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 Cuts
Details
Submitted by[?]: Secular Humanist 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: December 2466
Description[?]:
| Completely removing a tax, as some have proposed, is out fo the question, I think. Completely removing a tax would maker it very hard to reintroduce in the future. People don't like tac hikes, but they dislike new taxes even more. With that said, though. We do have a generoud surplus, and it would be bezst to pass some of this back to the people, by reducing, (but not eliminatng some taxes. ~Suzeanne Pascale ---Minister of Finance |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Tax percentage of the profit made by corporations.
Old value:: 15
Current: 45
Proposed: 12
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on essential goods such as food and non-luxury clothing.
Old value:: 15
Current: 7
Proposed: 12
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on luxury goods.
Old value:: 25
Current: 27
Proposed: 17
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:48:36, October 03, 2007 CET | From | Progressive Socialist Party | To | Debating the Tax Cuts |
| Message | We agree, perhaps the the income tax and sales tax on essential goods could be reduced to 10 instead of 12 and 15 instead of 17. I believe this is sync with our finances and will be on good terms with the people of the commonwealth. |
| Date | 05:52:46, October 05, 2007 CET | From | Secular Humanist party | To | Debating the Tax Cuts |
| Message | Never give too much at once. If the tax can afford to be farther reduced, then we can do that at a later stage. People forget the good things easily, so it is much more effective to do such things in small, incremental steps. in addition, that allows us to gradually shift to the optimal position for all. There may be a party or two who supports this, but would not support it being any lower than the proposed, and to lower it farther at this point may cause unnecessary friction and slow down the political process. With that said, to vote. |
| Date | 10:57:49, October 05, 2007 CET | From | Progressive Socialist Party | To | Debating the Tax Cuts |
| Message | Good point... |
| Date | 05:20:20, October 06, 2007 CET | From | Secular Humanist party | To | Debating the Tax Cuts |
| Message | MY pologies. I forgot to actually click vote. doing so now. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 258 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 492 |
| Random fact: The people in your nation don't like inactive parties. When you often abstain from voting for a bill, they will dislike your party and your visibility to the electorate will decrease significantly. Low visibility will means you are likely to lose seats. So keep in mind: voting Yes or No is always better than Abstaining. |
| Random quote: "Under every stone lurks a politician." Aristophanes (450 BC - 388 BC), Thesmophoriazusae, 410 B.C |