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: Fiscal responsibility
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
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 2108
Description[?]:
| Luxuries shall be taxed once again in order to cool the economy and fund existing governemt programmes without the need for an income tax increase. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:31:59, August 25, 2005 CET |
From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | The existing government programs cost less than our current total taxation. This bill is plain stupid. Go and look at the economy figures GA. |
| Date | 22:44:10, August 25, 2005 CET |
From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | We are also confused as to why this is needed...We will support a luxury tax increase in place of some of the income taxes when this becomes possible... |
| Date | 14:52:52, August 26, 2005 CET |
From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | please see the debate on cutting luxury taxes to zero in the first place. It was pointed out at the time that the move was fiscally unwise, but many parties voted in favour even while saying they opposed. This would restore a small luxury tax, shifting the burden of taxation from one exclusively based on income tax to one that is based partly on consumption. The current tax system in effect encourages massive consumption of all items, by levying no taxes on anything. |
| Date | 03:34:36, August 27, 2005 CET |
From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | Right now, there is no need for more taxation. If there was a way to record the surplus we have right now and "bank" it for use later, there may be a point for this tax. However, we have reason to believe that our currency is fiat legal tender. Therefore all this would accomplish would be harmful deflation, with harmful inflation later when spent. |
| Date | 19:54:58, August 28, 2005 CET |
From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | We agree completely with TiC. We support Luxury tax as an alternative to income taxation, not as a supplement to it. While our financial minister is required by the courts (read game mechanics) to impose set rates of income tax, there is no reason to have sales taxes of any kind. |
| Date | 20:27:07, August 28, 2005 CET |
From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | (the ability to alter the income tax levels and brackets is currently unavailable.)
Dr. Mises will propose a taxation bill as soon as it becomes possible to lower the income tax. |
| Date | 11:41:23, August 29, 2005 CET |
From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | ASP in debate when the proposal was made to reduce sales tax to zero: "Opposed on the basis that the cut is too great. This would superheat the economy and drive inflation out of control."
Which is the ASP position? Has the economy been super-heated, or not? |
| Date | 16:30:52, August 29, 2005 CET |
From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | I believe we established the cut in the bill to do a step plan. That the rate would be gradually adjusted every month until it reached the level set in the bill. |
| Date | 03:39:00, August 31, 2005 CET |
From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | As, at the moment, the government actions have no effect whatsoever on our economy (the economy is not functioning yet) no harm was done by the sudden cut in imaginary taxation.
((OOC. I am not aware of what model will be used to deal with inflation in the game, as no mention has been made yet of base interest rates etc. It may be that this aspect of the economy will not be included to start with.) |
| Date | 04:24:59, August 31, 2005 CET |
From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | I posted to a lot of bills that apparently the game lost my responses...
The exchange rates havent indicated any inflation. A large tax cut without a spending cut can avoid inflation if it doesnt push the economy outside of its production possibilities curve. As inflation hasnt occured, see the exchange rates to confirm this, even though it has had time to take effect, we can safely assume that the abrupt cut didnt do any harm, this time. In the future we will need to be careful of this... As long as the peepul doesnt propose it, we can safely assume that the tax-cutting party will take this into account and pay attention to the debate on the bill. |
| Date | 18:04:28, August 31, 2005 CET |
From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | OK, we can't really use the game values as a guide. But Lodamun has, in fact, slashed luxury tax from 33% to zero overnight, something that ASP said would super-heat the ecomomy, and then voted for anyway. If the ASP is now saying the opposite, we will not pursue this point. It does mean that none of us need to feel bound by the laws of economics, however. |
| Date | 18:30:39, August 31, 2005 CET |
From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | Inflation is hard to predict or control. Cutting taxes like that COULD drive the economy into an inflationary spiral of doom, but there is a chance it wouldnt. I honestly assumed that the steps were included, else I wouldnt have voted for. However it is easier now to read the data and assume that we got lucky and managed to escape without major economic damage. |
| Date | 19:46:19, August 31, 2005 CET |
From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | We said in the bill where the cut was made that we would vote for it as it would have no effect. The economy model not being in place yet. If you are going to dig up comments from past bills, please dig them all up, not just selective misquotes.
In RL, cutting tax that sharply would put more money in peoples pockets but do nothing to increase the supply of goods. This results in an increased demand with no increased production. The result is that prices go sharply upwards to control the excess demand. This is known as inflation. The dramatic increase in the money supply without an increase in productivity to match is something to be avoided if possible. |
| Date | 23:01:13, August 31, 2005 CET |
From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | The possible exception being when there is an unharnessed potential for increased production. Then the increased demand simply increses production with little effect on prices. TiC assumes this is the case given the game data. |
| Date | 17:40:40, September 01, 2005 CET |
From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | ASP comments in the debate on a luxury tax cut to zero:
"Opposed on the basis that the cut is too great. This would superheat the economy and drive inflation out of control.
Reduce it stepwise, say 8% a year, and we will support."
"We were thinking in terms of a four year program. Three years is possible, but much riskier."
"It could have, but it didn't. ((As the economy is not functioning yet, it makes no difference anyway.))"
Which comment said "we would vote for it as it would have no effect"? I can see TIC's statement to that effect, and their explanation here about misunderstanding the phase-in, but nothing from the ASP except opposition. Maybe we misunderstood you, but so did DSP and others. Anyway, I'm accepting the explanations offered after the fact in this thread that we got lucky, and will move to a small luxury tax and small income tax cut in the future. |
| Date | 06:59:12, September 08, 2005 CET |
From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | No problem.
As soon as this passes, I plan to propose another bill to raise or lower the luxury tax depending on the updated budget figures. Either way the aim will be to eliminate a surplus/deficit. (Right now it is impossible to know how much to adjust it) |
| Date | 08:40:26, September 08, 2005 CET |
From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | The Chorus fully expects TiC to follow through with its plan after this bill is passed. |
| Date | 21:28:55, September 08, 2005 CET |
From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | We will support a raise in taxes when the left is in power, there is no point giving the capitalists more money to buy nuclear bombs. |
| Date | 22:01:51, September 08, 2005 CET |
From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fiscal responsibility | | Message | Our nuclear arsenal has been bought already, the current expenses to maintain it are minimal.
The tax increase will only prevent us from having to use our treasury to pay for our current expenditures. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 255 |
| no | Total Seats: 24 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 21 |
| Random fact: Before creating a party organisation, check to see whether there are any existing organisations which cover the same agenda. |
| Random quote: "In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up." - Pastor Martin Niemoller |