We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Luxury goods tax
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Democrats
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2369
Description[?]:
As we are discussing the budget for the next mandate, we propose that we increase the funds with which we operate by increasing the luxury goods tax. It is by no means a draconic measure, but at the moment we are providing services for our citizens for which actually poorer citizens are paying more! |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on luxury goods.
Old value:: 5
Current: 50
Proposed: 10
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 20:11:40, February 28, 2007 CET | From | S.C.A.F.R. | To | Debating the Luxury goods tax |
Message | Agree. |
Date | 03:06:48, March 01, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the Luxury goods tax |
Message | The TCP can see absolutely no logical or reasonable justification for the support of this bill. Not only does the TCP believe that anyone should have the right to buy whatever legal goods they want, regardless of how luxurious or expensive, without being chastised by things such as luxury item sales taxes, as this is extremely and blatantly biased against the wealthy. The TCP reminds the SDP that, simply because the wealthy earn more and therefore can 'afford' to pay more taxes, this does not by any means constitute a fair reason for them to pay more tax. As a hypothetical example, someone that has more motivation it doesn't mean that they instantly have to work harder than someone not as motivated, just because they can. It does not work like that. |
Date | 12:22:11, March 01, 2007 CET | From | Greenpeace Party | To | Debating the Luxury goods tax |
Message | For the image of the council and the political party fo our Republic, We think that a common decision is bettern about it. So elevate to 8 is a good result for all. Dosent ture? |
Date | 18:25:54, March 01, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the Luxury goods tax |
Message | We are very happy to hear discussions arise in our political spectrum and whole - heartedly appreciate any and all feedback we see from the other parties. On the issue of this bill we must disagree with the TCP views. We indeed agree that those that earn a profit have all the rights to obtain any goods they desire, however due to the fact that no general sales tax policy exists, we see this measure in the sense of placing a second level of the sales (or possibly value-added) tax! It is clear that such a tax is a major source of income for this government and canot be forfeited. It is obvious that there will be brackets into which certain goods will fall - food, literature, services, etc. are naturaly so essential that they fall into the lowest bracket, however the so-called luxury goods are not as essential and as such can be delegated to a higher bracket. We can clearly see your missed black and white view as always in this argument - who said that only rich people buy these goods and only less wealthy buy the essential goods? Everyone buys TV's and cars and computers for example! This is a measure to better spread our tax burden, not to over-taxate one sphere of population! Once again we wish to remind the TCP that we see this state as a state that is exercising solidarity, and solidarity means voluntary giving up something in order to help others. To the Greenpeace Party, we welcome you on our political scene and look forward in seeing you in our future coalitions, however we answer them that there is no chance to compromise with a party that has recently stated that the workers may be hired and fired at the companies' own discretion and that they may not strike anymore. We honestly do not believe that a compromise at this stage will warrant enough future benefits to justify it. We apologise for the harshness in our statements, but nevertheless it must be stated that our party will not put any decisions to vote without a long enough debate period and will certainly always listen to good arguments. P.S.: Refer to us as SD. SDP is a different party. We are Social Democrats! Socialist Regards! |
Date | 09:05:37, March 02, 2007 CET | From | Greenpeace Party | To | Debating the Luxury goods tax |
Message | To SDP: we are convinced that with respect to chosen like these, that they have lived differently in everyone deigli be of the Republic, a debate that carried to one common and shared choice would carry greater advantages. Undoubtedly, the closing of the TCP is such that it does not leave other choices. |
Date | 15:53:35, March 02, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the Luxury goods tax |
Message | Although we did not understand your last addition to the debate, we must assure you that we are by no means dictator-like, we simply presented our opinion, and invite others to do the same. We are sure, though, that our opinion in this issue is plausible. But feel free to disagree. The purpose of this debate is to convince others, so present your views. |
Date | 22:04:41, March 04, 2007 CET | From | Aldegarian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Luxury goods tax |
Message | The ALSP wholehearted support the SP view in this debate and will support this bill. |
Date | 22:06:03, March 04, 2007 CET | From | Aldegarian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Luxury goods tax |
Message | OOC: Who is SDP? at the moment there only seams to be the SCA, TCA, MA, ALSP, LLP and GP. |
Date | 09:43:15, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the Luxury goods tax |
Message | OOC: SDP is a real live party in Germany, Croatia and probably several other european countries. I simply wish to clarify that we are a completely different type of political party, a modern, progressive social democracy. And besides, there was sometime in the past a soclal democratic party in Aldegar, which might return. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||||
yes |
Total Seats: 360 | ||||||
no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 290 |
Random fact: In general, role-play requires the consent of all players. |
Random quote: "The trouble with unemployment is that the minute you wake up in the morning you're on the job." - Slappy White |