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: Corporate Tax Repeal
Details
Submitted by[?]: Jakanian Conservative Party
Status[?]: passed
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: January 2135
Description[?]:
| An Act to repeal the Corporate Tax, while balancing it with an increase in the Tax on luxury goods. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Tax percentage of the profit made by corporations.
Old value:: 10
Current: 20
Proposed: 0
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on luxury goods.
Old value:: 10
Current: 20
Proposed: 12
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:18:25, October 30, 2005 CET | From |  Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | The rise in corporation tax has brought in an extra 90billion Jak to the state. A rise in luxury goods although fair is no replacement for the only reasonable sum of 10% taken from corporation. We stand opposed |
| Date | 14:15:22, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | would it not eb better if the 90billion JAK was in the hands of the people and not in thye sieve-like hands of the state? |
| Date | 14:31:19, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | NO |
| Date | 14:33:06, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | The 90billion can now be spent on health provision for the poor, better schools, roads etc. as opposed to merecedes and houses in other countries for excessively rich CEO's |
| Date | 16:45:19, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | this is 90billion JAK less that companies have to barter with whe negoitiating with striking trade unions, It is also 90 billion JAK placed back int he market for the furtherance of our nation's economy. |
| Date | 20:38:44, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | Companies in in Jakania still have 890billion Jak to bargain with, the idea that corporations, which in the eyes of the law are people should pay no tax is ridiculous, We cannot even begin to understand your opposition to such a low level.. |
| Date | 02:49:34, October 31, 2005 CET | From |  Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | OOC: I wasn't going to argue corporate tax any more because my arguments are largely ignored and the one person who was willing to actually argue with me went inactive. But, I just can't take it. "The 90billion can now be spent on health provision for the poor, better schools, roads etc. as opposed to merecedes and houses in other countries for excessively rich CEO's" Wonderful common fallacy. CEOs are rich because their skills are highly valued and companies are willing to spend a lot of money for a good CEO. There's also a relatively low supply of them due to specalization and the amount of education and experience required to be one. Naturally, if a company takes in less profit, it may cut its costs by cutting the salaries of all workers, including CEOs. But CEOs do not DIRECTLY benefit from higher profits just for being CEOs. The only people to directly benefit from profits are a) the shareholders and b) the workers involved in any investment the company uses the profit for. Some high-profit companies have payout ratios of ZERO, meaning they don't even pay dividends, so all the profit is reinvested as research, new capital, extra facilities, etc. Also, corporate profits are already taxed when they eventually become income, either as dividends or wages. There's no need for double taxation. |
| Date | 17:06:48, November 01, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | Workers pay the income tax not the companies. (OOC: Given some of the prize shitheads who run large corporations I have trouble with your high talk of CEO's, I know you study some kind of politics or economics, I go with my gut and my heart which leads me to believe that the money is better of in he hands of the government) Just look at other countries with low corporation tax, the majority of the people live in squalor or at least a sizeable preportion while the few grow very rich. The government must equalise the damage done by corporations short-changing people on their labour by taxing the companies and spending it on society |
| Date | 19:09:04, November 01, 2005 CET | From | Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | Of course "gut feelings" and knee-jerk emotional reactions are superior to precise analysis backed by actual research. How can anyone claim to know how a government should be run without studying politics or economics? Which countries are these? Many poor countries with conditions like the ones you describe have implemented lower corporate taxes precisely because they'e trying to lure in international companies and, therefore, foreign investment and wealth. Besides, the U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world, but poverty and the growing gap between the "rich" and the poor are still considered serious problems. |
| Date | 20:19:52, November 01, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | OOC: Ireland has very low corporation tax, schools are in a terrible state, healthcare is a disgrace and homelessness and poverty are big problem, yet considering our size we are one of the richest countries in the world. I never said principles and gut feelings were better than facts, I just said thats how I operate, while you seem to be more calculated and clinical. I only study politics in my spare time, I am a nurse. from what I see though, not just from you, studying it academically makes you forget the purpose of government and politics, to make peoples lives better and right wrongs, not win seats in a online game. But of course thas more of an argument for me not playing this game than |
| Date | 20:20:25, November 01, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | ....anything else. |
| Date | 01:26:34, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | because, as we all know, the government is SOO efficient, and does everything so well...Canada has socialized Health Care and it takes 4 hours to get to a doctor. |
| Date | 03:47:29, November 02, 2005 CET | From | none | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | I'm combining this discussion with the minimum wage debate, so bear with me. Let's just kill the other discussion and continue with this one (: Hmm... Where are you pulling your stats from? First of all, in 2004, Ireland was only ranked 4th in terms of GDP per capita. The U.S. was third. Not exactly the richest country, even factoring in the size of its population. Then there's the claim that Ireland has "very low corporate tax." I think it's commonly accepted the U.S. is only second to Japan in terms of high corporate tax. But in 2000 the OECD said that 21.1% of Ireland's tax revenues came from corporations, versus the U.S.'s 8.5%. That tells me you guys are getting a lot more money from corporate profits compared to other forms of taxation... but our percent of people below the poverty line is only 2% more than Ireland's (compare that with Venezuela's 47% or Haiti's 80%...yikes). So, I don't think there's much of a correlation between corporate tax levels and poverty. "studying it academically makes you forget the purpose of government and politics," Studying it academically gives you a realistic view of it. Otherwise you have little understanding of the impacts of public policy beyond the most obvious effects. "to make peoples lives better and right wrongs" This is where our beliefs diverge. I don't forget the purpose of government, nor would I say that of any political science teacher. We all have an idea of government's purpose. The point is we all have different views. You say it's to make lives better and right wrongs. I say it's to guarantee every individual the maximum possible liberty, so long as that individual does not infringe upon the liberties of others (like through coercion or fraud). "not win seats in a online game" It just so happens my views somewhat match those of the majority in United Jakania (at least 4 of the 5 regions). Having seats is nice, but I would still vote according to my principles. I think "winning seats" is more what actual politicians are concerned with. [Continuing from Minimum Wage Bill debate] "I really havent seen much of a change since you became the NLP, sma eparty different name." The CoS was very anti-religious, pro-abortion and pro-war. The NLP is only for secularity in public institutions, pro-life and against military aggression. The CoS also wanted to use government as a tool for social engineering and had a complely different justification for promoting capitalism. "the state is a naturally organised system by the people to make someone benefit, be it a warlord or the general people." I could see the argument that a state is "natural" but that by no means justifies it. For example, it is arguably natural to be promiscuous or to murder another individual out of anger. I think most historians though link government to the rise of agriculture, because the stockpiling of food allowed for more specialization and, therefore, the rise of a ruling class. "Plus I dont like your ideas on other aspects of human nature, I believe if you make accessible to a man food, water and shelter, he will then move on to want more thing (knowledge, intimacy etc.), not in greed but in the desire for self actualisation." Self actualization is a notable theory of human behavior, but it is not incompatable with the assumptions made in economics. Economics does not assume that people are driven by greed -- this is a very common misconception! I already explained it in the Conservative Act debate: "Economics is not based on an assumption of greed, but "rationality" through utility-maximization. Utility is simply happiness or satisfaction. That encompasses not only material desires, but also moral values, social pressures, etc. Thus, buying a piece of cake when you're full is still a rational choice so long as the cost (including opportunity cost) of doing so does not outweigh the utility you perceive you'll get by eating it (i.e. the yumminess). Similarly, making a donation might put a dent in your wallet, but it may still be a "rational" choice if you get satisfaction out of it, fulfill a moral obligation by doing so or simply avoid criticism from others." Every person has a different perception of what gives them the most utility -- in other words, "preferences." To say that people operate according to a hierarchy of needs is not inconsistent with the above. The hierarchy would simply serve as the skeleton for an individual's preferences. Thus, at a time when a person is thirsty and hungry, he might value food over monetary wealth, intimacy or security and act accordingly. Ironically, this is also why maximum economic freedom is desirable, in my opinion -- every person, at different times, values all his wants and needs differently and, given limited resources, he alone knows best which ones he can sacrifice for others. This reminds me of our space program debate from a while back: why should a person be forced to pay for NASA when he would much rather invest that money in his child's education, or for that matter, more and better food, housing, security, etc. When the government taxes a person and then uses that money to provide him with a service, it is denying that person's ability to decide for himself which needs he wants to fill first. |
| Date | 17:35:18, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | I said one of the of the richest not "the" richest. I think top five is pretty impressive. Our corporation tax is since January 2003 12.5%, higher than United Jakania, a FICTIONAL country, yes. But one,and I stress the ONE, of the lowest rates in Europe. Former Minister For Trade and Industry Mary Harney, won awards for keeping it so low! You quote as if what I said I believe to be fact, I stated this is how I feltf about the matter on my gut. I never said economics is incompatable with self actualisation, I just believe your economics make self actualisation almost impossible as they seem to destroy the collective idea of human beings, breaking them down into only individuals, and I believe we all as a society play a part in everybodies attempts and progression towards S-A. I am beginning to see the basis for your beliefs although possibly only on paper as I disagree with almost all of your votes since you became the NLP. Totally agree on the NASA thing but mostly cause I hate space exloration, I know it supposedly will help us understand the universe and possibly solve some big issus facing mankind, but it to me is a pointless waste of time, I'd ban it altogether if I could. And of course your reason, the whole people should be able to choose where there money is spent, to an extent I agree, but this is surely the point of democracy and the state. As you said stockpiling, which can increase the power of people from individuals to groups with similar interests is one reason. the chance to decide, I admit western democracy does not supply enough of, what is done is also a reason for the state as when democractic it promotes compromises and discussion. I suppose i'm a bit of utilitarian as well, which is probably anathema to you a;lthough I dont know, you ar quite unpredictable to me |
| Date | 17:41:55, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | OOC: Oh and looking back, the NLP and CoS are different, but really abortion is such a sticky topic that you could completely agree with someone on nearly every point and still disagree on abortion. The JLSP and the OSP are quite similar on my many issues, yet I completely disagree with unfettered rights to abortion, even abortion in the first tri-mestor is a little uncomfortable for me. |
| Date | 20:49:45, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | Sorry, sorry. For some reason I thought you said THE richest. My bad (: I can't find good, recent data on corporate tax rates, but here's a sample from about 4 years back: Japan 42% United States 40% Germany 38.36% France 35.33% Luxembourg 30.38% United Kingdom 30% Poland 28% Russia 24% Ireland 16% (That's back then... this is also the lowest in the whole data set, alongside other countries). (Source: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pdfiles/eqnotes/kpmgtaxrates.pdf ) I'd say there's been a significant downward trend, at least in Europe. So those rates are probably much lower today. Anyway, I didn't say Ireland didn't have a low corporate tax -- I was pointing out that I think it has a tendency to tax corporations more in exchange for fewer other taxes, which is what you were advocating earlier, no? Increase corporate tax and decrease income tax? I have to go. I'll finish my comments later :P |
| Date | 01:33:28, November 03, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | Yeah, but without a lowering in actual wages. basicly all my ideas fo what should be, are outside the framework of a capitalist system. maybe that makes them ridiculous daydreams, maybe it just makes implementation very hard to describe. All I know is I when it comes down to it , I vote for what I think should work maybe more often than what I know for definate will work. |
| Date | 04:03:14, November 03, 2005 CET | From | Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | Why not rename yourself the communist party? :/ Anyway, let's just agree not to bother asking each other's reasoning behind voting a particular way. It seems to me like it doesn't matter how strong an argument I can make. I'll propose, vote and compromise if I must, but don't expect me to justify myself unless I'm feeling particularly argumentative (: |
| Date | 01:12:11, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | OOC: Thats fine although I do find your point of view interesting just to hear. Nah never could see the whole withering away of the state dealy. Just a plain old state socialist me |
| Date | 02:36:54, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Corporate Tax Repeal |
| Message | Disgusting. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 116 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 86 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 48 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
| Random quote: "I'm not an environmentalist. I'm an earth warrior." - Darryl Cherney |