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: Luxury Tax Act of 3310
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Progressive Party of Mordusia
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: March 3311
Description[?]:
| We offer an increase in luxury tax to make up for the decrease in income tax enjoyed by the rich. Since this is specifically a use tax, it will only hit those who engage in mass consumption, while leaving those who lead relatively austere lives alone. The Finance Minister endorses this Bill as necessary to the financial health of the nation. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on luxury goods.
Old value:: 11
Current: 15
Proposed: 15
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:27:00, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Agrarian Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | Obviously, it is not "necessary" to the financial health of the nation as we are running a surplus. We wonder why the Minister proposes such a drastic increase in one time, expecting our support. We will abstain until we have seen the voting behavior of other parties in the States-General. |
| Date | 14:45:00, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Social Progressive Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | We propose the increase because we are in the process of overhauling our tax system, but we are also concerned about fairness. We did not over speak about necessity, as overhaul is necessary. Since budgets have not changed in the past 6 years, we anticipate that the surplus may not be as great as projected. However, if after a sober revaluation of the country's economy, it turns out that they additional revenue was, after all unnecessary, we will happily lower tax rates across the board. We see these measures as temporary, until we can get a firmer handle on our economy. |
| Date | 17:46:37, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Mordusian Political Party | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | Going to have to see some more figures here. It's a big jump. Gave you the benefit of the doubt in the other bill but voting no here until I see figures. |
| Date | 18:11:24, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Agrarian Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | We would not endorse measures pro tempore. If the surplus is not what it appears to be, it is up to the Government to decrease spending. Raising taxes just to be sure does not come as a legitimate reason to us. We will support our coalition partner the MFG and the MPP in this respect, and will have to vote against. |
| Date | 18:58:17, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Social Progressive Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | Our best argument for this bill has not been addressed by any of its main opponents. We would like to remind the Conservatives that they themselves argued that the burden should always fall on the shoulders most able to carry it. Since the wealthy received a tax cut in the tax bill, a refusal to make up the debt through consumption tax on luxury items amounts to a lifting of that burden. The Conservatives, in framing this debate in terms of raising taxes, as they say, "just to be sure", which only part of the reason we gave for offering this bill, neglect to address the reason why we offered this bill in the first place. Regardless of the vote, the NPP remains committed to a pragmatic approach. Without better data, we go by what data we have, which is very scant. If it is no longer needed, we will reduce taxes. But experimentation is the key to good governance, in our estimation. If we do not experiment with various spending and taxation combination, we will automatically adopt a status quo bias, which means the society and law becomes stuck in time. Our program is experimental, but we also seek to establish fairness across the entirety of society. If this bill does not pass, this is understandable, as are the objections of those who cared to comment on the bill. But simply cutting spending is not the answer either. In order to keep the budget balances, we need to increase efficiency in spending (this is not the same as bold and summary cuts) while also increasing revenue sources. |
| Date | 19:00:08, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Social Progressive Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | That said, the Conservatives' votes alone on this bill will not ensure it passage. We assume, at least that the MFG is ideologically opposed to this bill, so this bill will fail anyway. Is there some other configuration we can consider with regard to a luxury tax increase, which will be acceptable to the majority, or is this a lost cause for now? |
| Date | 20:21:05, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Mordusian Political Party | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | If you could prove that it is less of a 'lets change this and see what happens', I might listen. But you don't seem to know if we need this increase or how much extra tax would be collected |
| Date | 21:05:01, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Agrarian Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | Our dear colleagues of the NPP will remember the Conservatives had backed the luxury tax at 12%, which the Progressives later on decreased to 11%. We are not opposed to decreasing or increasing taxes, but a 50% increase of the luxury tax seems very hard for small capitalists and shop owners. We also point to the fact that our colleagues should look to our neighbours. Mordusia as a beneficial luxury tax rate compared to Alduria and Saridan (where it's at a whopping 35%). However, the Canrille countries of Kanjor and Rildanor both will have lower tax rates if this increase gets through. This means potential buyers from neighboring countries where luxury taxes are high would be more likely to go to the Canrille countries instead of the FRM. |
| Date | 22:19:31, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Social Progressive Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | The math is off, this is closer to a 37% increase, not a 50% increase. Additionally, they will only be paying 4% more than they did before, do framing it as a 37% increase is actually not entirely accurate. In terms of real denari, it it only 4% more. However, we note the objection on grounds of competitiveness with our neighbors and are, to a degree persuaded by it. Our aim is never to remove Mordusia's advantage over our neighbors. We think, instead, to eliminate the advantage the wealthy gained over the poor and working classes in the tax bill. We are open to suggestions with regard to how that should be accomplished, so the upper classes do not gain an unfair advantage. We dropped their rates on income taxes because they have been bearing the brunt of the tax burden for decades, and we saw an opportunity for tax relief, and if nothing else, we happen to believe that marginally lower taxes for wealthy people leads to less tax dodging. But it is also not our intention, while establishing a fairer tax system, to make it appear that we favor the interests of one class over the other. We just want people to pay their share for thd benefits they receive as citizens of our country. Any suggestion with regard to ensuring fairness in the tax system will be welcomed. |
| Date | 22:26:26, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Agrarian Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | Well, our colleagues will find a trustful ally in the Conservatives to increase the income tax for the upper brackets. We prefer to tax income than sales, as this is already an indirect corporation tax. We were never a proponent of a "fair" tax system to begin with, as our Friends may recall. |
| Date | 22:27:38, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Agrarian Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | Of course, our desire to tax the big earners is entirely based on our small government point of view. If more programs like schools and health would be nationalized, we prefer to tax the poor instead. |
| Date | 22:34:14, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Social Progressive Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | Given that we established public school and health, then, our revision of the tax code is justified, would our Colleagues agree? We also believe that the people of the country should pay for services, and so we have no problem raising taxes on the lower brackets. That is fair. |
| Date | 22:40:04, May 28, 2012 CET | From | Agrarian Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | We have no objection to support financial changes. It is not because we would not support nationalizations that we are not prepared to support the Government's financial proposals to pay for them. The first action is an ideological one. The second action is a technical one. We are not prepared for the FRM to go bankrupt. Of course, the consequences ideological reforms have on the taxation of our Citizens are entirely for the reformists to bear. |
| Date | 00:48:24, May 29, 2012 CET | From | Social Progressive Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Luxury Tax Act of 3310 |
| Message | Understood. This bill is a non-starter. We have a slight increase in the tax base, and the Finance Minister has committed to a 10% spending reduction across the board for all Government Ministries, so it turns out that, except for the interest of fairness, the luxury tax may not be necessary. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 124 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 533 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 93 |
| Random fact: Particracy has 464 player slots. |
| Random quote: "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler |