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: Tax shifting
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2090
Description[?]:
| Lodamun is considering corporate tax cuts. With recent abolition of compulsory education, we should be able to afford to give individuals a tax cut. Personal income taxes are slashed 5% effective as soon as this bill passes. Half of that tax cut (2.5%) is a straightforward reduction in tax. The other 2.5% is an optional redirect. Every taxpayer has the right to redirect that money from government to an authorized charity. This will include Vox Pop, which recently lost its tax redirect option, and any other charity approved by a neutral arms-length body chosen 50% by random lot and 50% by government appointees. This is the first step towards creating a tax system that will allow every individual to select how the government spends their taxes. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:03:22, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | ((We have no income tax at the moment, so cutting 5% off of nothing doesn't work)). |
| Date | 04:10:22, July 29, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | [suprise warning] I dont like this bill. "The other 2.5% is an optional redirect. Every taxpayer has the right to redirect that money from government to an authorized charity. This will include Vox Pop, which recently lost its tax redirect option, and any other charity approved by a neutral arms-length body chosen 50% by random lot and 50% by government appointees." Why not just give the money back to the people who earned it? I wont support any tax cut that isn't "no strings attached", or that favors one group at the expense of others. Dr. Laura Mises TiC Policymaker, Economic Affairs |
| Date | 17:02:32, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | We will have income tax soon. An d we can pass bills that have no proposals attached. Now, there IS a completely free 2.5% tax cut, just for you TIC. There is also a chance for people to start controlling how the government spends part of their taxes. Why oppose that? Don't you want people to be sable to choose how government spends their taxes? |
| Date | 17:18:30, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | Either the money belongs to them, or it does not. If you cannot choose whether or not to spend your money, it was never truly "returned" to you. If this money is not vital to the operation of the government, which this bill suggests it is not, we should return the money to them. It is their money. They should have absolute control over it. I do like the "free" 2.5% cut. If that were separate from the "tied" 2.5%, then I would support fully. I also do not like the bit about voxpop. By subsidizing, directly or indirectly(using tax dollars or would-be-tax dollars), one business in a competitive environment, we give them an unfair advantage and help them to build market share, at the expense of their competitiors and the nation. The charity selection is a bit screwed up as well. Why not let the people who own the money have 100% choice over where the money goes? If they want to give their money to a religious homeless shelter, why should we stop them? If they want to give their money to the international red cross(or whoever), why should they not have full choice over this? Let them give to charities as they see fit. Whether this is a Fascist Boys Shelter, or a Communist Collective Farm; a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. It's really their own business about what happens to their money, not ours. |
| Date | 17:21:06, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | it's meant to prevent people from making donations to the "Kill the Jews Society" or other terror groups. |
| Date | 17:41:44, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | However it is still their money... Why should they have submit their spending preferences to a tribunal? |
| Date | 19:23:50, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | And if they want to make a donation to "Kill the Jews Society", fortunately they are, and should be, free to do so. This does not imply approval of their choice, it implies approval of their freedom to choose. |
| Date | 20:10:04, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | (what I was trying to say) |
| Date | 20:52:28, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | So, will you support it if that clause is removed? |
| Date | 22:42:26, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | We would support any (fiscally responsible, no deficits) tax cut that had no "tied" portions. We wont support one that forces someone to donate to somewhere(such as in the voxpop bills), nor do we support any that favor some citizens at the expense of others(such as in the car "incentives"). However, we would support a 2.5%, or 5% decrease in personal income taxes across the board. Ideally we would like to abolish the income tax altogether, and instead instate a sales tax, (with a rebate to all citizens, so that no one pays any taxes on basic living expenses--food, basic shelter, etc.).((www.fairtax.org)) |
| Date | 02:09:11, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | uh huh that's nothing to do with this though. people pay taxes. We are not abolishing taxes. Just answer yes or no to this: will you support letting people choose where part of their tax money goes? or would you prefer the present system where the government decides where 100% of your tax goes? |
| Date | 02:31:28, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | We can not answer for TiC, obviously, but for ASP, taxation is to be kept to a minimum (preferably zero with the governent being self funding, but that is to be discussed later). Thus if there is an option to choose where your money goes, this implies that there is no need fro the government to be involved in this. The citizen can choose to give money where and when they wish. It implies that the expenditure of the government is in some cases unnecessary as individuals can choose to not allocate funds there. If this is the case, then the government should not be allocating any funds there. We prefer a system where the government allocates 100% of the money it collects, but that this money is the minimum possible. The system you propose the government would still allocate 100% of the necessary expenditure, just a further unnecessary amount is taken from the individual and then the individual is asked where they would like the government to spend it. It is like an employer docking a portion of your salary and then asking you if you want a red or a blue company bicycle which is to be paid for with this money. Our answewr is that we want a horse. |
| Date | 08:35:17, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | We second the statement of the Adam Smith Party. If the taxes are not required to run the government(preferably doing what it is supposed to do, denfence, law enforcement, and justice) then the money should not be taken in the first place. If money is taken, that is not absolutely necessary, we prefer that the money be returned, not spent in a way partially controlled by the taxpayer. (Hence why we oppose Bush's plan for social security...) |
| Date | 23:11:56, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Tax shifting |
| Message | If a 2.5% tax cut were alone, we would definitely vote in favor... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 233 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 171 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 46 |
| Random fact: Players must never be asked for their Particracy password. This includes Moderation; a genuine Moderator will never ask for your password. |
| Random quote: "Hunger makes a thief of any man." - Pearl S. Buck |