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: Good's Tax Rearrangement Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Mouvement des Conservateurs
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: March 2096
Description[?]:
| Fellow politicians, In this country there is a still a equality on taxation on life-needed and luxury goods: *10% on life-needed products such as food and drinking supplies. *10% on luxury products The first says it all, life-needed and by that indispensable to all of our citizens, especially the less-fortunated. As we want to narrow the gap between both social-groups. We propose the following: *Tax rate of 6% on life-needed products *Tax rate of 21% on luxury products - in order to compensate the reduction on the other rate. This will boost the consumption on life-needed products and plays in the advantage of families with lower wages, but is ofcourse a disadvantage for fortunated people and the luxury-goods-production-industry. However, if it turns out this system does not work we can still change it back, for now on, if the consensus is reached we can leave it in an evaluation phase. If the economic system is implemented, and industries suffer loss because of the new tax rates, there are ways to compensate that. Boost up the peoples spending by lowering down person-taxes, the decrease of the tax rate will be compensated by the increasing amount of products being bought and the tax-earning on that. I hope I made this description a bit understandable... Regards |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on essential goods such as food and non-luxury clothing.
Old value:: 10
Current: 21
Proposed: 6
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on luxury goods.
Old value:: 10
Current: 25
Proposed: 21
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:57:07, August 13, 2005 CET | From |  CCP | To | Debating the Good's Tax Rearrangement Act |
| Message | Honorable Colleagues, We are especially appreciative of our Colleagues' clear and generous explanation of their reasoning regarding the goods tax bill. Though we reserved regarding its possible effects, we will support the current item. |
| Date | 19:58:55, August 13, 2005 CET | From | CCP | To | Debating the Good's Tax Rearrangement Act |
| Message | Eh, I boggled that. Honorable Colleagues, We are expecially appreciative of our Colleagues' clear and generous explaination regarding the Goods Tax Bill. Though we remain reserved regarding its possible affects, we will support the current item. |
| Date | 23:24:48, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Beach Party | To | Debating the Good's Tax Rearrangement Act |
| Message | I am concerned by this proposal. Perhaps a more moderate shift over a number of years would be better than a sudden change in the tax rates? |
| Date | 00:53:03, August 14, 2005 CET | From | Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Good's Tax Rearrangement Act |
| Message | Both product ranges have a personal distribution coefficient that often do not run parallel together. Decreasing taxes on food by 1 or 2% obligates us to increase the taxes on luxury goods by 5 or 6%. Slow evolution of the tax rate often damages the market due the adaptation every change is conducted, so we believe in this sudden change, which is, if you detail it, not as 'sudden' as you might expect. Example: 1 bread costs 1,75 RCR + the tax rate of 10% = 1,93 RCR 1 bread will cost 1,75 RCR + the tax rate of 6% = 1,86 RCR conclusion = decreasing the tax rate on life-needed products on a moderate shift will change it value by 1/10 RCR every year. 1 golden wrist watch costs 250 RCR + tax rate of 10% = 275 RCR 1 golden wrist watch will costs 250 RCR + tax rate of 21% = 302,50 RCR Adapting financially on luxury goods is not a disaster, would it be on life-needed products, then I would agree. So I don't really see the problem in this major tax rate change. |
| Date | 00:55:59, August 14, 2005 CET | From | Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Good's Tax Rearrangement Act |
| Message | I have to correct that, a decrease of 4% on life-needed products only creates the change of value by approx. 1/10 RCR and less. And would be approx. 3/100 if changed by 1% a year. |
| Date | 18:34:53, August 14, 2005 CET | From | CCP | To | Debating the Good's Tax Rearrangement Act |
| Message | If there are no objections, we move that the item be called directly to vote. |
| Date | 18:59:04, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Beach Party | To | Debating the Good's Tax Rearrangement Act |
| Message | You are forgetting that a decrease in taxes does not directly translate into a decrease in an items price, the sellers of such ideas can easily increase their profits with such a dramatic cut. |
| Date | 20:22:30, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Good's Tax Rearrangement Act |
| Message | Let us just say, we get this bill through before the economic system is implemented, so the tax rates are active from the first start. |
| Date | 21:59:02, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Beach Party | To | Debating the Good's Tax Rearrangement Act |
| Message | Heh. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 66 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 9 |
| Random fact: Particracy is completely free! If you want to support the game financially, feel free to make a small donation to the lievenswouter@gmail.com Paypal account. |
| Random quote: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err." - Mahatma Gandhi |