Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 03:50:42
Server time: 12:09:17, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): JVTA | JWBa | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Desubsidisation of The Rich Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Art & Labour

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: December 3019

Description[?]:

RECOGNISING the spirit of the law and the sentiment of fairness within it

ARGUING against the taxes of the poor paying for the needs of the wealthy who can look after themselves

REQUESTS of the Congress that this bill be given fair appraisal before the representatives of the Ikradonian people.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date16:57:27, October 21, 2010 CET
FromSyndicalist Party (LL)
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageWe totally agree with this bill.

Date17:35:06, October 21, 2010 CET
FromUnion Socialism Alliance
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageWe can agree

Date21:06:20, October 21, 2010 CET
FromMarxist-Leninist Party of Ikradon (LL)
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageThe taxes on the poor go to benefit the poor, the taxes on the rich go to the drugs for the rich AND POOR.

Date21:06:53, October 21, 2010 CET
FromMarxist-Leninist Party of Ikradon (LL)
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageNot to mention, allowing rich people to buy there own lawyers will lead to massive inequality in the law system.

Date21:20:38, October 21, 2010 CET
FromUnion Socialism Alliance
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageThis isn't about the taxes, it's about the paying for medicine.

Date21:23:29, October 21, 2010 CET
FromSyndicalist Party (LL)
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageActually, the CFP has a preety good point with the lawyers thing. We will iniciate a consultation process among our rank and file to define our final position about the bill.

Date21:49:20, October 21, 2010 CET
FromMarxist-Leninist Party of Ikradon (LL)
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageIf the rich should pay more for medication, then raise there goddamn taxes, its what they go to.

Date22:14:32, October 21, 2010 CET
FromArt & Labour
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
Message@ CFP: But the rich were already able to pay for their own legal team, but other peoples taxes also helped them along with it. That inequality existed in the system before, after all legal aid is just that. In the case of the poor, it pays for their lawyers in its entirity, in the case of the rich it subsidises their existing legal cover in addition to what they pay for themselves.

This way the rich recieve no state help that they simply dont need and they have to pay entirely for their legal fees.

Date22:19:40, October 21, 2010 CET
FromArt & Labour
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageAnd no, dont raise taxation. Make the rich pay for their own bloody drugs out of their own pockets rather than making everyone else pay as usual.

Date23:01:18, October 21, 2010 CET
FromMarxist-Leninist Party of Ikradon (LL)
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageNo, because the poor were free to pay for the same expensive legal teams, now there not.

The taxes will be raised on the RICH and reduced on the POOR. Thats EXACTLY what we want to do, make them pay for there own bloody pills.

Date21:00:56, October 22, 2010 CET
FromArt & Labour
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageEh? Your argument is nonesensical. Not paying the expenses of the rich means MORE, not less, money can be diverted toward the poorest in society. That's because the state will recieve the same tax revenue as before but will have to spend less buying drugs for the rich and paying for expensive lawyers for people fully able to afford it out of their own pockets. This is a totally progressive reform as it now means that Terence is more money available to spend on legal aid for the poor, meaning that they can get even better lawyers than previously (where you get your argument on this from is beyond me) and possibly can also have more expensive drugs subsidised for them.

Date21:02:23, October 22, 2010 CET
FromArt & Labour
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
Message* for "Terence", read "there". Typing on my iPod Touch, so not the most accurate keyboard ever.

Date21:30:09, October 22, 2010 CET
FromUnion Socialism Alliance
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageWe agree with the SLD.

Date02:56:22, October 23, 2010 CET
FromMarxist-Leninist Party of Ikradon (LL)
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
Message@SLD Or we could simply redistribute taxes from the poor to the rich, its far more progressive then this. The healthcare industry is nationalized, so were just getting the same money from the rich to the state, were just putting another bureaucratic wall in-front of are people.

Under the current law system the poor and the rich receive the same PUBLIC STATE lawyers, under the new one there will be a legal gap between the rich and the poor.

Date19:10:13, October 23, 2010 CET
FromArt & Labour
ToDebating the Desubsidisation of The Rich Act
MessageFair enough. Since we arent going to convince you on this lets bring it to vote.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 128

no
      

Total Seats: 622

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context.

    Random quote: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Bill Clinton

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 76