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.
Notice: Undefined index: EXECUTIVE_LEADER in /var/www/vhosts/particracy.net/subdomains/classic/httpdocs/viewbill.php on line 234
Bill: Education Act of 2024
Details
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: November 2023
Description[?]:
| This act seeks to raise the mandated age for compulsory schooling to eighteen (18). |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The age until which students, if education were to be compulsary, are required to be educated (limited between 16 and 21).
Old value:: 16
Current: missing
Proposed: 18
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded | From | Federalist Labour Party | To | Debating the Education Act of 2024 |
| Message | Do you also support a graduated tax policy? Compulsory schooling doesn't equal freedom. There is no perfect curriculum that respects all worldviews, thus this should be illegal. Even if a family adopts to teach their children at home or have them attend a private school. They still have to pay for "public education" through taxation, for a service they do not need and or require. Thus this is confiscation of wealth of families that do not use the public school system - again should be illegal. At the very least our nation should introduce a “pay if you go” education policy. |
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Education Act of 2024 |
| Message | So you're attacking keeping children in school because I'm for low, very shallowly graduated taxes? |
| Date | not recorded | From |  Dorvik Social Democrats | To | Debating the Education Act of 2024 |
| Message | Education is essential to economic progress and education. The theoretic philosophical aspects of taxation are less important. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Federalist Labour Party | To | Debating the Education Act of 2024 |
| Message | Reply to the UDB: There is a difference between basic taxation (flat taxes) and a graduated tax policy. Graduated Taxation came directly from the Communist Manifesto and was implemented during the early 1900s in the United States. The term Graduated means how high a person is in the capitalist system. The more you are graduated (the more you make) the higher the percentage the government can legally confiscate. I say confiscate, because unlike flat taxation, it is not fair to all classes rich and poor. Example of Flat Taxation: PersonA has a yearly income of 50K – PersonB has a yearly income of 200K. The flat tax rate, lets say is 10%. So PersonA pays 5K in taxes and PersonB who is making more income and requires more protection from the government pays 20K in taxes. Example of Graduated Taxation: PersonA still makes 50K per year and PersonB still makes 200K per year. PersonA still pays 5K in taxes (if not less), but PersonB pays a much higher percentage of his income. Today it’s in the neighborhood of 30-35% for the top 2 brackets (not subtracting for exemptions…ect); in 1960 it was over 90%! Referring back to the example: PersonB now pays 60K income taxes. Thus this is obvious confiscation of wealth/property. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Federalist Labour Party | To | Debating the Education Act of 2024 |
| Message | Reply to the DSD: lol yea, so it's "okay" to confiscate wealth and property, thus revoking a portion of freedom in the name of "Education"? I’ll use Welfare to illustrate my point. What if the united way or some other charitable organization came up to you and threatened you with incarceration if you did not pay them 5% of your income? Would that be fair, would it be right and most of all would that not be revoking a portion of one’s freedom? Welfare is nothing more than a failed attempt at fixing the capitalist system by redistributing wealth. Every citizen should be able to choose whether or not they require or want a “safety hammock” from the government. I’ll back these statements up with some facts. In 1950 the official number of poor citizens was 30%, gradually decreasing to about 13% by 1968 in the heart of LBJ’s “Great Society” when more money than ever was being spent to combat poverty. In 1978 with the Welfare budget increasing year after year, the percentage of poverty stricken citizens had only dropped to 11% and back up to 13% in 1980. It’s obvious Welfare has in fact helped some citizens get out of poverty, but are the results antiquate to the billions spent and billions being spent. The truth of the matter is the people would be better off with their money than not. Even the creators of these policies believed that they would eventually become obsolete (due to them actually working). FDR in 1935 shortly before passing the “Social Security Act” stated, “The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief... Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration, fundamentally destructive to the national fiber." And LBJ 30 years later, as he signed the first “Great Society” bill said, “We are not content to accept the endless growth of relief or welfare rolls. We want to offer the forgotten fifth of our population opportunity and not doles.... The days of the dole in our country are numbered." Has socialism helped? Yes. Has it helped enough? No. Will more money help? Obviously not. What’s the solution? Opportunity not Subsides – Enact a wage-less capitalist economy and National Business investment RETURN program OPTIONS to all citizens. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Federalist Labour Party | To | Debating the Education Act of 2024 |
| Message | Note: LBJ was the first to emplement "welfare" as it is known today in the united states. Thus poverty only dropped 2 points after "Welfare" was enabled and eventually increased back up in 1980. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 133 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 164 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to ensure their "Bills under debate" section is kept in good order. Bills which are irrelevant or have become irrelevant should be deleted. Deletion can be requested for bills proposed by inactive parties on the Bill Clearout Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "The one bonus of not lifting the ban on gays in the military is that the next time the government mandates a draft we can all declare homosexuality instead of running off to Canada." - Lorne Bloch |