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: Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative 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 pass as soon as the required yes votes are in, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2669
Description[?]:
| As government spending is in the healthy range of 20-25%, we propose re-distributing the surplus (projected to be over 10B DCU before next election. This projection comes from the current 8.5B surplus + 19 months * 100M DCU. The 100M DCU is a conservative monthly average estimate and does not take into account for any economic booms. The surplus is redistributed to one category of all income levels and we added a new high income tax bracket of 70K and they received our highest income tax level. We also kept DSP's new income tax format first used in 2664 (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=227056) As we have no debt, all surplus will be given back to the people as a tax return, based on the level of taxes they paid. |
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 |
| > 7,000 SEK | 7% | 4,784,000,000 SEK |
| > 10,000 SEK | 13% | 12,718,000,000 SEK |
| > 15,000 SEK | 15% | 8,866,000,000 SEK |
| > 20,000 SEK | 20% | 10,621,000,000 SEK |
| > 25,000 SEK | 20% | 9,128,000,000 SEK |
| > 30,000 SEK | 25% | 10,093,000,000 SEK |
| > 35,000 SEK | 30% | 7,922,000,000 SEK |
| > 40,000 SEK | 30% | 5,570,000,000 SEK |
| > 45,000 SEK | 35% | 5,980,000,000 SEK |
| > 50,000 SEK | 35% | 5,980,000,000 SEK |
| > 55,000 SEK | 40% | 4,491,000,000 SEK |
| > 60,000 SEK | 40% | 2,270,000,000 SEK |
| > 65,000 SEK | 40% | 1,617,000,000 SEK |
| > 70,000 SEK | 45% | 2,002,000,000 SEK | Total | 92,042,000,000 SEK |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:56:30, November 20, 2008 CET | From |  帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal |
| Message | This would cause us to be in debt two billion a year for several years (as population grows it would equalize at some point) as we currently spend 305 billion DCU, while we would only be taking in 302 billion DCU under the proposed. |
| Date | 19:02:47, November 20, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal |
| Message | DSP, notice the math and the projected surplus. We would break even safely before the next election. |
| Date | 19:09:08, November 20, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal |
| Message | What about after the election? It'll probably take ten game years for the population to grow enough to actually start creating new surplus. Not trying to be argumentative, just asking. |
| Date | 19:34:13, November 20, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal |
| Message | If history is any indicator, we grow over 100M per month from taxes, mostly because of the high sales tax. Since sales tax has the heaviest individual weight, reducing income taxes by 5% would reduce overall taxation by about 3%. Assuming we were growing exactly 100M per month, we would now be growing about 97M per month through taxation. Therefore, to grow say 2B, it would take 20 months. We have 19 months till election. So, assuming we are earning more than 100M per month now, we will be back in surplus before the election. I will wait for October 2668 and see if it's feasible. As well, I noticed I said 100K and not 100M in the description. I will correct that. OOC: This is partially a reason why reducing taxes during a recession does very little. Giving back money to people is a nice thought and although it does act as a stimulant, it's not a big one. But then again, that's only an economic theory. In practice, reducing taxes (albeit before an economic slowdown) is keeping Canada so far out of a recession. In reality, it's mostly because we are trading less with the U.S. and finding other partners. But an obvious example of lower tax rates during a slowdown would be how Q3 2008 Canadian corporation posted 77B CDN of profits which is good news because that means less layoffs and a steadier unemployment rate. |
| Date | 05:12:16, November 21, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal |
| Message | Okay. It varies. But from September to December (sum of 3 months differences) is 386,477,225 or an average of 128,825,741 per month (128M per month). So, the conservative estimate of 100M still holds. Therefore, at this rate we will be in surplus again before the next election. So no chances will be made to this tax cut proposal. |
| Date | 05:12:23, November 21, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal |
| Message | ... changes ... |
| Date | 05:15:30, November 21, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal |
| Message | Well, in the end we're against lowering taxes. OOC: I'm glad I already know a fair amount about economics, it'll be easier during college when I take economics. I thought Canada had entered into recessions along with the rest of the world, I mean is'nt that why Harper's essentially saying he may go against one of his big promises IE not creating a deficit? |
| Date | 06:25:26, November 21, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal |
| Message | Yes, I already knew that. OOC: The rest of the world (assuming you meant from the U.S. perspective) are not in recession yet. Countries like Canada posted growth in Q3 2008. In the largest continent Asia, only Singapore (export-oriented), Hong Kong (export-oriented) and Japan (savings-oriented) are in recession. And the only serious recessions are in Hong Kong and Singapore. Japan uses a different economic approach where recessions mean less so it's more difficult to assess. Not creating a deficit in Canada is an overall Canadian policy (excluding the socialists - their promises would have made a 10B deficit - scary thought for us). In previous years, the federal gov't transfered more money to provinces and ate up our federal surplus. When I watch American news, they all claim Canada are in recession already (CNBC and CNN). Not sure if that's just to make U.S. look okay but it annoys me. American economists get on my nerves (not all - just venting). I think the latest numbers are a negative growth in Q4 2008 and a small growth in Q1 2009 - which means no recession. But this weights heavily on what happens to the U.S. automakers, housing market (which is still too strong in certain areas - I do not know why) and the price of oil. They are also predicting a negative net export - the first time in a decade or something. Can't remember off hand. Interesting times. So, overall countries like Canada and Switzerland are at risk of a short recession whereas other countries like U.S., Germany or U.K. are in for long recessions. Then again, American investors are miracle salespeople and you guys might recover quicker. We are in for an interesting few years - at the expense of many people's life. |
| Date | 06:48:54, November 21, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal |
| Message | OOC: I meant the U.S. the EU and Japan, all of which have officially said they are in recessions. Japan I think really can be considered as bad since they're being affected a great deal, especially since their main exports cars and electronics are getting hit hard by people not buying them as much. To be honest I think we may actually need a depression, otherwise things are'nt going to change, IE America wont get over the idea that completely unregulated free market capitalism actually works and that *gasp* people need to actually save some of their paycheck rather then spending it then putting twice the amount on their credit cards. |
| Date | 06:49:09, November 21, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal |
| Message | OOC: By the way, is economics mandatory in college? If you do, what kind of economics are you required to take? |
| Date | 06:58:51, November 21, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Gov.0037.2668 Income Tax Proposal |
| Message | OOC: No, it's not mandatory, actually there are no actual mandatory classes unless they're prerequisites to other classes. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 123 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 249 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 157 |
| Random fact: If your "Bills under debate" section is cluttered up with old bills created by inactive parties, report them for deletion on the Bill Clearouts Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "From my point of view, the killing of another, except in defense of human life, is archistic, authoritarian, and therefore, no anarchist can commit such deeds. It is the very opposite of what anarchism stands for." - Jo Labadie |