Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 03:47:13
Server time: 12:12:46, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): JWBa | Vegaverde | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Industry Taxation Progression

Details

Submitted by[?]: We Say So! Party

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: April 2090

Description[?]:

Taxation of Industrial profits to be set at 27.5%.

The extra 7.5% increase will be spent on specific areas including, but not limited to:
Improved infrastructure, so that both Industry and the Public receive better services for both the transport of goods.
Money to be paid directly into assistance of National Insurance, to help support those out of work.
Money will be used to help clean the environmental damage caused by Industrial pollutants

Industries receiving a profit of less than 150,000 will not be expected by pay the higher rate of taxation and will continue to operate under the original system of 20%.
Any Industry making less than 25,000 profit will be exempt from taxation, in order to encourage small business.

There will be no further increase in Industrial Taxation until such time as the effects of this change can be analysed.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date10:06:19, July 26, 2005 CET
FromUnited Blobs
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageHow about also spending some of the tax on cleaning up the environment after industries?

Date14:27:06, July 26, 2005 CET
FromUnited Socialist Movement
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageWe agree with the Blobs on this.

Date15:12:42, July 26, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageI was assuming that money would already be spent on that. It's only a small increase in the taxation, so there might be some difficulty in providing enough money to provide for everything. I was merely thinking of a way of guarenteeing that there is plenty of money in the system for the unemployed and also making it so that industry sees a benefit to the taxation as well (they're less likely to leave the country then...).

Date17:36:43, July 26, 2005 CET
FromUnited Socialist Movement
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageI don't think a large business would ever leave the country due to taxation, as it would be a significant loss in their market. The USM would support a much heftier taxation for some of the biggest and blatantly rich companies.

Date23:13:06, July 26, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageThe We Say So! Party would accept up to 33.5% taxation on profits, however we would like to point out that companies will leave Countries if they believe it would be more profitable to merely export into markets rather than operate within the Country of market origin.

Date13:00:43, July 27, 2005 CET
FromUnited Socialist Movement
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageIn some instances of insanely rich, counter productive and legally questionable conglomerates we would consider a tax of anything up to 50%. Saying that, we would favour nationalisation.

Date13:27:00, July 27, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageWe need to be careful about raising the tax to high as this would lead to buisnesses going to nations with less restrictive taxation policies How about a gradual increase over a period of time?.

Date13:34:17, July 27, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageWe have modified the bill to a position above the original 5% in order to allow for increased money to be spent on environmental works, however we would, for the time being at least, recommend no further increases until we are able to see what effects this change has on the economy.

Date13:52:24, July 27, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageI agree with the environmental proposal, but what measures will be taken to clean the environment? Instead of increasing the tax rate wouldn't it be better policy to keep the tax rate at 20% but enforce strict environmental laws? We would end up using the extra tax money to clean up industrial pollution when we could enforce tougher environmental standards and keep the 20% tax which would attract more buisness I believe.

Date15:22:03, July 27, 2005 CET
FromUnited Blobs
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageThe fact is that the environment isn't the only target for the extra money. Enforcing tighter standards would also require extra money and would hurt businesses to the same extent and slow research into less polluting alternatives.

Date15:23:25, July 27, 2005 CET
FromUnited Blobs
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageAlso you have also stated that you agree with the current environmental laws so why the change?

Date15:40:01, July 27, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageI just didn't see the point of raising tax for environmental use and as I understand other programs , when enforcing tougher environmental standards and keeping the current tax rate would seem to work out for both the companies and the environment. It cost less for companies to comply with environmental standards then pay a tax of 27.5% and be subject to moderate pollution standards. I'm willing to go for a lower tax of maybe 23%.

Date15:44:04, July 27, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageWe could always reset back to 25% but that would require the removal of the environmental programmes as it would cost too much.

Date15:54:53, July 27, 2005 CET
FromUnited Socialist Movement
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageI disagree that harsher pollution restrictions would slow research into greener alternatives.

Date15:56:58, July 27, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageBut what if we enforce tougher restrictions, wouldn't that negate the need to raise taxes to pay for environmental programs that can be avoided by tougher pollution standards?

Date16:41:32, July 27, 2005 CET
FromUnited Blobs
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
Message"I disagree that harsher pollution restrictions would slow research into greener alternatives." - Blatantly false. See this discussion and note Wouter's agreement with them http://www.takeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=542&mforum=particracy

"But what if we enforce tougher restrictions, wouldn't that negate the need to raise taxes to pay for environmental programs that can be avoided by tougher pollution standards?" - But it won't help any of the other uses for the money

Date16:58:51, July 27, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageCould some of the tax money go towards scholarships for qualaified students going to a university?

Date18:27:57, July 27, 2005 CET
FromUnited Blobs
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageWill there be enough money for that as well?

Date18:30:50, July 27, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageNot sure, but I believe it should be a priority.

Date19:27:12, July 27, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageMight be if we withdraw the ecological side of things from the extra money outlined above, but I wouldn't want to guarentee it.

Date19:56:16, July 27, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageI don't want to fund one program at the expense of another, after all the ecological benefits are one of the main reasons for this tax

Date20:09:22, July 27, 2005 CET
FromUnited Blobs
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageActually they weren't in their at first, hence my original comment. It's odd that they became the main discussion point for this bill.

Date01:54:32, July 28, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageIt is really...though I'm not taking the other two points out as I feel they are the most important (hence why I put them in to begin with!)

Date22:23:49, July 29, 2005 CET
FromUnited Socialist Movement
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
Message"Blatantly false. See this discussion and note Wouter's agreement with them "

Sorry Blobs, I wasn't awaren that if someone agreed with your point of view it became gospel.

Date21:55:58, August 15, 2005 CET
FromUnited Blobs
ToDebating the Industry Taxation Progression
MessageIt is if it's the game creator :-)

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
      

Total Seats: 368

no

    Total Seats: 0

    abstain
      

    Total Seats: 32


    Random fact: Don't put "the" as the first word in your party name, because when parties are referred to in news reports, their names are preceded with "the", e.g. the [Socialist Party] has lost.

    Random quote: "An economist is a surgeon with an excellent scalpel and a rough-edged lancet, who operates beautifully on the dead and tortures the living." - Nicholas Chamfort

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 78