#Rentals

78 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

gilded nexus
#

Im not sure if its a requirment right now, or even possible, but i feel rentals should only be built or rentable in areas where they could be taxed. They would remove the potential of them just being built in areas where now town/state has authority so they benefit from zero potential rent tax.

summer perch
#

Would it be within the rights of the Feds to pass a law to do this? I feel like this shouldn't be a constitutional provision, but if a Parliament discusses this and decides, would they even have the power to pass such a law?

#

Of course there would be issues with the law, but from a legal point we should figure out jurisdiction along with the merits of such an idea

gritty chasm
#

I think this is more of a problem with the fact that players can have a residence anywhere they want. If a town taxes players for residing outside of the town their shops are in, that would discourage that

summer perch
#

I for one can see several potential issues

shy oracle
#

I have the right as a business owner to build property in states irl that do not have heavy taxes on my business, would this not be realistic in game ? @gilded nexus

summer perch
#

If hotels can be built outside of a town/country and the Feds can't tax rent beyond income tax, it leaves renters in a protected zone that they didn't previously have

shy oracle
#

is this just an over looked loop hole? why can't the government tax rent if they wish to

#

I just find it really difficult to understand why I would ever build in a town where I think they may tax my building

gilded nexus
#

We already have a law/rule for building being built with that in mind

shy oracle
#

which is as far as that goes.

#

I'm here to play a video game, I'm building my hotel where the best business opurtunity allows, which is not inside a town, I don't care if it's not common IRL what so ever

summer perch
#

So how does town jurisdiction work on laws? Like if I write a law that taxes a direct transfer, there isn't a location on the trigger, right? Could ArmoredStones suggestion work, where a town can detect if a citizen of their town collects rent from a hotel outside of the town influence?

shy oracle
#

No teal was struggling with that yesterday actually, the town/state laws should only work in their own district, and the federal laws should work everywhere

#

but you can't actually detect if an action is inside a state/town unless you make a district to trigger it in

#

It would actually be kind of really bad if the state had an income tax on its citizens that didn't apply when they went and sold shit outside of town lol

#

bad for the state, good for the federation

summer perch
#

Constitution specifies citizens of a state or transfers happening within a state

#

So I think that might actually be possible

#

In the US you get taxed on income from outside the state, unless that income is claimed by another state

#

Well at least in most states, I can't vouch for all 50

#

So a law that triggers on a state citizen collecting rent and taxes it if the hotel isn't in another state I think could work

#

Idk, reading the state tax law in the constitution I can see it interpreted either way

primal kindle
#

I feel like once they get the influence ranges and mechanics of the settlements fleshed out, any claims inside those radii are automatically annexed (within reason). A building right next to the town hall should be subject to a ratified settlement, period.

summer perch
#

So no independent homesteads unless you are far far away from organized gov?

primal kindle
#

I understand joining or getting one started being optional, but once the town/country have formed, membership ceases to be optional. Similar with annexation.

#

Too many Sovereign Citizens this cycle.

summer perch
#

That still doesn't solve the issue of someone buying a federal claim just to subvert taxation

#

But much better

#

Or would that newly placed stake still be considered in a town, even if halfway across the world? I'm not in a town this cycle so I haven't messed with that

primal kindle
primal kindle
#

But theoretically, it won’t get the benefit of Utilities unless they bribe the Fed employees, like the real world.

summer perch
#

So this still wouldn't prevent a company from bypassing rent tax by just building it in a remote location.
Technically someone could also do this with sales tax but location matters for sales and does not for hotels. Some people never even visit the hotel they use all cycle.

gilded nexus
primal kindle
#

So you’d just have to live on your food xp if you were working remotely.

#

And while we are at it, rentals should be balanced so that only 1 set of rooms is applied for resident. If 5 residents, top 5 room sets are counted and averaged for the XP value.

summer perch
#

Well that's changing game mechanics

#

Kinda outside our scope

primal kindle
#

Sadly.

summer perch
#

Even just having Rent tax be collected federally, but dispersed to a town/state if it's within the borders could work

shy oracle
#

is it outside our game mechanics?

primal kindle
#

Rentals are kinda a game mechanic problem in general.

shy oracle
#

I could probably come up with some logic laws to restrict a house to force half of its max potential

summer perch
#

That way people want to build in their town to get those taxes into their own city

shy oracle
#

if I really tried.

summer perch
shy oracle
#

not exp , no but they can restrict things.

#

like, if a house has a capcity of x members, and its not in a town, then you could make a law to only allow x/2 in the house artificially restricting its bonus

#

something like that might be possible.

#

I'm just theory crafting here now though 😄

summer perch
#

I mean then you just double your capacity

#

That also raises the bonus for those that you let in

shy oracle
#

well right, but there may be some sort of logic that could jimmy rig the intended reduction into the game if we really wanted to.

#

Plenty of other stuff is duct taped on white tiger

primal kindle
buoyant copper
#

If this is a WT specific thing then sure, lets try everything. I definitely don't think the ability to tax people > enjoying the game. I know I'm going to suffer as I was unlucky the people around me disappeared and the remaining are too dispersed to form a town but that's what playtests are for.

However for externally hosted servers pls don't implement any mechanics directly into the base game (that cant be switched off) that punish people such as those who mightn't be able to play all day or aren't playing as a group/corp and will now be further disadvantaged as they'll have to make their own place or are literally forced to live in a town to have access to a hotel.

It would also favour larger groups who would be more easily able to setup their own towns just to meet the requirement for a hotel "being in a town".

It also punishes any sort of hermit builds some people enjoy as now they have to try build a house as well to compete with people in towns who could actually build a house much more easily as they'll probably have access to building material and furniture nearby and instead will opt for the hotel available to them but not the hermit.

And of course there is a not insignificant portion of Eco who hates building who would again be forced to live in a town.

Also as a base mechanic it'll be disastrous for wild west servers. The most logical thing to do is just find a more appropriate way of dealing with the hotels, not punishing the tenants.

I should point out I want to live in a town so if hotels were only for towns it would suit me 😄 but I know plenty of people on other servers who fall into what I described above.

#

After that essay, I would much prefer limitations to the amount of people in a building before it changes classifications. So up to 4 players is a house with full SP, maybe to 6 or 8 is apartments and above is a hotel each with a reduction in SP bonus for each step.

So there is an inherent growth of infrastructure with little housing developments and housing is almost a pseudo profession as opposed to just making optimised skyscrapers that can cram tons of people in.

Add to that some requirements for the housing so say plumbed water for mechanics level techs and electricity for end game and housing becomes an interesting pseudo profession vs the current conundrum for how to get money out of it.

And then tax on land claim papers over a certain amount with exceptions for farmers etc.

gilded nexus
#

The idea was to tax rentals lol. The idea was to only build rentals in areas that they could be taxed if the local authorites wanted to. They could still just choose not to

buoyant copper
#

Right, in towns. I never played WT before but on other servers MoI would do projects to set up the housing and gov had a good income from it.

With towns now a thing it could be something towns do to encourage business in their town using where possible locally produced goods to make the hotels owned by the gov/reps and then requesting locals in the town live there, at least were reasonably equal SP is made available.

If other people want to live there from outside of towns it still benefits the town and now they can expand. For a number of reasons this cycle (and maybe its a WT thing too) the hotel business was primarily a private enterprise but there's plenty of ways of dealing with slum lords other than trying to use laws which just make it painful for people outside of towns.

I mean this approach even makes the towns/settlements thing more interesting as the towns with better infrastructure will prosper.

twin solstice
#

could add different mechanic that buff a house located in a busy sector or simular influence

gilded nexus
#

This is a concept change, not a game mechanic change so we would have to do stuff with in the bounds of the current game. Not sure we can add game mechanics but we can mimic it with laws that’s encourage it.

#

Another thought is to have a high rent tax for n the federal land but that take not applying in the state or town influence. This way, once a rental is in a state, the state can choose if and how much they want to rent a rental and that could be less as an incentive to move out of federal land and towards centers of populace

#

This idea wouldn’t limit rentals to only state and towns, it would however highly incentivize moving to states or towns where they wouldn’t be as taxed as much

gilded nexus
#

This also assumes that a tax can be applied to federal land only. I am to assume thats possible until im told otherwise

versed needle
#

How about you going the other way around?
Find something that towns can offer, so hotels have a higher motivation to build inside a town.
Would that not be better?

gilded nexus
#

Game mech wise, hotels can be built anywhere. They dont need any upkeep. There for, towns dont offer anything to hotels and hotels offer nothing for towns. Thats is pretty unrealistic and honestly should be discuraged with how wt runs. We already have a realistic clause for farming and buildings, extend that to realistic nature of hotels or allow for the encouragement of it

errant schooner
#

Is there a TL;DR?

errant schooner
#

Too hot to read the rest, feel free to TLDR

gilded nexus
errant schooner
#

That has very little action idea

#

But yes, towns got the rental tax to get rich on purpose.

#

Ban them out of the fed lol

gilded nexus
#

Ah sorry action idea was to make it offical to ban them out of feds land. Some felt that was harsh. A less harsh way would to have high rental tax on fed lands so they are at least encouraged to build them in towns. Would think this would fall under concept as it kinda falls within the realistic rule/law thing we have going for builds and farms

#

second part would be something the feds can handle so i guess more of a gov request, the first one would be a constitution change?