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: Income tax proposal of August 2507
Details
Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill proposes to change income taxes. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.
Voting deadline: March 2509
Description[?]:
| The Judicial Union Party propose to adjust the government's income tax policy to better address the economic situation of the United Tribes of Tukarali. |
Proposals
Article 1
We propose to alter income tax brackets to the following setup. Information about the current income tax system can be found here.
| Bracket | Tax | Estimated Revenue |
| > 60,000 TUK | 16% | 244,281,000,000 TUK |
| > 90,000 TUK | 20% | 229,458,000,000 TUK |
| > 120,000 TUK | 30% | 423,243,000,000 TUK |
| > 180,000 TUK | 40% | 734,112,000,000 TUK | Total | 1,631,094,000,000 TUK |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:54:51, December 28, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2507 |
| Message | We have prided ourselves on having a well thought out tax system, where the very poor are not taxed, and there are multiple tax brackets based on sensible divisions. However, the wealth of citizens of Tukarali has changed dramatically, since our party took over the finance portfolio more than 50 years ago. The average income has risen by around 20,000 TUK in that time, and the tax scheme should reflect that. Therefore, we put forward this taxation proposal. While the tax-free bracket has dropped slightly, the average earner will be paying less tax. To make up for this, the top tax bracket has also dropped slightly, to give an improved tax intake. |
| Date | 03:55:55, December 28, 2007 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2507 |
| Message | this bill lowers the tax brackets with giving any convincing reason to do so. |
| Date | 04:49:00, December 28, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2507 |
| Message | It increases tax income, while reducing the tax burden on those with lower incomes. Those are both rather good reasons. |
| Date | 14:35:53, December 28, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2507 |
| Message | We'll oppose this 100% |
| Date | 21:15:56, December 28, 2007 CET | From | Tukarali Graenix Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2507 |
| Message | That was a good one, RP. I need more info on this |
| Date | 18:04:49, December 29, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2507 |
| Message | If you read his budget bill Graenix, we have a tax hike here. I hate tax hikes. I also prefer a flat tax across the board. All this is is a grab for additional money that will be taken out of our citizens pay checks which means they will have less money to spend. That will have an effect on the overall economy. |
| Date | 23:10:15, December 29, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of August 2507 |
| Message | You really lose the little credibility you have when you advocate a flat tax. This bill will increase tax income, but that increase comes from the section who can most afford it - those with high incomes. A person earning a middle income will in fact be paying less tax under this proposal, than under the current system. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 265 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 234 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "You don't have to buy from anyone. You don't have to work at any particular job. You don't have to participate in any given relationship. You can choose." - Harry Browne |