Politician Archive
Thread: Why dont mayors uses taxes to fund cities?
Page 2 of 2
Khristen
Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:30 am
#14
Mayors don't use taxes to fund cities because some are broken/don't work or don't work reliably (meaning they take the money from the player but don't put the money into the city treasury. There's no point in having a broken tax enabled if the money isn't going to make it where it's needed.
Of the taxes available:
- Property Tax - Every player who owns a structure in the city pays a percentage of their maintenance as property tax. This amount is automaticallyadded into the structure maintenance and is charged per hour in keeping with the scheduled maintenance payment of the structure. When a player examines a structure they can see the hourly maintenance rate and it will state on that dialog box what the city's taxes are. There arereports of this money not always going into the city treasury. Considering there is no way tobreak down income reports on the City Maintenance Terminal, it's a very difficult thing to test and confirm since it's hard to see where the money is actually coming from and if it's working all the time.
- Income Tax - A flat fee tax charged to every citizen of the city. The money is automatically removed from the player's bank and is charged to citizens on a weekly basis. This tax has a cap of 2000cr. If a player does not have the funds to pay the tax, the Mayor is notified of a delinquent payment. This has also had scattered reports of not working, although it is also hard to track because the money is deducted from citizens at different times throughout the week.
- Sales Tax - A sales tax is added to every item sold by a merchant in the city. The vendor owner sets a price for a given item, and the tax is calculated in when the item is listed on the vendor for viewing; this tax also applies to items offered to a vendor. Tax is collected at the time of purchase. This tax is currently bugged. The tax is calculated in as it should, but is credited to the merchant at the time of the sale instead of the city or it goes into some limbo state and no one receives the credits. It has been confirmed to work at a rate of 10% prior to publish 14, although that rate is much toohigh for most player cities.
- Travel Fee - An additional fee added onto the normal ticket price for traveling from the city. The maximum amount that can be added is 1k credits. This tax is currently bugged. The travel fee only goes to the city treasury on outgoing tickets bought at the ticket terminal inside the Player City.
- Garage Fee - A percentage tax added into the total repair fee at the city garage. This works as intended.
It's not that mayors don't *want* to fund their cities through taxes. And while it is possible to do so with very careful planning and keeping the "fat" trimmed, it is very difficult and really doesn't allow for any kind of city decoration. The real problem is that, of the current taxes and sources of income we *do* have, they don't work consistently if they work at all.
Sighryn
Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:09 am
#15
Exactly. If I up the taxes all of a sudden I lose residents.
Kinshi wrote:
every city I come across has zero to low taxes,
Kinshi
Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:15 pm
#16
hehe thats the whole point of this thread.
People have the mistake impression that the taxes will make them go broke when in fact the taxes are really just chump change compared to what they blow daily on armor, food, buffs.
In one week a play would spend more on buffs in a week than they would on taxes in a month
FACT
Small house @ 18% income tax = 418cr/day maintenace (this is 69 credits more than the base 384cr/day ZERO tax rate fro a small house)
Averge cost of a CNet 3.5 hour set of doc buffs (Chilastra) = 13,000cr
So If you play EVERY day for a month heres the comparison
Money spent on Property Taxes = 1,932cr a month
Money spent on buffs = 364,000cr a month
Sooooo taxes makes people go broke eh? I seriously doubt that. What people have a is a knee-jerk reaction to the word 'tax', even though its a pittance. They will happily shove money into shuttle port fee collection box but will threaten to move away if you make them pay 69 credits extra a day?
I have people who pay me 200k to go find the bladeback boar! 250k to find a pig! People pay 250cpu for harvested resources and I am supposed to belive that 69 credits a day extra will bankrupt them?
From what I can tell the general assumptions steering people away from the tax system are patently false. There is the ingrained notion that a city simply cannot operate and thrive off the taxes.
Yea this is a big deal to me :-) as this 'tax myth' is like the spam email I get about perpetuating urban legends and chain letters and those make me see red becasue so many just accept them at face value, when in reality, if you dig a little deeper you find the whole thing was just a hoax, or just plain wrong.
People have the mistake impression that the taxes will make them go broke when in fact the taxes are really just chump change compared to what they blow daily on armor, food, buffs.
In one week a play would spend more on buffs in a week than they would on taxes in a month
FACT
Small house @ 18% income tax = 418cr/day maintenace (this is 69 credits more than the base 384cr/day ZERO tax rate fro a small house)
Averge cost of a CNet 3.5 hour set of doc buffs (Chilastra) = 13,000cr
So If you play EVERY day for a month heres the comparison
Money spent on Property Taxes = 1,932cr a month
Money spent on buffs = 364,000cr a month
Sooooo taxes makes people go broke eh? I seriously doubt that. What people have a is a knee-jerk reaction to the word 'tax', even though its a pittance. They will happily shove money into shuttle port fee collection box but will threaten to move away if you make them pay 69 credits extra a day?
I have people who pay me 200k to go find the bladeback boar! 250k to find a pig! People pay 250cpu for harvested resources and I am supposed to belive that 69 credits a day extra will bankrupt them?
From what I can tell the general assumptions steering people away from the tax system are patently false. There is the ingrained notion that a city simply cannot operate and thrive off the taxes.
Yea this is a big deal to me :-) as this 'tax myth' is like the spam email I get about perpetuating urban legends and chain letters and those make me see red becasue so many just accept them at face value, when in reality, if you dig a little deeper you find the whole thing was just a hoax, or just plain wrong.
KJFett
Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:31 pm
#17
You are right on the taxes Kinshi. They are not a burden to the player by anymeans..not even the new players. They must remain in the game and should never be removed as they should be a tool for mayors that wish to use them. As the poster before pointed out tho...players will often pack up and leave to go to other cities if you raise taxes. Often times its not the money that is the issue, it is the "my money" issue. I found that I could attract more players by not having taxes. I also found that I can run my city better (my opinion) with donations as I regularly made more money off donations as people gave willingly. This allowed me to have more of what we all wanted. Often times the ones most against taxes are the ones that donate the most as well...and donate far more than they ever would if I taxed them alone.
Taxation is a feature mayors have access to. Doesnt mean it has to be used. Each mayor runs their city as they feel it is best to be run. Either way, the mayor must convice the citizens to part with their money for the common good of the city. Both are very right and neither is wrong. Irespect any mayor that choses to run their city off of taxes only. I simply ask for the same respect in return.
yoda101705
Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:52 pm
#18
KJFett wrote:
You are right on the taxes Kinshi. They are not a burden to the player by anymeans..not even the new players. They must remain in the game and should never be removed as they should be a tool for mayors that wish to use them. As the poster before pointed out tho...players will often pack up and leave to go to other cities if you raise taxes. Often times its not the money that is the issue, it is the "my money" issue. I found that I could attract more players by not having taxes. I also found that I can run my city better (my opinion) with donations as I regularly made more money off donations as people gave willingly. This allowed me to have more of what we all wanted. Often times the ones most against taxes are the ones that donate the most as well...and donate far more than they ever would if I taxed them alone.
I think alot of this depends on how much a mayor raises taxes. If you go from 0% to 25% right off the bat, you are definitely going to freak a few people out. On the other hand, if you slowly raise the tax over time, people may not notice as much. I think in the end, if a mayor decides to raise taxes the best thing they can do to ensure that no one leaves the city is to explain why the taxes are getting raised and what benefit raising the taxes will bring.
Back when I was first setting up my city, I went and adjusted the taxes a few times to cover our rate of growth and desire to place civic structures (in other words, taxes went up). When I did it, I usually sent out an informational mail explaining to them why I wanted to raise the tax and how it would benefit things. Then I explained that would happen if I didn't raise the taxes and I asked for everyone to give me as much feedback as possible. Occasionally I had someone (usually a newer player) who didn't have enough money for maintenance. In those cases, I usually just donated whatever I could to help them keep their houses. When all was said an done, I think most citizens realized that taxes really don't draw that much money, especially when compared to other things. Also, I think everyone would have rather paid a little more into taxes than let something not get placed in the city. Since donations are few and far between in my city, most people have just become accustomed to the taxes and understand why I have them (even though they are much higher than most other cities).
But, I think Kinshi makes a good point. The "my money" people should really also be "my city" people as well. Regardless of taxation or not, their money supports the city that they live in and in the end they are reaping whatever benefits that money does for that city.
Kinshi
Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:03 pm
#19
Yes making a jump from 0% to 30% (or whatever) makes it seem HUGE, even with all the supporting math.
If a city is to get weaned off donations, and the citizens are scared of taxes, then its got to be phased in sloooowly (like 1-2% points at a time, not 10% at a time).
My operating theory has been if the former donors are able to keep all that money they have been putting in to feed the city, they can use that money to grow their own businesses, or fund others efforts (like more factories, more harvesters, stock more goods, buy more goods, buy event perks, run events, etc etc etc.)
yea its the Capitalistic viewpoint, that if the big donors put all that money into generating more business in the town, thats a much greater help to all than to be pouring the dough in to the city treasury. Yea they could sit on the dough but a smart businessman invests money rather than letting it sit around.
and of course the underlying goal is to promote systems that make the city active for both residents and the people who visit,
If a city is to get weaned off donations, and the citizens are scared of taxes, then its got to be phased in sloooowly (like 1-2% points at a time, not 10% at a time).
My operating theory has been if the former donors are able to keep all that money they have been putting in to feed the city, they can use that money to grow their own businesses, or fund others efforts (like more factories, more harvesters, stock more goods, buy more goods, buy event perks, run events, etc etc etc.)
yea its the Capitalistic viewpoint, that if the big donors put all that money into generating more business in the town, thats a much greater help to all than to be pouring the dough in to the city treasury. Yea they could sit on the dough but a smart businessman invests money rather than letting it sit around.
and of course the underlying goal is to promote systems that make the city active for both residents and the people who visit,
Kinshi
Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:08 pm
#20
Oh I forgot to add, on the note of lower income players, I tend to think its better overall if the wealthier players direct their money and time directly to the other players than having the city be the means of distributing the funds.
It gets the new citizens integrated into the city faster, builds relationships, and the interaction between the experienced player and the newer player helps the newer player learn how to fend for themselves, and become a contributing member of the city.
It gets the new citizens integrated into the city faster, builds relationships, and the interaction between the experienced player and the newer player helps the newer player learn how to fend for themselves, and become a contributing member of the city.
Crimsonsplat
Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:54 pm
#21
Kinshi wrote:
Oh I forgot to add, on the note of lower income players, I tend to think its better overall if the wealthier players direct their money and time directly to the other players than having the city be the means of distributing the funds.
It gets the new citizens integrated into the city faster, builds relationships, and the interaction between the experienced player and the newer player helps the newer player learn how to fend for themselves, and become a contributing member of the city.
Agreed. one of the practices I have NEVER agreed with is handing out the free houses. Whether its done by the guilds or mayors, you gain nothing but another temporary player who has nothing invested in your city, your baby. Thus they don't care if it lives or dies.
A player who has spent to buy their own house, even at anominal discount, has put their own resources up.They now have an investment, and are more likely to care about the city. Oh, not as much as the mayor / architect(s) / guild leader(s), but a lot more than some nomad who had to be bribed to declare residency.
KJFett
Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:13 pm
#22
Sure, raising the taxes that fast is bad. I dont think anyone can argue agaisnt that. Sure I can explain to them all how taxes work and slowly switch to a tax system, but thats the coolness of the city system. We can all do it how we like. My artisans have no trouble donating. They work off each other anyways, and expanding the biz isnt something they need. Trust me..they are worked like slaves all day anyways. Some of my big donars are ones that moved to town because I dont tax. I guess it makes them feel more like they control their money. They feel they can decide how much to give this month. But while that worked for me, there may be merchants out there that dont want the hassle of donations and wantit done automatically...thats fine by me. Some peope like that....if it makes them happy, who am I to argue?
I hope we can all agree on one thing. No matter how the money comes in..be it tax or donation..its about making the city a great place to leave. Those are all just a means to an end. The end being our own little Utopia. 
bluejanus
Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:35 am
#23
Well it does make it easier to attract newbies. Shows them another aspect of gameplay in a player city. As for uncaring temporary residents. You have to try to filter your residents. Play with them, group with them. Find out about them.
Crimsonsplat wrote:
Kinshi wrote:
Oh I forgot to add, on the note of lower income players, I tend to think its better overall if the wealthier players direct their money and time directly to the other players than having the city be the means of distributing the funds.
It gets the new citizens integrated into the city faster, builds relationships, and the interaction between the experienced player and the newer player helps the newer player learn how to fend for themselves, and become a contributing member of the city.
Agreed. one of the practices I have NEVER agreed with is handing out the free houses. Whether its done by the guilds or mayors, you gain nothing but another temporary player who has nothing invested in your city, your baby. Thus they don't care if it lives or dies.
A player who has spent to buy their own house, even at anominal discount, has put their own resources up.They now have an investment, and are more likely to care about the city. Oh, not as much as the mayor / architect(s) / guild leader(s), but a lot more than some nomad who had to be bribed to declare residency.
Kinshi
Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:20 am
#24
Agreed, it boils down to operational style for the city.
I do feel a tax funded city has far less of a chance of becoming a ghost town than a donation funded city, because the tax funded cities require a bit more dedicated citizen base to make it work. The tax funded cities may be smaller overall, but they are more likley to have active players making up the bulk of the citizens.
My personal preference is to have a small, but active city, rather than have a giant, seemingly inactive city (if ya have say 45 out of 50 people active in a city of 50 people with 100 buildings, the place will look like a total hot spot, but if you only have 45 active in a city of 120, with 240 buildings, it looks like a neutron bomb went off and killed everyone, Better to be small and active imho.
Tho I think the 'my money' people need to be thinking also in terms of 'my city' as well. Just like their own house, it needs maitenance and it is THEIR city too. They reap the benefits, they help pay the maintenance.
it is a VERY fair system, and you do get a LOT for the money.
I do feel a tax funded city has far less of a chance of becoming a ghost town than a donation funded city, because the tax funded cities require a bit more dedicated citizen base to make it work. The tax funded cities may be smaller overall, but they are more likley to have active players making up the bulk of the citizens.
My personal preference is to have a small, but active city, rather than have a giant, seemingly inactive city (if ya have say 45 out of 50 people active in a city of 50 people with 100 buildings, the place will look like a total hot spot, but if you only have 45 active in a city of 120, with 240 buildings, it looks like a neutron bomb went off and killed everyone, Better to be small and active imho.
Tho I think the 'my money' people need to be thinking also in terms of 'my city' as well. Just like their own house, it needs maitenance and it is THEIR city too. They reap the benefits, they help pay the maintenance.
it is a VERY fair system, and you do get a LOT for the money.
Balrozgul
Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:30 am
#25
On the note of income tax: (Cant say Ive verified this recently, but previous observations)
Its been my experience that this tax is only deducted when the player logs in. For those with an alt, (like me), this is easy to check and Ive indeed previously checked it. Take a note of your bank account and dont log that alt in for a few weeks. This is easier with a non merchant character btw. Keep track of how many maintainance cycles go by and log in the account again. Is the amount deducted multiplied by the number of weeks or is it simply showing minus the one week? I dont remember when the last time I did this was, but for my three weeks of absence my bank account only was minus 2k credits. This means that if true, it would make that number a lot more difficult to track, as its not citizens x flat tax, but instead is active citizens x flat tax.
Page 2 of 2