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: Income tax proposal of August 2415
Details
Submitted by[?]: Capitalists for Prosperity
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes to change income taxes. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2416
Description[?]:
| The Capitalists for Prosperity propose to adjust the government's income tax policy to better address the economic situation of the People's Executorship of Gaduridos. |
Proposals
Article 1
We propose to alter income tax brackets to the following setup. Information about the current income tax system can be found here.
| Bracket | Tax | Estimated Revenue |
| > 10,000 GAD | 13% | 677,428,000,000 GAD |
| > 100,000 GAD | 16% | 996,800,000,000 GAD |
| > 500,000 GAD | 19% | 39,170,000,000 GAD |
Total | 1,713,398,000,000 GAD |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:18:01, June 18, 2007 CET |
From | Capitalists for Prosperity | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Bullshit. Besides, there aren't any millionaires. For what reason is such bigotry against the rich justified? It's bad enough that I couldn't go with a flat tax rate. You know how I talked about earlier how low taxes attract foreign companies and dignitaries. Well, usually, the dignitaries that can contribute greatly to society as specialists and entrepeneurs are rich. Therefore, having a huge tax on them would defeat the purpose of having low taxes at all. |
| Date | 23:08:53, June 18, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Bigotry against the rich?
You're not born rich you know...
Only way to get there is through making other poor.
Do we really want all these foreign countries and "dignitaries" taking money from honest Gaduri workers? |
| Date | 23:18:19, June 18, 2007 CET |
From | Capitalists for Prosperity | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | You're showing discrimination against the rich. That is what I meant.
Being rich is relative. True, you need poor in order for someone to be rich, but that doesn't mean that the poor are doing so badly. The poor can actually be very well off if the country's economy is doing well.
Also, the foreigners aren't taking money away. They're adding it to the economy. |
| Date | 23:30:22, June 18, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Having 90% of the money in the hands of 10% of the populace isn't actually a precondition for growth, believe it or not. Perhaps we should be asking how these people have got so rich, clearly at the expense of others? |
| Date | 00:06:36, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Capitalists for Prosperity | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | That just shows that we need a better educational system so that average people can get in on the market of company leadership and provide an abundance of what those rich people give to society, causing pay to lower. |
| Date | 00:09:02, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Not everybody can be a CEO, you know. And the essential question is: do those who are really provide enough to justify such wages. Education will not force them down: on the contrary, it will force down the pay of workers, since the supply of skilled labour becomes greater than the demand. |
| Date | 00:15:09, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Capitalists for Prosperity | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Idiot. That was exactly my point. Not everybody can be a CEO, but if there are a lot of people qualified to be one and willing to go after the job (which shouldn't be a problem), then that give people a run for their money. In those cases, the shareholders and such will go after the most qualified and cheapest guy.
Besides, it's not the business of the state to determine what CEO wages are. After all, we're not signing the paychecks. The shareholders (the signers of the paychecks) and the workers (because CEO costs take away from the company revenue and thus, can contribute to lower wages) are the only ones that can protest it. If they don't protest, then why should the state intercede? |
| Date | 00:17:44, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Your missing out one major group who suffer from high CEO wages: the customers.
Anyway, you've still missed the point. Education forces down the pay of workers, not CEOs. |
| Date | 00:23:45, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Capitalists for Prosperity | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | So, everyone should be ignorant like you, eh? Anyway, that's not really true. While education creates more skilled workers, lessening wages, it increases real wages when looking at the prices of the services and goods the skilled workers produce, and if the skilled workers don't like their wages, they can always go to areas that have high wages. CEOs are a good example of a place for high wages. Of course, you're going to have to work hard to get it. Competition is the name of the game, and it lowers the cost of the service.
Anyway, if the consumers don't like it, why don't they boycott the company until the company lowers their costs, especially of their CEOs? |
| Date | 13:30:25, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Yeah, laissez-faire's great. Except, of course in reality every single business is trying to establish its very own monopoly so that it can tell the consumers and workers what to do... |
| Date | 15:09:21, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Capitalists for Prosperity | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Only businesses, in a true capitalist economy, won't be allowed to have a monopoly.
As for the PLF's concerns, that wouldn't really occur, because companies have an interest in making money, and stopping their services would sort of stop that. Maybe you should actually think for once in your lifetime? |
| Date | 15:12:38, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Maybe you should try thinking for once. A true capitalist economy does not and can not exist, because it would require an infinite number of businesses. In real life economies of scale mean that most industries condense into a few large businesses making huge profits and a lot of tiny ones struggling to survive. |
| Date | 15:19:10, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | It has worked for a minority of capitalist nations, like Western Europe and the USA, at the expense of the rest of the world. The real world is bigger than just America. |
| Date | 15:21:47, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Capitalists for Prosperity | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Well, we all know that socialism and communism has just worked wonders for everyone, right? Just look at the former Soviet Union, China (pre-capitalism), SE Asia (also pre-capitalism), and the Middle East for evidence of that. |
| Date | 15:23:58, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Yep. It's amazing how much worse life has got in Russia and SE Asia since their economies collapsed under capitalism. Now they have all the old communist problems, without the high standards of healthcare, education etc. |
| Date | 15:26:31, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Capitalists for Prosperity | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | No, Russia just had a collapse created from bluffing about their checkbooks for too long under communism. Capitalism had nothing to do with it. As for SE Asia, seems to me capitalism has perked up the economies. |
| Date | 15:31:46, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Nope. All of those countries had a short period of growth under capitalism, then suddenly investors changed their minds, and they were all far worse off than under communism. |
| Date | 15:39:20, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Nope, it happened after the economies had begun to "stabilise" and the investors suddenly decided the returns they were getting weren't quite as good anymore. |
| Date | 15:50:38, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | Lies? I'm interested to see what research you've done that suggests otherwise, other than just deciding that communism=bad, therefore anything which goes wrong must be the fault of communism. |
| Date | 15:56:31, June 19, 2007 CET |
From | Gaduri Resistencia | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2415 | | Message | The fact is however, all those countries collapsed because of premature globalisation enforced by organisations like the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank. They experienced huge growth, but then it turned out to be unsustainable. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 204 |
| no | Total Seats: 201 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 30 |
| Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play". |
| Random quote: Although I understand and respect the intentions behind the gesture, this is not something that is universally understood or appreciated, and it tends to give out a negative impression of our party.
~ Anton Weinreich, General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Party, pleading with his members to stop burning the national flag |