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:
Date | 15:12:42, July 26, 2005 CET |
From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | I 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...). |
Date | 17:36:43, July 26, 2005 CET |
From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | I 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. |
Date | 23:13:06, July 26, 2005 CET |
From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | The 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. |
Date | 13:00:43, July 27, 2005 CET |
From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | In 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. |
Date | 13:27:00, July 27, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | We 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?. |
Date | 13:34:17, July 27, 2005 CET |
From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | We 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. |
Date | 13:52:24, July 27, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | I 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. |
Date | 15:22:03, July 27, 2005 CET |
From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | The 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. |
Date | 15:40:01, July 27, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | I 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%. |
Date | 15:44:04, July 27, 2005 CET |
From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | We could always reset back to 25% but that would require the removal of the environmental programmes as it would cost too much. |
Date | 15:56:58, July 27, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | 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? |
Date | 16:41:32, July 27, 2005 CET |
From | United Blobs | To | Debating 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 |
Date | 19:27:12, July 27, 2005 CET |
From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | Might be if we withdraw the ecological side of things from the extra money outlined above, but I wouldn't want to guarentee it. |
Date | 20:09:22, July 27, 2005 CET |
From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | Actually they weren't in their at first, hence my original comment. It's odd that they became the main discussion point for this bill. |
Date | 01:54:32, July 28, 2005 CET |
From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Industry Taxation Progression | Message | It 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!) |
Date | 22:23:49, July 29, 2005 CET |
From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating 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. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
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 |