Mayor - taxes and law 4.4

[Sorle]

I'm personally under the belief that if a mayor is knowingly keeping taxes high after numerous attempts on his life while knowing the reason, and requires all police resources to be dedicated to him in way of the entire department camping at his location simply to fight back against the consistent assassination attempts, then he is in breach of law 4.4:

as he is in no way acting in the best interests of the city by knowingly maintaining a factor which is causing widespread chaos and taking up all resources of the police department solely for the provision of his life.

I've been met with differing standpoints, such as that he can not be blamed for attempts on his life, however if the root cause is known and no attempts to change them are made, then surely he is complicit to the problems in the city and not acting in everyone's best interests? In the same way that a heavy mismanagement of city funds via excessively low taxes leading the city to bankruptcy would not be in anyone's best interests and be in breach of law 4.4.

I'm sure I've seen mayors arrested for this in the past, but there may have been a shift in how it is perceived over time.

Obviously I wouldn't want this to be a part of rule 4.1 or anything because that just shuts down more avenues of roleplay - more just a law discussion.

Let me know your thoughts.

 

[northnortheast]

The mayor cannot be explicitly held responsible for illegal attempts on his life due to his policies, just as a citizen cannot be held responsible for being murdered just because they insulted someone. The idea that the police should arrest the mayor simply because his policies have led to assassination attempts is ludicrous as it would essentially be the Police Department incentivising assassination attempts in order to get the mayor impeached.

If the mayor is taking up resources and asking for police to constantly be posted outside of City Hall where they are needed elsewhere, it is appropriate to flat-out deny those requests entirely. The mayor has Secret Service for a reason, so officers are never required to perform extra-judiciary duties by guarding the City Hall unless there is an ongoing situation there.

On the note of 4.4, I personally feel as if it could use some clarifying in terms of what is considered 'the best interests of the city'. In your situation, the mayor had set the sales taxes to 25%. However, what else were they supposed to do? The city funds were already draining fast, so a 1% sales tax would also be considered acting against the best interests of the city due to the rapid loss of funds. It would be nice to have some clarification from the new City Clerks on what is considered appropriate here.

 

[KeiwaM]

It kind of depends on several factors, including city funds and policies. Cause if policies are widespread and the city funds are draining, then it would not be in the best interest of the city to lower the taxes - no matter how many assasination attempts. In this regard, it is not the mayor's responsibility for the attempts on his life.

I'm personally under the belief that the mayor should attempt to make the city function properly and balance economy. If you inherit a shitshow of a city, you'll need to correct it, no matter what the citizens say, because that is what is in the best interest of the city and it's economy.

In essence: High taxes for no reason is 4.4 and low taxes when the city is dying is also 4.4. It's pretty much up to the supervisor(s) in charge at the PD to decide that, which is kind of odd, I'll agree. But in general, the best interest of the city is that which would (realistically) keep the city and economy afloat. Running the city in to the ground because of some assasination attempts are not in the interest of the city.

 

[Clarky]

I asked the mayor why he had the taxes maxed out, this is then what happened:

A blacklist for failing to do your job is what should happen within the bounds of RP, it's retarded as shit that the same lunatic can get voted in again and make the PD's/city life unnecessarily difficult for nothing.

 

[KeiwaM]

Keeping taxes high as a "punishment" is not in the best interest of the city - that is just in the interest of your own pride as judge, jury and executioner. In that case, PD is entirely within it's right to arrest the mayor as long as the city itself is doing okay with funds and economy.

 

[Sorle]

The mayor cannot be explicitly held responsible for illegal attempts on his life due to his policies, just as a citizen cannot be held responsible for being murdered just because they insulted someone.

The difference between those is that a citizen is not an elected official and their assassination - attempted or otherwise - would not lead to widespread chaos in the same manner. They have no duties under 4.4 whereas the Mayor does. I am referring to times where the mayor knows that the current state of affairs is directly leading to assassination attempts and the police department essentially has to camp at their location in order to prevent it - disallowing them from responding to other things. One or two instances are not 4.4 - wilful negligence of the state of the city and its consequences after numerous attempts is.

If the mayor is taking up resources and asking for police to constantly be posted outside of City Hall where they are needed elsewhere, it is appropriate to flat-out deny those requests entirely. The mayor has Secret Service for a reason, so officers are never required to perform extra-judiciary duties by guarding the City Hall unless there is an ongoing situation there.

However this oftentimes simply is not the case and sometimes with the amount of consistent incidents it will appear that officers are required to camp there. I am referring to scenarios like that.

On the note of 4.4, I personally feel as if it could use some clarifying in terms of what is considered 'the best interests of the city'. In your situation, the mayor had set the sales taxes to 25%. However, what else were they supposed to do? The city funds were already draining fast, so a 1% sales tax would also be considered acting against the best interests of the city due to the rapid loss of funds. It would be nice to have some clarification from the new City Clerks on what is considered appropriate here.

Even in terms of budgeting and funding, 25% taxes are not in the best interests of the city. Today, for example, the budget plummeted under 25% taxes as the economy essentially halted and nobody wanted to spend money due to excessive tax levels. It then rebounded significantly when taxes were brought to 10% and lower - economic mismanagement can also come in the form of excessively high taxes. When you see low budget and slap the taxes to 25% without monitoring the change it actually makes and expect it to fix everything, that is also mismanagement.

 

[Sorle]

It kind of depends on several factors, including city funds and policies. Cause if policies are widespread and the city funds are draining, then it would not be in the best interest of the city to lower the taxes - no matter how many assasination attempts. In this regard, it is not the mayor's responsibility for the attempts on his life.

Taxes are a multi-faceted thing with numerous implications - high tax can often implicate economic slowdown via people simply not wanting to spend money with such a high rate of tax. Different rates of tax should be tried in order to raise funds, because oftentimes 25% is much more detrimental to the budget than not. Slightly higher rates - such as 15% - or slightly lower rates - such as 5-10% range - can often be largely more effective in raising funds. If the mayor is not actively trying to find a good balance to stabilize and ensure the city doesn't go bankrupt in accordance with what the most effective tax rate is, then they are not working in the best interests of the city.

Completely agree with what you said otherwise.

 

[SlingShot]

Keeping taxes high as a "punishment" is not in the best interest of the city - that is just in the interest of your own pride as judge, jury and executioner. In that case, PD is entirely within it's right to arrest the mayor as long as the city itself is doing okay with funds and economy.

this sounds very good.
maybe the high police ranks can take an action to call for the questioning of the mayor.
to make it more realistic you can take it as the mayor taking the money into his pocket.
he could be fined and maybe jailed

 

[northnortheast]

The difference between those is that a citizen is not an elected official and their assassination - attempted or otherwise - would not lead to widespread chaos in the same manner. They have no duties under 4.4 whereas the Mayor does. I am referring to times where the mayor knows that the current state of affairs is directly leading to assassination attempts and the police department essentially has to camp at their location in order to prevent it - disallowing them from responding to other things. One or two instances are not 4.4 - wilful negligence of the state of the city and its consequences after numerous attempts is.


However this oftentimes simply is not the case and sometimes with the amount of consistent incidents it will appear that officers are required to camp there. I am referring to scenarios like that.


Even in terms of budgeting and funding, 25% taxes are not in the best interests of the city. Today, for example, the budget plummeted under 25% taxes as the economy essentially halted and nobody wanted to spend money due to excessive tax levels. It then rebounded significantly when taxes were brought to 10% and lower - economic mismanagement can also come in the form of excessively high taxes. When you see low budget and slap the taxes to 25% without monitoring the change it actually makes and expect it to fix everything, that is also mismanagement.

If the mayor is keeping taxes high for any other reason than a required bolster for the city funds, then they can be held accountable for 4.4 in my opinion. Stuff like personal vendettas and acts of defiance just to exercise their power are not in the best interests of the city, and I agree with you in that regard.

High sales taxes are reasons to assassinate the mayor. However, the mayor is not inciting or encouraging violence by keeping taxes high, that is based upon the decisions of the people who want to assassinate him. If this were the case, the mayor would be arrested every time he put taxes to 25%. You say that this would only apply after multiple attempts, but I will go back to my previous point of:

The idea that the police should arrest the mayor simply because his policies have led to [more than 2] assassination attempts is ludicrous as it would essentially be the Police Department incentivising assassination attempts in order to get the mayor impeached.

If the police have more pressing situations to respond to, such as an officer down, and the mayor is being attacked, then they are well within their rights to direct units to the officer down call, as the mayor already has their own security force who are expected to be able to protect them.

If it becomes apparent that the tax increase is not benefitting city funds, or that the mayor is acting to intentionally spite the citizens, then I agree that the police should be allowed to make a decision to arrest them based upon the facts involved. Being a mayor is often a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" affair, as during medium population when there are a lot of government officials on, even the maximum taxes are not likely to improve city funds.

 

[KeiwaM]

Taxes are a multi-faceted thing with numerous implications - high tax can often implicate economic slowdown via people simply not wanting to spend money with such a high rate of tax. Different rates of tax should be tried in order to raise funds, because oftentimes 25% is much more detrimental to the budget than not. Slightly higher rates - such as 15% - or slightly lower rates - such as 5-10% range - can often be largely more effective in raising funds. If the mayor is not actively trying to find a good balance to stabilize and ensure the city doesn't go bankrupt in accordance with what the most effective tax rate is, then they are not working in the best interests of the city.

Completely agree with what you said otherwise.

If it was strictly the case, there would be absolutely no reason why the taxes should even be allowed that high - Why would the server have a feature that can only be used as a rulebreak? So while I agree with you that it CAN force economic slowdown, it's not something I would consider against the rules to explicitly use, as there are just some things that players will HAVE to buy at 25%, such as food. But I agree it forces an economic slowdown.
The way I want to look at it is the mayor realistically COULD raise it higher, but 25% is what has been deemed the "highest realistic" point taxes could reach.

this sounds very good.
maybe the high police ranks can take an action to call for the questioning of the mayor.
to make it more realistic you can take it as the mayor taking the money into his pocket.
he could be fined and maybe jailed

They already can and they already do sometimes.

 

[Sorle]

If it was strictly the case, there would be absolutely no reason why the taxes should even be allowed that high - Why would the server have a feature that can only be used as a rulebreak? So while I agree with you that it CAN force economic slowdown, it's not something I would consider against the rules to explicitly use, as there are just some things that players will HAVE to buy at 25%, such as food. But I agree it forces an economic slowdown.
The way I want to look at it is the mayor realistically COULD raise it higher, but 25% is what has been deemed the "highest realistic" point taxes could reach.

I wouldn't consider it against the rules and instead would just be a misjudgement of the effects of taxes - situationally it can be beneficial to have 25% taxes and there are times where it absolutely can be beneficial - I just find it to be a sort of band-aid fix that people think will always work without actually monitoring things. It has its time and place - which is way less often than it is currently implemented at.

 

[KeiwaM]

I wouldn't consider it against the rules and instead would just be a misjudgement of the effects of taxes - situationally it can be beneficial to have 25% taxes and there are times where it absolutely can be beneficial - I just find it to be a sort of band-aid fix that people think will always work without actually monitoring things. It has its time and place - which is way less often than it is currently implemented at.

True, it shouldn't be used as often as it does.

 

[Bnjemann]

As a mayor killing enjoyer Chad, I am fine with mayors being retarded with tax policies as long as they don’t do dumb shit that makes killing them incredibly difficult (having defenses and police inside CH 24/7, Heavy TFU waiting in gear for a CH break in).