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 September 2606
Details
Submitted by[?]: Spenocratic Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes to change income taxes. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2607
Description[?]:
| The Civic Conservative Party propose to adjust the government's income tax policy to better address the economic situation of the Atavist Axis Mundi Likatonian Res Publica. We propose the flat tax and abolishing the sales tax |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on luxury goods.
Old value:: 50
Current: 12
Proposed: 0
Article 2
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 |
| > 1 LIK | 20% | 189,418,000,000 LIK | Total | 189,418,000,000 LIK |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:02:59, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Spenocratic Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | This is a flat tax, which is better for everyone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBAr0MzRFU0 and it takes in 5 times the revenue i dunno, sells itself |
| Date | 07:05:58, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Spenocratic Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | This is a flat tax, which is better for everyone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBAr0MzRFU0 and it takes in 5 times the revenue i dunno, sells itself |
| Date | 08:05:57, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | Flat taxes punish the poor and reward the rich. In other words. Hell no. |
| Date | 08:41:55, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Likatonia Monarch Front | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | The Prince does not agree to support flat taxes. The tax system should be fair for the citizens. Start the voting for this bill if you must. But the Likatonia Monarch Front will definitely say No. |
| Date | 18:20:24, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Berosian Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | A flat tax is beneficial in that it is much simpler, does not punish prosperity, and rewards those that are most helping an economy grow. Because of this, an economy will continue to grow faster and faster, as evidenced by the economy of Hong Kong since WW2 (this was mentioned in the youtube video). The simpler the taxes, the less work required for a tax return. A flat tax does not 'punish' the rich or 'reward' the poor. It is a fair, egalitarian tax rate that punishes no one and rewards no one. The current tax rate system does, however, punish the rich and reward the poor, which is at the opposite end of the productivity scale. A tax rate that would punish the poor and reward the rich would be one that provides higher taxes for lower incomes and lower taxes for higher incomes. A flat tax is a simple, fair, egalitarian approach to taxation. |
| Date | 18:37:45, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | OOC: To the player of Berosian Party - if it's out-of-character (Like references to 'Hong Kong', 'WW2' or 'Youtube') either make it clear it's OOC, or (preferably) just don't put it in the debate. Thanks. IC: Simpler isn't always better. The simplest method of taxation is 100% taxation - all income moves straight to the government coffers. DOes the Berosian Party support that concept? The problem with flat taxation - and the reason it is unfair - is that income can be taxed in any pattern you like, even a linear flat rate... but OUTGOINGS are not linear. SImple basics like food cost a greater proportion of the income for a poor family than they do for a rich family, and therein lies the rub. All a flat tax does, is reward anyone for whom the proportional costs are lower - i.e. it rewards those for whom disposable income makes up a greater percentage of the wage packet. Our current taxation allocates less of a tax burden to those least capable of paying it. That is logical and intuitive. If you increase that tax burden on that bracket, all you end up with is reduced spending in the rest of the economy, defaults on taxation (with the additional costs of trying to recover that 'lost' tax), and hardship on those least fortunate. If you reduce the taxation on higher brackets, all you do is leave the wealthier citizens carrying less of the burden of maintaining a civilised nation. The Sturm und Drang Partei doesn't think it's unreasonable to allow that those better able to help might be expected to help a little more than those less able. The rich are not 'punished' under our current scheme. They just aren't rewarded as disproportionately as some of them would like to be. |
| Date | 18:39:24, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | The other point - no tax on luxury goods? Where is the logic in this? Luxury goods are - by definition - those goods that are not necessary, those things that are discretionary spending. If you are going to burden spending at all, shouldn't it be on the things that are optional? |
| Date | 19:01:38, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Spenocratic Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | First, I would like to state that the simplest form of taxation would be no tax. As for the luxury tax, we believe that by increasing the price of a product through taxation, people will be more hesitant to buy things. This would hurt the economy durastically. When my $10 meal at a resutaraunt now costs $15, and I only make $8 an hour, I would be less likely to do business with resturaunts, hurting the economy. It was stated that flat taxes hurt the poor, but I think that sales taxes hurt them more. |
| Date | 19:16:18, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Berosian Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | First, I would like to agree with the Civic Conservative Party-the simplest form of taxation is 0%, not 100%. Second, I would like to point out that I never said simpler equals best. I mentioned that a simpler tax system is a lot easier, which is a benefit. And third, a luxury tax absolutely kills demand in a society, and is thus economically unstable. A tax as high as 50% will do wonders to destroy an economy. People aren't going to spend another half of what they're already paying if they can help it. The bottom 10% is largely unaffected by this, and the top 10% can still afford to live a good life, but, the middle class is, rather than actually spending the money they get, going to save it, living much like those in the bottom 10%, hoping that one day, they can afford to actually buy things. |
| Date | 19:48:23, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | The Berosian Party and the Civic Conservatives are both wrong - 100% taxation is simpler than 0% because the income never touches the hand of the worker in 100% taxation - thus removing all the troublesome intermediate steps in a cash economy - like spending, saving, etc. The Civic Conservative comment about meals at restaurants is irrelevent - a 'luxury' meal is a luxury, not an essential. If the consumer chooses to spend his money on a luxury meal, what matter it if the tax on that meal is 5% or 50%? He's still shopping for a luxury, when - as you just established - his personal economy can't support it. Or, are the CC party suggesting that the restaurant industry SHOULD be encouraging discretionary spending on insufficient budgets? That's not an aid to the economy, that just creates a debt-cycle and defaulting. And - while it does temporarily boost the short-term income of the restaurant in question, it does so at the cost to the whole economy of defaults and eventual bankruptcy. Luxury taxes do not kill economies - they discourage spending in lower brackets and make almost no difference to spending in upper brackets, EXCEPT to increase the tax yield per dollar expenditure. The pattern doesn't change, just how much the government makes off it. |
| Date | 19:52:58, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Red Tory Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | Would prefer a slightly higher than 0, but still small, sales tax on luxury goods, but we find it agreeable enough to support. |
| Date | 20:31:28, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Berosian Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | Note to Sturm und Drag party-discouraging spending is never a good idea. The 'lower brackets' that you mentioned, which I assume refer to lower and middle class, contain the most people. As such, they also do the most spending, and thus help stimulate the economy through consumer spending the most. And the 'higher brackets' help stimulate the economy as well, mostly by providing jobs for those in the 'lower brackets', which in turn causes more consumer spending, helping the economy. If anything, a luxury tax as high as 50% is beneficial to the rich, and detrimental to the poor, allowing the rich to lead their lives as normal, as you said, yet severely discouraging spending for the poor, keeping them in a life of poverty. And, by the way, 0% is simplest when it comes to taxation-no forms need to be filled out, no loopholes are created, and no one has to be forced to pay taxes. With 100%, forms have to be filled out with every single piece of income that you get-salary, inheritance, insurance claims, lending money, etc. |
| Date | 20:40:50, July 16, 2008 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | The Golden Sun position is this: What a person earns, they should receive. The leverage we have on this is taxing business, so that income based on production, and profit, is received. If we tax spending, we can ensure that those who have less, pay less, by only taxing non essential (luxury) goods. |
| Date | 00:02:33, July 17, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of September 2606 |
| Message | The Berosian Party missed the point - with 100% taxation there are no forms for you to fill out. You don't fill anything out, for you don't recieve anything. Your wage goes straight to the government, who spend it as national need dictates. With 0% taxation, you have to collect your wage, deposit it in your bank, withdraw it, spend it, etc... all kinds of accountability. The simplest tax is total tax. Also - discouraging spending IS a good idea. If there is insufficient propserity to sustain it, it is the ONLY good idea. The Berosian idea that the poor should spend to help the economy is, frankly, laughable. We notice that the Berosians suggest that the 'rich' are employing the 'poor'. What a curious assumption. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 75 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: After 3 days (72 hours) your account will be inactivated by Moderation. If you want to be reactivated you can request reactivation located here: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4360 |
| Random quote: "Congress is like diapers; it should be changed regularly as it gets full of the same thing." - Seen on a bumper sticker |