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: No Need for Nationalised Nannies.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Adam Smith Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: March 2087
Description[?]:
| It is commonly recognised by developmental psychologists that the best environment for pre school children is in a loving home. It is also true, however, that many parents work full time. This raises a conflict of interests between providing for the family in an emotional sense and providing for the family in a financial sense. The current solution to this problem is to tax every working parent to provide free nursery care for all children, whether their parents are working or not. This has two negative effects. One: it encourages parents who do not need nursery care to place the child in the nursery so that they can have a manicure or play a round of golf. Two: it reduces the income of lower income families, thus forcing the seconfd parent to have to work. Removing the choice of staying at home with to bring up the child(ren). We propose eliminating these problems and restoring true choice to the parents of our nation, by not making them pay compulsory fees for public nurseries, but by allowing them to choose whether to use a nursery or not. This will not prevent the idle rich from using nannies, but it will allow the single mother to earn money by looking after the brats of the idle rich while she is at home with her own child. It will allow the lower income groups to decide if they wish to be a two wage family or not, rather than force this on them. It will also increase the quality of nursery care by instituting competition, and consumer power. Nurseries must be private institutions. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Pre-school education.
Old value:: The government maintains a system of free publically owned nurseries alongside heavily regulated private establishments.
Current: The government maintains a system of free publically owned nursery and pre-school educational centres.
Proposed: The government leaves development of nurseries to the private sector.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:57:11, July 25, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the No Need for Nationalised Nannies. |
| Message | "Two: it reduces the income of lower income families, thus forcing the seconfd parent to have to work." Oh, I doubt that, with our graduated tax rate, lower income families won't even feel the pinch. |
| Date | 19:32:49, July 25, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the No Need for Nationalised Nannies. |
| Message | is there a compromise position? |
| Date | 20:57:00, July 25, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the No Need for Nationalised Nannies. |
| Message | Even if we had a graduated tax rate, which we do not, (There is no law specifying the tax rate and system at the moment) the lower income groups still pay tax, which still funds this excessive attempt to engineer the society. Cut this out, the total tax demand is less, the lower income groups obtain more marginal benefit from this lower demand than the higher income groups. As such it benefits the lower income more than the higher income. ((We do not support progressive taxation of any sort. But that is a debate for when the economy is implemented.)) |
| Date | 04:28:51, July 26, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the No Need for Nationalised Nannies. |
| Message | Well, the left wing has had a majority for most of the history of this nation, I'm sure we've set up a graduated tax system somewhere along the line. |
| Date | 16:43:12, July 26, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the No Need for Nationalised Nannies. |
| Message | Even if it had, which it had not considering that the left has never voluntarily considered the financial side of things, it would still justify this expenditure cut. |
| Date | 08:52:37, July 28, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the No Need for Nationalised Nannies. |
| Message | And the MLP puts this bill out of reach, unless the inactive parties suddenly unite and show up in support. |
| Date | 16:30:53, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the No Need for Nationalised Nannies. |
| Message | You can't win them all, that is what is good about a democracy (and bad as well). |
| Date | 20:40:20, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the No Need for Nationalised Nannies. |
| Message | Agreed. Another bill rests in peace. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 186 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 224 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 40 |
| Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass. |
| Random quote: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." - Thomas Paine |