CCP should add Compression tax on player owned Stations
as this is part of a service that has cost to run u should be able to tax people for using it
6 Likes
The only issue I could see is getting double taxed. If you compress in one system so you can move to another and then reprocess there you end up paying twice.
I have always manually paid taxes by going to the reprocessing window and paying the tax then compressing.
1 Like
The libertarian in me hates this idea, but I see your point. It makes sense to charge for things that cost a corp or alliance to provide. One thing my alliance provides is moon mining, for which they charge a tax.
From what I’ve inferred from conversations, they considered all the costs of running the alliance and decided to tax a single activity to support those costs, rather than having taxes on individual activities.
They use some sort of script or something that’s “legal” as far as the Terms of Service to keep track of who mines what from the moons. From there, we’ve got a Google docs spreadsheet that tells us what we owe at the end of the month, and lays out the math on what we’ve mined, so we can compare records.
I don’t understand the technical side of how it all works, but it’s one way in which a corp can cover their costs. As for a compression tax, I could see where it’d be justified. I just dislike taxes on principle. 
u should be able to tax on any service that cost the station owner to run
ether compression tax or they can add the station docking tax
Isn’t compression service included in the reprocessing modules? (I may be using the wrong term)
If compression is part of having reprocessing too there is no additional cost to the station owner.
1 Like
yes it is but if people don’t use your reprocessing they can compress for free and then use their own station for refining
most big alliance have small tax they would probably reduce refining tax if compression tax was there as some only have 0.2% on there custom offases
also its not about giving giant groups to passively gain ISK it is adding things that should have been there any way
I agree, but if you browse high-sec citadels, most are owned by small/medium sized groups, usually non-PvP groups at that. It’s only right that they can charge money for services if they take on the risk of hosting stations.
4 Likes
Can someone tell me, does the act of compression somehow wear down a station module or expend some kind of fuel? What about reprocessing?
In other words, do such station modules wear out after a set amount of time, or after a number of uses from compression and/or reprocessing?
No, but they need fuel to work.
1 Like
Okay, so is the fuel expended constantly, or just each time someone compresses or reprocesses materials in the station?
1 Like
Constantly. Basically you need to have at least one module online for the citadel to be in an active state. The refinery modules in my stations use 8 fuel blocks per hour, I believe.
1 Like
In that case it doesn’t make a lot of sense to tax every activity in the station. They allow taxation on what is likely the most appealing feature–reprocessing–and the owner can charge as much or as little as they please to cover their costs.
If compression and reprocessing each consumed more fuel when they occurred, then I could see justification for nickel-and-diming Capsuleers, but since the fuel consumption remains constant, just tax the service that is most likely to be used.
One could argue players would be more likely to compress their ore in the station than reprocess it, but that depends on a number of variables, which should encourage players to choose the location of their stations wisely.
Modules are either on or off, in order to work they must be on and to turn them on initially it takes 3 days worth of fuel, so you cant really turn it on when needed to save fuel unless you only use it a few times a month, on top of that most people who compress dont reprocess which is something that can be taxed, so the module isnt even being used for its main purpose.
On another note any station that does not have a module online and consuming fuel will be in low power and if left low power long enough will go into abandoned which means you have to keep a module on consuming fuel or you will lose your structure so anything that helps offset this cost to smaller groups really does help tbh.
I suppose a corp would benefit from limiting their reproc-capable stations to as few as possible. Since no specific activity diminishes the fuel, they don’t lose anything by only having one station and letting players use it.
There are benefits to having more than one station, perhaps, mostly for the sake of convenience, but it sounds like there’s a high price to pay for that convenience.
Also smaller groups may not want multiple stations because the cost may not be worth it, as well as the more stations you have the bigger a target you become.
You also have to factor in the cost of defense into your calculations.
It’s expensive to run stations (especially for carebear groups that don’t know how to fight), and it’s almost impossible to make money from them in the long term for the average player. The more ways to monetize services there are, the more viable it is to maintain stations.
The more convenient ones are going to be well-protected, but you can find stations with cheap fees further away from hubs that are owned by random ~20-man corporations.
Even with cores, wars aren’t station bloodbaths in general because many war groups would rather keep them up so that the wars can keep going, thus giving them more potential ship targets. So many smaller groups are able to own stations without much issue.
For example, I have two refineries that I use for war HQs, and they have some regular patrons refining their ore. I keep the tax at like 1% or something. It costs much more in fuel to run them than I make from the fees - 192 fuel blocks a day just for the refinery module is almost 5 million ISK.
I 100% agree.
Funny thing is, there isn’t a single player owned station in Eve.
1 Like