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: Robin Hood Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Saiserist League
Status[?]: defeated
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: July 2494
Description[?]:
| "This aptly named bill will do precisely what its title suggests. It is a heartless nation indeed that will sit back and watch the unfortunate languish whilst the obscenely rich rejoice. By slightly increasing the tax on luxury items, which only affects the richest of the rich, the fine nation of Zardugal can afford to support those who have nothing. This bill will be a foundation to make it undoubtable throughout the world that Zardugal is a forward thinking nation. Make the right decision. Thank you for your time." -Daniel V. Feterokov, in a proposal speech before the National Directory |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on luxury goods.
Old value:: 0
Current: 8
Proposed: 8
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Guarantee of minimum income.
Old value:: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government. However, the provision of this is not to exceed a certian period of time.
Current: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a reasonable, though not high, standard of living by the government.
Proposed: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a reasonable, though not high, standard of living by the government.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the pension system.
Old value:: The state does not operate a pension system. Individuals must save up for retirement on their own.
Current: The state operates a compulsory public system combined with an optional private pension.
Proposed: The state offers a voluntary public pension, combined with other voluntary private pensions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:53:20, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Irish Party | To | Debating the Robin Hood Act |
| Message | We are a bit unsure about the compulsory public system, but you will get our vote on this. |
| Date | 01:56:02, November 30, 2007 CET | From | Saiserist League | To | Debating the Robin Hood Act |
| Message | Well the Revolutionary Socialists themselves were unsure about making it compulsory as well, but ultimately we decided that a public system would best succeed if everyone, rich or poor, need it or not, contributed. If there are objections to making it compulsory we are willing to scale back to a voluntary public pension. |
| Date | 03:30:58, November 30, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Party | To | Debating the Robin Hood Act |
| Message | Article 1: What do you define as a "high standard of living"? Article 2: So basically you want to punish rich people for being successful. Their companies, taxes we get from them already, and philanthropic endeavors help Zadrugal already. Article 3: We are really against making this pension system compulsory. |
| Date | 07:54:19, November 30, 2007 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Robin Hood Act |
| Message | "Stealing from the rich and giving from the poor isn't noble, its stealing, as the motto suggests. Instead of taking away people's right to design their own retirement plan and punishing individuals from producing wealth with taxes designed to make them feel unwanted and guilty, handing over money to poor individuals who make welfare a career, I urge the Directory to overturn this outrageous proposal." ~Michale Tucker, Minister of Finance |
| Date | 12:37:56, November 30, 2007 CET | From | Saiserist League | To | Debating the Robin Hood Act |
| Message | Article 1: A "reasonable" standard of living is being able to pay the rent on a modest living space, buy enough food to subsist without going hungry, and save up enough so that once in a great while they can go out and enjoy themselves. This doesn't seem like too ludicrous a request. Article 2: Rich people are not being "punished", they can more than afford such a modest increase in the luxury tax. If they're buying luxury items anyway, that's money that isn't helping Zardugal, it's helping themselves. Which we're not condemning, at least not here, but it seems to the Revolutionary Socialists that a man who can afford to buy a 1 million ZAR product can afford a 1.08 million ZAR product. The difference is negligible, but it will help Zardugal pull in much need zardugal's to pay for these programs. If Zardugal is to help those in need, the money has to come from somewhere, and it makes the most sense to slightly increase the tax on those who will not even notice the difference. A luxury tax of 8% is still exceptionally low, so the concept of "punishing" is extremely misplaced here. Article 3: We believe that the pension system will best succeed if everyone contributes to it, because those who intend to use a private system or no system at all suld be able to afford contributing to the public fund. Nevertheless, in the interest of compromise we are now merely introducing a voluntary public pension, which again hardly seems a ludicrous request. |
| Date | 14:22:30, November 30, 2007 CET | From | National Authoritarian Movement | To | Debating the Robin Hood Act |
| Message | We agree on proposal 2 and 3, but not on #1. Remove it, and you'll get our vote. |
| Date | 18:12:28, November 30, 2007 CET | From | Saiserist League | To | Debating the Robin Hood Act |
| Message | NAM: We of the Revolutionary Socialists want to know, if Article 1 was toned down to something less, but still an improvement over the existing conditions, would this be acceptable to the National Authoritarian Movement? |
| Date | 03:26:18, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Robin Hood Act |
| Message | "Article 1: If they want their own home, food on the table and cash to spend on themselves, perhaps that will be enough incentive to go out and get a job! Article 2: No. The principle that the rich should pay more due to them producing more is ludicrous, however, though we disagree on principle, our major concern is your push for taxes that are not needed to keep the current system in surplus. Perhaps when your outrageous spending proposals are toned down to a moderate level, tax increases to pay for them will be accepted. Article 3: Why is it ludicrous? Because it's unnecessary. The government has no reason to intervene in a free-market functioning perfectly, providing different cover for different needs." ~Michale Tucker, Minister of Finance |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 94 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 307 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy is set in the fictional world of Terra, which mirrors the real world of today and yet is not quite like it. |
| Random quote: "I swear to the Lord I still can't see Why Democracy means Everybody but me." - Langston Hughes, The Black Man Speaks |