The City States of Greece

OOC:

Spoiler :
PROPERTY: Characters can own hexes, and gain income from them once every turn. There are two types of hexes, Parceled, and Wholesale. A Parceled Hex is divided into sections based on it's output, and each point of output (whether it be Food/Hammer/Commerce) can be owned by a different Player/NPC. And a Wholesale Hex is owned by one Player/NPC, who gets the entire output. Lower class NPCs/Players will demand Parceled Hexes, while upper class NPCs/Players will demand Wholesale Hexes. Food gives 1gpt, Hammers give 3gpt, and Commerce gives 5gpt. Tiles are named/bought/distributed based on rules set by players.


I have read through this and the entire opening post with its rules and so forth and found nothing that even indicates the original extra-constitutional tax which you have mentioned. I post the relevant section ( PROPERTY ) in spoilers above to point out the lack of tax, as you when I PMed you about the absence of the tax you are supposedly waiving for a time pointed to this section as the source of the tax.

As readers can see it says no such thing, it simply clarifies the following

- Characters can own hexes and gain income from them
- There are two types of owned of hexes
- The differences between the two types
- That npcs will demand a kind of hex dependant on their status
- The amount of drachmas one gets for each food, production and commerce point on a tile
- That tiles are, named, bouthg, distributed etc etc, based on player rules

The "taxes" he is referring to is the commerce income from the tiles, which I clarified earlier was just base tax income. I really need to update the rules with all the new information, and I will do that, along with all the other updates soon. (If not tonight, tomorrow night)
 
DEM(ocracy)andros vs ARIST(ocracy)andros
 
Aww, who wants aristocracy? Plutocracy slider ftw! :p
 
Aristocracy is better. Plato said so, how can he be wrong?
 
The "taxes" he is referring to is the commerce income from the tiles, which I clarified earlier was just base tax income. I really need to update the rules with all the new information, and I will do that, along with all the other updates soon. (If not tonight, tomorrow night)

Well how is that a land tax on people though? Is that not just a standard government income from commercial exchange on land thus making my point on reprieving a "land tax" exactly the same? Indeed even though you say its just base tax income (and I have no problem with the idea the government gains commerce equivalent to the commercial wealth of the city), but that is still not a "Land Tax" per se and indeed since it is not in athenian law presumably it is superceded by Tams Syntagma and its taxes....

Finally since it is not even given the basest mention in the games rules, I can hardly see how Tam can base an action in-game on it. Ergo because until you do update the rules, the current "land tax" simply is non-existent and Tam is doing something based on something you've said to him and to which to my knowledge no one else was privy too, but which is is not written and clarified IN THE RULES as a game mechanic whatsoever .

Ergo how can he act on this personal revelation until you've updated your rules accordingly? How can it be a tax when it is not accounted for in his Syntagma and when its status as a land tax is questionable? Indeed really it is not a land tax (indeed I note you put "tax" in quotations) at all but rather it is government income from commerce. Thus my point about reprieving a non-existent tax remains since it has nothing to do with land at all as distinct from in-game commerce production in general.
 
ooc: I have no problem with it going back to the people whatsoever.

My problem is that I don't see how this is a "land tax" and thus relevant to the wording of your decree which is that land tax is being reprieved for 5 turns with the income going back ot the people.

If it is not a land tax then your whole decree is inoperable because it applies to something that is non-existent, thus meaning you would have to do what I suggested in the IC thing should it not be a tax and thus inoperable, which is to lower the taxes you do have to account for it. Or perhaps you could upon Dot clarifying that it is simply the regular city commerce income simply redirect that income to the people instead of rambling on about land taxes on the people being reprieved, taxes I repeat that arent in your Syntagma or written in the rules at all.
 
dp:

I also add that since Dot said this is simply the base commerce income, that it cant be a land tax because taxes are redistributions of wealth from one source (the people) to another (the government). For it to be a land tax it would have to redistibute wealth from the owners of land to the government, and from what dot said that is not the case since it is merely the cities standard commerce income which simply doesn't fit the definition of a land tax.
 
Intent is all well and good but if it is not a land tax then your decree is null and void because it refers to a land tax which the commercial income is not. This is relevant considering that a true land tax would mean that anyone who owns land (fortunately I don't own land) would be paying for this "tax" which isn't the case so far as I know. So sorry I am not going to
"live with it" because at the moment the whole "land tax" issue is quite frankly discombobulated and dysfunctional on so many levels.

For example as to my understanding of the commerce thing, if you left your decree as it is you would be reprieving a non-existent tax on land owners (meaning the people still have to pay all taxes that do exist) while at the same time your hypothetically (depending on your precise wording) throwing money at the people while simultaneously withholding the promised tax break, ergo bizzarre and the image of a mad monarch :crazyeye:.

Anyways if Dot80 used a term that does not fit with the nature of what he was referring too then that is his problem, but what is even more a problem is that this was not even mentioned elsewhere and solely existed in a private dialogue between yourself and him at the time. It is disingenuous of him to utilise protocols that are not even written in the rules or which were clearly told to the players. As he said he definitely needs to overhaul his rules because this is not the only thing where there are vagueties and questions (I have mentioned them to Dot80 and will refrain from mentioning the litany of necessary clarifications here unless the issues reach the same point of immanency that this "land tax" lunacy has)
 
I would much rather you shut up Tambien.

Clarity is important and unlike you I am not going to sit back on my comfy little throne and say "she'll be right" to utter disorder and vagueties at the deepest levels, and most especially I wont sit idly by to the imposition of private little convo rules absent from the rule list that had not even been implied at large until you made your implementation.

You said a land tax, a land tax does not exist to my knowledge, therefore not only is the whole thing utterly mad and disordered as I have amply elucidated already, but at the same time it implies (by the word tax) that the land holders are paying this tax, which thus far to my knoweldge is not the case. This tax would impact the gameplay of everyone in the game on the basis of something that is unwritten and which likely does not exist and as such it is important enough on the basis of clarity and order in the game for me to make an issue of it and demand clarification on all fronts. This being especially as Dot8 has admitted, the rules are rife with issues and vagueties at present.
 
What term would you have me change it to? Secondary output? Output tax? Oh, and I found the POST IN THIS THREAD where dot mentions it....


Yes the tile outputs are :c5food: = 1, :c5production: = 3, :c5gold: = 5 and yes I'm referring to the portion of the civilizations gold that is usable by a city. It is converted by just using using the action transfer amount. It will transfer using the ratio 1g:5d. As long as your character has access to the city treasury they can do this. Whether it is legal to do so or not is up to the players. Think of the Drachma as the currency of Greece, while Gold :)c5gold:) is the standard currency used by all nations.

Now, This would make it seem like it is possible to get double the amount out of a hex. For example if a hex, owned by Player A, has an output of 3:c5gold: and is being worked by the city, the player will get 15dpt, while the city will get 3:c5gold: per turn. If the player has access to the city treasury they could potentially then withdraw another 15dpt from there. These extra 15dpt came from taxes on NPC citizens, even though in game they are actually coming from the same source. So basically the city treasury comes from taxes. If this last paragraph didn't make sense you can just ignore it. I am trying to clarify where the money comes from.
Notice the sentence:

These extra 15dpt came from taxes on NPC citizens

I believe I am right.
 
Now we are getting somewhere, I admit I missed the part about commerce duplication.

However my point remains in regards to your decree, in that the aforementioned decree reprieves a "land tax" which would imply the owners of the land supply the tax as owners of the land. This statement is merely that the duplicatory income in the actual city treasuty exists (which we know already) and that it comes from commerce which I now know thanks to your revelation of the relevant sentence in this post is IC supplied by some unspecified tax. Although.... I do point you to the last two sentences where he mentions he was still trying to figure out the source of income. Indeed it seems that tax is the wrong word to use, and most especially land tax since that would mean the owners of the land cough up the commerce which in the context of the game is a significant confusion and quite relevant.

point still remains that it is absent from the rule list as well, something that makes me quite irritated at Dot80 especially since the relevant clause in the second paragraph about a "tax" does not specify the IC source of the tax which is relevant for your in-context decrees because your decrees current wording hsa implications for who pays the tax.
 
No need to get all riled about it. Even though it wasn't 'officially' in the rules I did say it on the thread, and it was only a clarification of where the money comes from, not a new rule. I understand where your coming from Jehoshua and I will do my best to flesh out the rules a bit more.
 
just answer my IC thing about the absence of any "land tax" (ergo saying your investigations found that no such tax on land exists) and simply say that the source is instead a customary tithe on economic exchange between the Polis and the surrounding areas in its dominion, and that it is this tithe that your reprieving for five turns in an act of benevolence towards the people.

This would correct the main IC problem of implying that land owners who have commerce producing plots are paying the tax (since that is what a land tax is, a tax on owning land), and leave merely the problem of necessary rule clarification for Dot80 to fix up (which is not directly relevant to the IC gameplay).
 
Fine.

Public Speech
People of Athens, the Mother and Father of all civilization, I report to you an error in my earlier proclamation. It appears that I confused a land tax, and a customary tithe on economic exchange between the Polis and the surrounding areas in its dominion. It is in fact the tithe that I will be suspending for five turns.

I apoligize for this mistake, though it was in part due to the obscurity of the Ancient Texts. Please note that other than the name, nothing of my proclomation has been changed.
 
Top Bottom