Income or transfer tax: OK.
Welfare tax: BAD.
On paper, you could try to counter inflation with the (hyper)deflationary effects of a 1:1 takeaway/giveaway mechanism, leaving the overall amount of money the same, while the amount of active participants in the economy becomes larger, producing and consuming more and more. And from time to time, you can alter the tax percentage to counter the effects of the ever-growing deflation.
If you give 1000 planets per month to everybody, and they have 5000 in average. Then, you increase the number of planets of 20% per month. So, if you don't remove 20% of the planets per month, then you have inflation, meaning that players will have 6000 planets in average. If you have 12000, it means that you have two times more than them. If you remove 20% for them, and 20% for you, then you have 10000 and they have 5000. You have the double.
If we accept that there is an increase of planets of 20% per month, then it means prices should increase of 20% per month. If you do this, with 12000 you can buy 10 things at 1200, but if we reduce the price & the planets of 20%, then you can acquire 10 things at 1000 with your 10 000.
What can be under critic, if you feel something unfair, is that we give 1000 planets per month to every player, including you. Because, it means they have a 'salary' that is 20% of a lifetime of wealth.. which is huge! So, if we wanted to slow down the decrease of currency value, we would have to give less to people. Let's say we give only 5%. Then, they would get 250 per month. But if they get 250 per month, they will buy you 4 times less stuff, or stuff at 4 times smaller prices... meaning, from the start, that you would have only 25% of the wealth you can have by selling stuff. With 20% per month, it takes a year to be at 25%. With this system, you are at 25% from day one... and you still have to accept a 5% decrease of money value, or inflation would make your own planets worth 5% less.
Anyway, if you really want to debate this position, you will have to accept to get further in the arguments, instead of calling it communism.
From what I have read, this economist kind of support this type of concept (anti inflation currency)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lietaer
if you increase taxes to diminish the quantity of planets on the market, then you slow down the economy. Do not underestimate the negative effect of saying that taxes gets higher when you need to remove more planets, since it slow down the economy, and if people continue to get planets, taxes would have to be even higher is economy is slowed down etc. We have removed all taxes, we have just made two single values to be the rule of economy: monthly salary & average wealth of players. The planets are then made to be worth the same on the long run, meaning that if you sell something 100 planets in a ManiaCredits pak today, it will still be of the same value and interest for players in one year, without having to modify your prices.
And in addition to all this economical system, we introduced a link to a concept of "being" instead of "having" In the future of Maniaplanet, you will be acknowledge of "being" someone who did economically great.
I am really open to discussion since I know it is a very sensible subject. In our society where there is only one unit (money) and not the (glory), then it is off course more complicated to see. But we are meant to "be" & to "have".
And to be is not 'nothing' by the way!
If you want us to thing something that may improve your situation, I would recommend to provide positive feelings. You may say:"I would like to be able to stay rich, even if I do nothing more" or "I would like to be able to acquire such a fortune, so I can buy much later tons of things, but not today" or "Ok, I understand your system, but I miss the ability to increase my standard of life on the long run"
For example, if you say the last sentence, I would say:"maybe we can create a long term salary, where you can spend your planets before the month, and get them distributed on your monthly salary, instead of 'losing them'" So, if you have 1 000 000, then you would give it back and get 50 000 back per month during 20 months. You would still have to pay the anti-inflation contribution at the end of each month, but it would give your more time to spend it and secure a long term better wealth capacity.
Maybe I am doing a big mistake in my last suggestion, so I would not say we would do it. But I am trying to explain how to think in order to first understand all the reasons behind in order to be in the discussion, instead of making really to fast assumptions, judgement and accusation of "worst than communism guy" It is funny since I had to say that we are not trying to re-create 'capitalism' to other accusations ^_^
)
