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: Tax Reform Bill, 3912
Details
Submitted by[?]: Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union
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: June 3913
Description[?]:
| Mr Speaker, after having successfully passed a revolutionary budget, we will deliver on our promise of reducing the tax burden, particular the obstacles for capital accumulation and thus production that the current tax code imposes. This tax cut will produce a budget deficit of -9909965763.92 KKR down from our current GST-based surplus, which is in line with what we had promised when coming to office and which is four times lower than the deficit we had inherited from our left-wing predecessors. Leya Nordahl (FV) Minister of Finance |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Tax percentage of the profit made by corporations.
Old value:: 40
Current: 25
Proposed: 35
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 |
| > 12,500 KKR | 20% | 70,038,000,000 KKR |
| > 20,000 KKR | 35% | 74,064,000,000 KKR |
| > 27,500 KKR | 50% | 75,440,000,000 KKR |
| > 35,000 KKR | 55% | 201,243,000,000 KKR | Total | 420,785,000,000 KKR |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:28:58, September 25, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, may I remind the Green party that, having voted for the first part of the budget and the cuts it entailed, it would be sensible also to back its logical consequences as outlined in my previous budget speech? We have accumulated a surplus of 30,150,430,300 KKR and the voters would probably not approve of simply hoarding this money. Leya Nordahl FV Party Leader |
| Date | 23:34:46, September 25, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | Herr President, I would like to congratulate the Greens on their common sense. As colleague Opland already outlined during the budget debate, this is an overwhelmingly upper-income tax cut; the alternative of cutting the luxury sales tax would do far more to help people in lower income scales. Perhaps the fact that she cannot take her coalition partners for granted will help this stubborn Minister realise that there is, in fact, a better and fairer alternative. Roald Gamst Pedersen (FP) Finance Spokesman (OOC: Yes, Gamst Pedersen is trying to fan the flames. It's what the opposition is doing.) |
| Date | 23:38:21, September 25, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, cutting the luxury tax might stimulate consumption but do nothing to incentivize the supply-side of producing more goods. The hon. gentleman is obviously too much of a supporter of left-wing demand-driven economics to see this point. Leya Nordahl FV Party Leader |
| Date | 23:41:01, September 25, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | Herr President, Calling me a left-wing economist is like calling colleague Opland a ruthless cynic (laughter across the House). Our issue isn't with the corporation tax cut, it is with the income tax cut, which will not stimulate supply either and will do far less to stimulate consumption than our plans to end the Luxury Half-crown. Roald Gamst Pedersen (FP) Finance Spokesman |
| Date | 23:44:50, September 25, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, the hon. gentleman might laugh off my description of his ideas as left-wing, but the last tenure, in which his party has acted as the stirrup holder for a socialist administration, in fact revealed that FP has an ambiguous relationship with the left at best and can hardly be described as a bulwark against its economic doctrine. It is not true that the income tax cut will not stimulate production because the means of production are based on capital accumulation which can only be accelerated if we give those who have the income to accomplish this more financial breathing space, unpopular as it may be, but it is the right thing to do economics-wise. Leya Nordahl FV Party Leader |
| Date | 23:49:49, September 25, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | OOC: Given that IRL tax changes are generally part of the budget, how do you think we should treat them here? Should they be considered part of the budget (and therefore a vote of confidence), and should we have one consolidated budget debate? |
| Date | 23:52:19, September 25, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | OOC: I think that if they fail and there is no alternative compromise solution then Nordahl will draw the logical consequences by herself. |
| Date | 23:57:34, September 25, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | Herr President, The Finance Minister knows just as well as I do that anyone who paid attention during last term would be a fool to describe my ideas as left-wing or me as a stirrup-holder for the left. I think, then, that our assessment of our economic situation simply differs. The minister is underestimating the depressing effect that paying 1,5 for anything not belonging to the very basic necessities is having on our consumption. Middle class families won't have any more money to spend, nor will the things they spend it on be any more expensive. I think that is our priority - that is the human story which is being lost in the Minister's economic abracadabra. I dare her to get out there in the street and explain to decent, hard-working Kazulians why they do not deserve their taxes cut while the richest, those who -can- afford the ridiculously unfair luxury tax Labour landed us with, do. I think she'll find it very hard indeed. Roald Gamst Pedersen (FP) Finance Spokesman |
| Date | 23:59:54, September 25, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | OOC: Yes, but as a general principle of RP, what do you think? |
| Date | 00:02:04, September 26, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | OOC: I'm not sure. I think it depends on the weight attributed to each part of fiscal policy by the particular administration. |
| Date | 00:08:33, September 26, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, once again, prices are not determined by the tax rate imposed on certain sorts of goods alone. If we cut the tax rate on luxury goods by 10% but production does not increase, then the impact of such a tax cut will be very modest at best. Before we can fiddle with consumption, we should make sure that our companies and the people who run them can do business more freely and efficiently. FV has always said that it is available for a cut in luxury taxes as soon as this first part of our fiscal agenda has been signed, sealed and delivered. But it is not ready to give in on the urgent need of at least somewhat relieving the hopelessly overtaxed and overregulated business community, which is not feasible without changes in the tax code in the areas proposed in this bill. Leya Nordahl FV Party Leader |
| Date | 00:43:13, September 26, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, It is clear that this government is no longer in control of the nation's finances. We were promised at the last election a reduction in the deficit - an objective which Labour did not support given that that would entail deep cuts - but what the government's tax increases have done is created a massive and unnecessary surplus. We knew, Mr Speaker, that hon. members opposite were rather attached to money, but imagine the shock across this country when they descended to a new low - now they're hoarding it! [Hon. members interjected] Yes, they are. Now hon. members opposite can shake their heads if they like, but what this government has in effect done is taken taxpayers' wallets and transplanted them to general revenue - and they say that they're the party of the taxpayer! Well, if Labour steals people's money, what is this, Mr Speaker? No doubt the Minister of Finance will tell us that they're just "appropriating" it. But I say to hon. members opposite, welcome to the club! [Hon. members interjected] But there is, of course, a key difference between Labour and hon. members opposite. And that's how we choose to raise revenue. Whereas Labour has always been committed to ensuring that the most privileged in our society extend the hand of solidarity to those less privileged than they are, the Minister thinks that solidarity should flow upwards. That everyone should have to pay extra on their consumption even though she knows full well that the poorest in society will be hit hardest. And that's not up for debate, Mr Speaker, that's in the statistics. The excuse, of course, is the slow pace of deregulation. Let the market loose, Mr Speaker, and angels will sing and manna will drop from heaven! [Hon. members interjected] And all these nasty communists, they should just get out of the way! Well, the fact is, that's not quite the case. And the people of Kazulia want something more than the Minister's lectures and evasions about the virtues of unrestricted laissez-faire. They want actual tangible results, they want concrete improvements in their lives, and that has not and will not come in the form of being slugged 8% extra at the supermarket tiller by a government which wants to hit the poorest the hardest. You know, there's a reason why the Minister is so deeply unpopular right now: she's out of touch with the public, and out of touch with reality. And what have they done with all this new money? No, they've not cut taxes for the poorest, and no, they've not used it to invest in our social and physical infrastructure - we'd forgive them if they'd done that. First they decided that the government should just do nothing - I suppose that that's in line with the Minister's ideology, so full marks there for ideological purity. But then, wait! The criticism mounted on TV, in newspapers, in the so-called ivory towers of academia - because, you know, every academic is a dirty pinko. [Hon. members interjected] No? That's not what you think? Then perhaps you should start paying attention to these people, who are telling you that you are depressing consumption and depressing growth. [Speaker: The hon. member will address his remarks to the chair, not to other hon. members.] Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. But as I was saying, the criticism mounted, the economists told the Minister that she was hurting the economy - probably the only thing that keeps her up at night despite all the things she's done to Kazulians - and then, voila! Out of the Minister's hat, a u-turn, a back-flip. All of a sudden, the Minister turns from woman of steel to weather-vane! [Hon. members interjected] And what did she say when the so-called fiscal hawks - more like vultures, but I don't pretend to be an expert on ornithology; when they told her that she needed to cut taxes just right so that the budget was perfectly balanced? She said that Kazulians needed a big tax cut to keep prices down and to keep the economy humming along. We would have preferred increased spending, but in effect, she said that the government needs to continue running a deficit. So I say to our libertarian friends across this country, you've got a heretic in your ranks! [Hon. members interjected] No wonder her party has decided to throw her overboard! [Hon. members interjected] But on this side of the house, and across the country, there was a sigh of relief: at last the Minister had heard the cries of the impoverished and desperate. She'd seen the light, Mr Speaker! She had become one of us! [Hon. members interjected] But, of course, we were foolish to get our hopes up. Because, predictably, the tax cuts were not directed at the most vulnerable, the people of need them most. Only the top income tax bracket came down because, you know, they're the ones who were most affected by the 8% consumption tax, of course. Any unhinged economist will tell you that! [Hon. members interjected] And corporation tax, cut also. Isn't it extraordinary, Mr Speaker, that this government's conception of a better society is one where the most vulnerable should have to pay for the most privileged to enjoy lower taxes? Isn't that perverse in a pretty fundamental sense? There is, among hon. members opposite, an extraordinary myopia about the social impacts of what they're doing, and if anyone lives in ivory towers it's not the academics telling ten to change course but hon. members opposite themselves, who cannot see down to the very real, very tangible suffering of the less fortunate down below. Mr Speaker, it's clear that this government has quite completely lost the plot. First, despite their rhetoric about Labour stealing people's money, they jacked up taxes on everyone, especially the poorest. Then they ended up hoarding massive amounts of money and harming the economy. And then they u-turned. Except that it was the wrong turn. What a shambles, Mr Speaker, what a shambles. Clearly hon. members opposite can no longer be trusted with government. They can no longer be trusted with the money or the welfare of the people of Kazulia. That is why Labour is proud to opposite this bill. Halvor Sæterbø Deputy Leader of the Opposition Labour finance spokesperson |
| Date | 01:54:48, September 26, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, it is quite an interesting act of ideological masquerade seeing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition posing as the patron of the taxpayer, when everyone knows that he is in fact the ideological love-child of Karlstein Metz and the tooth fairy - a very distasteful combination indeed -, believing that every dime extracted from the taxpayers' money turns quadruples in worth over night if only the state decides over how it is spent. With such a quasi-genetical predisposition, high-tax and big-spending policies are hard-wired into his brain - like Dracula is compelled to sucking the blood of the innocent in order to remain alive, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as a similarly sinister entity, has no choice but to collect more and more of the people's hard-earned money through the brute force of the state - it is his raison d'etre and he will not deviate from this compulsive behavior, ever. It is due to this fact that it is hardly an exaggeration if we claim that there will never, under any circumstances, be a time when the tax burden over the long term will be lower under Labour than under the centre-right coalition, with FV in charge of the treasury. To be honest, he does admit this when he starts to rattle off his usual repertoire of ideological catchphrases again. Let me just cite on example: when he talks about the need to "extend the hand of solidarity to those less privileged", then what he means is that government thugs will slap you on the wrist until you let go of portemonnaie due to sheer pain, allowing the hon. gentleman and his gang of union militants to empty it and spill its content all over their cronies while posturing as great humanitarians. Mr Speaker, the truth is that unless you have earned the money you spend so generously yourself, you have no right to claim the high moral ground of solidarity and compassion for yourself, because you did not lift a finger to earn all the cash you are dishing out - except, perhaps, when pulling the trigger of the gun you point to the taxpayers' head in order to gently persuade them of the reasonableness of letting you decide how the bulk of their income is spent. This is especially true if you have never worked in the private sector one day in your life and experienced the great personal risk and hardship of running a business. The Leader of the Opposition, for example, is a prime example for this - his biography tells us that he used to work as a "union organizer". Need I say more? Never in history has a single dime been earned by shining the boots of fat-cat labor bosses. It is our firm belief that work has to pay, and that everyone - regardless of his income - is entitled to enjoy the lion's share of what he manages to earn through his honest day of work. It is clear that the current situation is far from ideal, which is why we are proposing this bill. The hon. gentleman complains that we have "created a massive and unnecessary surplus". If that bothers him, then perhaps he would be well-advised in helping us to get rid of it instead of boring this assembly by cracking corny jokes. (Cheers from the government benches). Let me tell him why we chose to split our revenue and tax reforms into separate bills because he obviously does not get the logic behind this strategy. The socialist yahoo that he is, he would have advocated for packing everything into one bill because who cares if the deficit explodes if the estimations get it wrong - what does it matter if our children have to pay off ten or twenty billion more than they already have to shoulder? We'll just tax the rich a bit more and pass a new regulatory law banning the fundamental laws of economic science from operating. This, Mr Speaker, is not the way of thinking this government endorses. It was the sole sensible thing to do to first pass a spending bill in combination with the GST in order to be able to assess whether it brings in enough revenue to - in combination with the money saved by our spending reductions - compensate for lowever revenue resulting from lower tax rates. Mr Speaker, the hon. gentleman implies that I have committed a u-turn in accepting a deficit to occur as a result of the tax cut. This is factually wrong and adds to his long list of the proven lies that he continues to spout on a daily basis to discredit this government's hard work. From the beginning of this term, I have said that we will attempt to reduce the deficit while simultaneously reducing the tax burden. On the end of this day, once our tax cuts have received the Storting's approval, the deficit will still be four times lower than it was under Labour. How this 75% deficit cut can be interpreted as an endorsement of deficit spending is truly beyond me or indeed anyone else who has actually bothered to look at the figures, which the hon. gentleman has obviously not done because figures aren't great material for racy rhetoric. Mr Speaker, the hon. gentleman also refers to unnamed "economists" who, of course, he implies are wholeheartedly and unambiguously committed to the cause of socialism. He also suggests that FV has a disdain for academics - may I remind him that firstly most economists are operating on the premise that the market economy is the best institutional framework for growth and prospertiy and that secondly the party I lead was founded by an academic? Once again the hon. gentleman ignores and distorts reality to generate a few zingers and a couple of rounds of applause from the mindless socialist sheep on the opposition benches! Speaker: The Minister must not compare hon. members to animals, especially not those of the unintelligent kind. Well then, I hope this also applies to the hon. gentleman when he calls my deputies vultures. I withdraw, Mr Speaker, and I refrain from pointing in detail out how the tax cuts we are proposing will be helping the "most vulnerable" because I have done so countless times, without managing to get the hon. gentleman or the Leader of the Opposition or indeed any Labour deputy to even once discuss the importance of the supply-side of the economic system with me, a factor which he and his supporters choose to ignore conveniently. By increasing the number of goods available on the marketplace, we can decrease their prices without having to resort to subsidies and other ineffective instruments of irrational interventionism. Let me also make clear that this tax cut is only the first step towards a comprehensive reform of the whole tax code. We are committed to cutting everyone's tax bill - the hon. gentleman seems to believe that the poor, the vulnerable, the impoverished "need them most". Why are they, may I ask him that, in such dire need of tax relief when we are still blessed with a tax code implemented under a Labour one-party regime, which surely must be a manifestation of justice, compassion, solidarity, humanism and all the other virtues he so modestly attributes to himself and his ilk? Mr Speaker, the truth is that the current tax code is a monument of incompetence and recklessness that needs to be torn down in favor of the house of freedom that this government is determined to erect over its ruins. Leya Nordahl (FV) Finance Minister |
| Date | 03:11:16, September 26, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | OOC: Nordahl's opening rant about tooth fairies and Dracula was a bit of a WTF moment. ;) |
| Date | 11:40:10, September 26, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Tax Reform Bill, 3912 |
| Message | OOC: Indeed - I figured she had to counter Sæterbø's colorful rhetoric with something similarly flowery^^ |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 68 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 71 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Selucia is Particracy's modern take on Ancient Rome, located on the continent of Majatra. |
| Random quote: "Socialists like to tout their confiscation and redistribution schemes as noble and caring, but we should ask if theft is ever noble or caring." - Robert Hawes |