage people to sell at the city with the lowest tax rate to increase the supply in that city to ensure that everything is evenly distributed.

The differing tax rate you're seeing isn't because the different cities have different tax rates. It's because there's one tax rate when the retainer is in the same city as the purchasing characer and a higher one when they are in different cities.

[Nalien]

Nalien:
that's because the models have different requirements, just because one uses more advanced forms of math doesn't make the other not true. How do I into numbers, i don't even.

Thank you very much for further proving my point that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Clueless, incompetent people like you are the reason I changed to a real science by the way.

[Zigkid3]

Sotek: Either way, the market will reach equilibrium. the difference is the speed at which it will happen. The more frequent the undercutting, the faster it will reach it. Also to show you how and why including more tax would negatively effect the market, here is a graph for you: http://ingrimayne.com/econ/government/Figure13.4.gif
the big triangle between ab&c is the dead weight loss, which is a loss of efficiency within the market. The more of a tax you impose, the larger the triangle and the less efficient the market becomes. (shaded regions are the tax revenue which is gil taken out of the game). Notice how the supply line shifts left the more and greater the tax becomes, and now look what happens to the price increase, and quantity supplied decreases as the line continues to shift left.

[Zigkid3]

Nalien: I mentioned those theories since you apparently you didn't know why certain concepts are labeled as a "theory", it's because they perform inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. my mention about the level of math in which they use is because you were claiming one thing was more true than the other just because it used more complex math which is preposterous. All forms of math are made from the building blocks of previous math principles. 1+1 will equal 2, it's basic, but it will always be true.

[Sotek]

Sotek: Either way, the market will reach equilibrium. the difference is the speed at which it will happen. The more frequent the undercutting, the faster it will reach it. Also to show you how and why including more tax would negatively effect the market, here is a graph for you: http://ingrimayne.com/econ/government/Figure13.4.gif
the big triangle between ab&c is the dead weight loss, which is a loss of efficiency within the market. The more of a tax you impose, the larger the triangle and the less efficient the market becomes. (shaded regions are the tax revenue which is gil taken out of the game). Notice how the supply line shifts left the more and greater the tax becomes, and now look what happens to the price increase, and quantity supplied decreases as the line continues to shift left.

You're implying everyone would be taxed. They wouldn't.

How is this not simple? You tax people for adjusting their price, it's an optional tax, one everyone can avoid with a little patience. If you don't adjust your price, you don't get taxed. You price things properly and even if a new supplier undercuts, your item eventually sells once they're gone.

Sure, right now with the frequency of undercutting, equilibrium will be reached faster, unfortunately that equilibrium is less profitable than selling to an NPC for virtually everything 1-40ish. I utterly dumbfounded that anyone thinks the current market isn't hideously broken... A dozen people adjusting prices to undercut each other constantly before anything even sells does not make for a stable economy and it never will. There needs to be an actual deterrent against such sheer stupidity, and an easily avoidable tax is perfect for the job. Heck, they could just prevent price adjustments completely, make the post-sales tax - which has absolutely no purpose other than being a Gil-drain - into a pre-sales tax and without price adjustments it acts as a Gil-drain and acts as a deterrent against rampant undercutting/stupidity, all without adding a new tax to the game.

[Nalien]

Nalien: I mentioned those theories since you apparently you didn't know why certain concepts are labeled as a "theory", it's because they perform inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. my mention about the level of math in which they use is because you were claiming one thing was more true than the other just because it used more complex math which is preposterous. All forms of math are made from the building blocks of previous math principles. 1+1 will equal 2, it's basic, but it will always be true.

And again you show no understanding of the meaning of the models. Basic idea =/= how real situations work out.

[Zigkid3]

Sotek: So you say there there would be no tax for the original posting, correct? Then what is to stop someone from undermining tax on price adjustments by getting around it by taking the item down completely and then re-posting it as if it were a new posting. Everyone would just use that roundabout way and continue what they are doing. If you don't want people doing that, then you'd have to tax the initial price as well. I will bet than in either scenario (especially the 2nd) people will overall pay more in tax over a given period of time than they are now, which would cause the supply shift I mentioned. With your idea, people will experience low turnover ratios instead of the higher turnover ratios they could have had, you'll screw up the market's cash flow.