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: Transport Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Constitutional Monarchy 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: May 2435
Description[?]:
| The User should pay... not everybody will use it, why should they pay taxes to pay for everybody else. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Funding of public transport (where applicable).
Old value:: Public transport is fully subsidised by the government.
Current: Public transport is fully subsidised for people with low-income, with the remainder "user-pays".
Proposed: Public transport is fully user-pays.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:17:37, July 21, 2007 CET |
From | Beluzian Republican Party | To | Debating the Transport Act | | Message | exactly this is private transport for those who have money. I don't think this type of capitalism should be encouraged. It's the responsibility of the state to provide transport, health and education to it's citizens without charge I think personally. |
| Date | 15:51:47, July 21, 2007 CET |
From | People's Populist Party - Zogist Mafia | To | Debating the Transport Act | | Message | there is always charge, via taxes and labour and property and time and etc. Bullet trains simply happen to be worth the cost.
ooc:anybody else study economics? ;) |
| Date | 16:02:07, July 21, 2007 CET |
From | Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Transport Act | | Message | Public transport, especially mass transit, does not provide a benefit to everyone. Only urban populations who live within a reasonable distance of access points benefit from it. All those who aren't serviced are forced to subsidize the transport of others, while solely bearing the cost of their own.
Subsidizing public transportation at the national level simply does not make sense - only at the local level (ie the municipal, county, or regional level), and where broad access is provided, can it be justified. |
| Date | 16:18:32, July 21, 2007 CET |
From | Beluzian Republican Party | To | Debating the Transport Act | | Message | every major population centre in Beluzia is provided the finest of buses and rail. Haven't you seen our countrys progress? The tax also funds the motorways and roads too btw. |
| Date | 20:17:13, July 21, 2007 CET |
From | Constitutional Monarchy Party | To | Debating the Transport Act | | Message | Roads do not fall under public transport. They are maintained by the government... but they are completely different to this Act. The Liberals were backing up my point. Not everyone uses public transport... some prefer to drive, cycle or walk. Why should they therefore pay for all the people who do use it? surely pay per use is a much better policy? |
| Date | 21:23:29, July 21, 2007 CET |
From | Beluzian Republican Party | To | Debating the Transport Act | | Message | Whigs: they should pay as there are people who aren't fortunate enough to get from A to B. Your party is in favour of propping up the rich and leaving the poor out to dry. |
| Date | 23:34:08, July 21, 2007 CET |
From | Constitutional Monarchy Party | To | Debating the Transport Act | | Message | On the contary, the Whigs believe that the Rich should pay... as we privatised the health system so that the poor are subsidised. people who arnt fortunate to be able to walk, or ride a bike wont be using the public transport system anyway. |
| Date | 15:24:26, July 22, 2007 CET |
From | Beluzian Republican Party | To | Debating the Transport Act | | Message | There is in the BRP mindset. Rich, poor, young old. All are entitled to public transport under us. |
| Date | 22:07:22, July 26, 2007 CET |
From | Constitutional Monarchy Party | To | Debating the Transport Act | | Message | This is not discriminating against anyone!! In order to improve the service, the company has to make money, how will they make money if all they recieve is the small subsidy from us? They need to be seld sufficient. |
| Date | 23:39:13, July 26, 2007 CET |
From | Beluzian Republican Party | To | Debating the Transport Act | | Message | change the defence budget, to fund transport. You can find money from that excessive 220 bn BEL |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 391 |
| no | Total Seats: 269 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 90 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "Nature provides a free lunch, but only if we control our appetites." - William Ruckelshaus |