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: Development budget
Details
Submitted by[?]: National People's Gang
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: October 2095
Description[?]:
| Any budget proposal needs to be based on a sustainable proposition, we cannot spend now and hope to acquire the necessary funds later. We must prepare for the future now and, having ensured long-term resilience, we must address the short-term issues. Therefore: 1. The stimulation of industry to achieve growth is not, in itself, a goal. The goal must be sustainable production which fulfills need but avoids surplus, waste is not a sustainable commodity and our industries and production centres must cease producing it. Sustainable production comes at a cost. It is undoubtedly cheaper to produce goods without regard for the environment, appropriate use of available resources, the welfare, development and active engagement of a properly rewarded and stable workforce. But all of these elements must be addressed properly if our goal is to achieve stable, valuable and useful production rather than profit merely for the sake of profit. In order to fund these across-the-board improvements in working practices, corporations (including co-operatives) will be given a zero Corporation Tax window for a minimum of 10 years. After 10 years this will be re-examined, considerations made of changes implemented and appropriate adjustments made in Corporation Tax. By applying 0% Corporation Tax to allow companies to restructure their operating procedures through the implemention of everything from energy-efficient appliances to minimising emissions, from the non-production of waste to the maximum sustainability in use of irreplaceable resources, from profit-sharing to management buy-outs or collectivisation - we accept there may be a risk of overheating the economy. A limiting factor on non-essential consumer spending will provide an anti-inflationary counterbalance. 2. It is foolhardy in the extreme to tax the necessaries of life and so we propose a zero-rating tax on essential goods. 3. Luxuries are, by definition, unnecessary items. Acquisition of such items must recognise that their production is unnecessary and therefore wasteful of natural resources and unsustainable. Measures must be taken which help to recompense this wasteful use of the resources of future generations. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Tax percentage of the profit made by corporations.
Old value:: 5.10
Current: 30
Proposed: 0
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on essential goods such as food and non-luxury clothing.
Old value:: 10
Current: 5
Proposed: 0
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on luxury goods.
Old value:: 10
Current: 25
Proposed: 33
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:17:56, August 12, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Development budget |
| Message | Sounds good for now... |
| Date | 21:25:45, August 12, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Development budget |
| Message | Any budget proposal needs to be based on a sustainable proposition, we cannot spend now and hope to acquire the necessary funds later. We must prepare for the future now and, having ensured long-term resilience, we must address the short-term issues. Therefore: 1. The stimulation of industry to achieve growth is not, in itself, a goal. The goal must be sustainable production which fulfills need but avoids surplus, waste is not a sustainable commodity and our industries and production centres must cease producing it. Sustainable production comes at a cost. It is undoubtedly cheaper to produce goods without regard for the environment, appropriate use of available resources, the welfare, development and active engagement of a properly rewarded and stable workforce. But all of these elements must be addressed properly if our goal is to achieve stable, valuable and useful production rather than profit merely for the sake of profit. In order to fund these across-the-board improvements in working practices, corporations (including co-operatives) will be given a zero Corporation Tax window for a minimum of 10 years. After 10 years this will be re-examined, considerations made of changes implemented and appropriate adjustments made in Corporation Tax. 2. It is foolhardy in the extreme to tax the necessaries of life and so we propose a zero-rating tax on essential goods. 3. Luxuries are, by definition, unnecessary items. Acquisition of such items must recognise that their production is unnecessary and therefore wasteful of natural resources and unsustainable. Measures must be taken which help to recompense this wasteful use of the resources of future generations. |
| Date | 21:26:23, August 12, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Development budget |
| Message | Sorry, posted in the wrong window. |
| Date | 06:23:38, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Development budget |
| Message | We are just concerned that the luxury tax may be so high that it reduces revenue rather than maximises it. It may have passed the maximum on the laffer curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve |
| Date | 08:57:54, August 13, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Development budget |
| Message | The intention of this bill is not simply raising revenue - it's about developing a resilient, sustainable and stable economy. This explanatory paragraph has been added to the bill: "By applying 0% Corporation Tax to allow companies to restructure their operating procedures through the implemention of everything from energy-efficient appliances to minimising emissions, from the non-production of waste to the maximum sustainability in use of irreplaceable resources, from profit-sharing to management buy-outs or collectivisation - we accept there may be a risk of overheating the economy. A limiting factor on non-essential consumer spending will provide an anti-inflationary counterbalance." |
| Date | 09:05:25, August 13, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Development budget |
| Message | Furthermore, we are addressing these issues on the brink of world economic tools and statistics becoming available. We plan to enter that unknown arena armed to the teeth. We believe these proposals give us the greatest amount of flexibility. |
| Date | 17:38:08, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Development budget |
| Message | on the understanding that this will act as a spur to green business, and encourage "grey" business to become more environmental, the Greens are prepared to support the proposed budget by the Honourable Minister of Economic Affairs. We believe that the loss of the tax shifintg provisions should be compensated for, and that this can best be done by classing such goods as bicycles in the "essentials" category and cars in the "luxury" category. Most important, we agree whole-heartedly with the economic philosophy that underlies this budget. |
| Date | 20:37:08, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Development budget |
| Message | I oppose on the grounds that a high tax on luxuries will only damage the consumer and also encourage the smuggling of illegal goods. |
| Date | 20:39:35, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Development budget |
| Message | While we have reservations, we vote in favor of a no-strings-attached tax cut. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 378 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 72 |
| Random fact: If you are likely to be logging in to Particracy with the same IP address as another player with an active account, please inform Moderation on the forum. Otherwise your account could be inactivated on suspicion of multi-accounting. |
| Random quote: "How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? Four. Calling a dog's tail a leg does not make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln |