Politician Archive
Thread: registration for voting needed instead of declared residence
A 2 lot sacrfice to join a city is not that big of a deal. Without having declared residences there are way too many griefing possibilities.
If you can give me a good argument that giving up 2 lots is a burden on people to have a house, I would maybe consider some kind of registration process.
Laotan2 wrote:
i did not say that non landowners would not have to pay tax. i think all citizens in a city should pay some form of tax. my argument is that they should all have a chance to participate, even if they donot own a house.
the example of the artisan who has to use all their lots for harvesting, and shares residence with someone else, is perfect. i know a lot of people who put their vendors in a friend's house, and use their own lots to gather resources.
Yes, but one of the taxes is a PROPERTY TAX WHICH IS ADDED DIRECTLY TO A BUILDING'S MAINTENANCE, and it is the only MANDATORY tax. All the others can be avoided by not using that city's shuttleport (if it has one), and not buying anything from vendors in the city. That person can just live there, tax free, yet be VOTING IN ELECTIONS THAT WILL EFFECTIVELY DETERMINE HOW THAT TAX MONEY IS SPENT. Should someone that has paid NONE of that tax have the right to vote out a mayor because thatmayor didn't spend the tax money the way that voter wanted?
Sample situation:
Taxpayer (TP for short) is a shop owner that lives and resides in Hypothetical City. Every week, TP pays a 15% property tax to the Hypothetical City fund. He also takes a 10% sales tax on everything he sells, that goes automatically into the Hypothetical City fund. The other residents of HC do the same, and in return, they get to vote for the HC mayor. Naturally, being a shop owner, TP wants someone in office that will represent him and his interests. So he is going to vote for a mayor that wants to set one of the city specialties that he will benefit from, such as the manufacturing and experimentation bonus ones. So, in return for paying his taxes, and voting for that mayor who promises that, he gets a bonus to the goods he creates, which in turn helps him make more money, and sell more stuff.
Freeloader (FL for short) is a doctor that wants totake partin Hypothetical City. He does not own a house, or a shop, and does not buy anything from anyone in HC, therefore he pays NO SALES TAX AND NO PROPERTY TAX. He hangs out in the HC Hospital all day, making money off of selling buffs to HC residents and visitors. Now let's say he is allowed to "register" residence in someone else's house and vote. Naturally,FL is a Doctor, so he will vote for a mayor that will set the "Hospital HealingBonus" city specialty (Iforget what it's called), because that will benefit him, by making his heals and buffs more effective, and therefore earning him better tips, and more customers, because more people will head on out to HC Hospital, once word spreads that the heals and buffs there are good.
Conclusion: is this fair? Does FL deserve as much of a vote as TP does? TP has contributed funds to the city, therefore he has an INVESTMENT in the city, and he has a right to voice his opinion (through his vote) as to how those funds should be spent. Why should someone that has contributed nothing to the city funds, have any say over how they are spent? I say if FL wants to vote so bad, let him go out and buy a house, and pay his taxes the same way EVERYONE ELSE WILL HAVE TO. Otherwise, he should have no say whatsoever.
Now for those that would argue "make FL pay a registration tax instead of his property tax," that wouldn't really work. Here's why:
1) Property tax is a % of building maintenance, so if FL has no building, how do you decide what his maintenance rate is? Should it be cheaper than everyone else's? More expensive? Is either of those options completely fair?
2) Aside from the maintenance fees on his house, TP also had to actually BUY THE HOUSE ITSELF, which is an investment. So why should FL get to skate around the cost of an actual house? Unless you are going to stick an extra 55k on his residence fee (price of a medium house, at least on my server), he has gotten off again on his cost of participation.
3) TP also had to use up one or more of his lots, in order to become a resident. Player city citizenship is supposed to carry with it some great benefits, and having to use up lots is one of the drawbacks. Why should FL get to skate around yet again? While TP has to use up a lot to get the benefits of crafting and selling in HC, FL gets all those benefits, while still running all his harvesters and whatever else he wants, outside the city.
4) How are the designers going to code all this? Player cities were coded in a very specific way, and basically they would have to recode all the system, just to benefit ONE resident of the city, namely FL, just so he can skate around the system and get everything he wants out of a player city, without any of the drawbacks.
You must be a Democrat."lets change the whole system, just to benefit one person" sounds just like something that would come out of Hillary Clinton's mouth. What a load of crap.
Lenaa wrote:
A much simpler solution and something I wish they had implemented long ago, is to allow anyone who has admin access to your home to declare it as their residence.
This stops the griefing described above, as SOMEONE does have to own the house in town.
This allows you to tax that person (through income tax) because they are now a part of your city.
In other words, it solves the problem of architects such as the one above, who share homes with others. It is MUCH more realistic. To pull the "America" example.. I live with my husband in America. We BOTH pay income taxes, but last time I checked, we only paid property taxes once, not twice, because for some strange reason married people live in the same house.
Yes, I can vote in elections, and do every Nov. What this system for SWG actually does is the opposite of the whole representation/taxation thing. Here you are telling me that you can tax me (property tax) yet I have no vote.
Well there's a reason why SWG works a little different than real life. Last time I checked, no one I know in real life owns houses on 9 different planets. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but most people I know in real life only live in one city, and only own one house, if they even own one. In real life we can do "voter registration" instead of "property ownership" because in real life, it is a lot harder to own multiple houses in multiple cities than it is in SWG, at least it was last time I checked. Correct me if I'm completely out of my mind on that one.
In real life, I live in one city, rarely leave it, and I do not currently own a house there, I rent an apartment.
In SWG I own 5 different houses, outside 5 different cities, on 5 different planets.
DO WE SEE A DIFFERENCE HERE?
In the real world, you have a point. But then again to register to vote you must prove you are a resident in the city. IRL this includes rental and even staying in a hotel long enough.
Unfortunalty there is only one way to show you are a resident and that is owning a home in the city limits.
But she will be in one, just have no say in it. It's my house, her vendors.
/sigh
Goldy_Lhim wrote:
so now I don't get a vote?
Who am I?? Mr. Wizard?? It's YOUR problem, not mine. I don't owe you a solution.
You have 2 choices: let her use your house, with no vote, or have her get her own house.
Those are your options.
You can either make the choice or whine about it (you seem to prefer whining).
I doubt the devs are going to redesign the entire player city system, just to accomodate your situation. They have enough issues with the system as it is, as well as other game issues to fix.
A suggestion if non-landowners are going to be voting ... once registered, there is a substantial "moving time"/cost associated with going to a different city. Frankly, the landowner restriction isn't much of one. What stops potential griefers from buyinga 10k small house and declaring a new residence once every 7 days? Since elections are only held once a week, the "landowner obstacle" to griefing is the cost of a small house.
another factor that i think people are neglecting is the finite space in this game. a lot of the terrain is structured as such that it will be difficult to have as many player cities as are desired. its wrong to exclude people from this aspect of the game, which i think makes the social level that much more sophisticated. there should be means by which people can committ to a city, whether paying taxes, or gaining approval from the mayor. people should not be allowed to switch cities easily. but the homeless and artisan classes should not be excluded from the player city politc.
the argument that 2 lots is a small price to pay, forgets the additional costs of maintenance. paying taxes is one thing, but also paying maintenance on structures is something a lot of players may not want to take on. similarly, any serious crafter needs all 10 lots to gather resources in addition to resources they buy.
making the ownership of a house the basis for status in swg is ludicrous, and discriminatory. devs or at the very least our correspondent should speak up and speak to this issue. it represents a political dynamic within the politican profession. 
Fueller wrote:
My feeling is this,
I own property and live within a city. I should have to right to vote forwhatever politcian that's runningfor office.Why? Because I have an investment within the limits of the city. I wouldn't want an outsider, with no investment in the city's building or future, to vote for someone. They aren't paying the taxes...so they shouldn't get a vote.
You wouldn't want another country voting in your president... Would you?
well said. Also, whats to stop from someone having a house in each town, vote for the election in one, walk to the next, declare and vote, walk to the next, declare and vote...
You can see what I am getting at. There are already many ways to swing a vote, i certainly wouldnt want to open it up for more problems, which i think the original posted solution does.