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 Subsidy Ban
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Centrist Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: December 2062
Description[?]:
| The government should not subsidize corporate inefficiencies. In a truly free market, these companies would have to rise or fall on their own. Subsidies just encourage the rise of unadaptive dinosaurs that serve the best interest of neither the people or the economy. This proposal, if passed, would aim to prevent the Likaton government from subsidizing businesses and industries in the future. Edit: An idea brought up in debate must be addressed here. Limited, targetted subsidies can be valuable. For instance, when a company (transport was mentioned explicitly) wishes to establish service in a new area, this could be encouraged by helping fund construction. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:21:59, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | no. some businesses are more beneficial than others, and should therefore be encouraged by subsidy. |
| Date | 01:28:37, May 23, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | If we subsidize our car industry, then they can produce inefficient, expensive cars and still run a profit. If we subsidize our medical industry, then they can never come out with new medicines at all but still run a profit. I can list other examples, if needed. The point is, though, that subsidies discourage innovation and reward inefficiency. They keep prices down - but they raise taxes, too. |
| Date | 17:05:34, May 24, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | Give us proper examples of how they discourage innovation and have rewarded inefficiancy... |
| Date | 19:30:24, May 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | but if companies stop coming up to standard, then you can threaten them with withdrawal of subsidy. it gives them somebody to answer to. besides, any sensible company is out for maximum profit, not just a profit. |
| Date | 16:05:51, May 25, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | Is the government to take over the consumer's job of deciding whether a product is worth selling or not? No. Attempts to do so would fail. Companies already answer to someone more powerful than Likaton's government anyways - Likatonian citizens. As for the matter of profits, companies must take risks to ensure 'maximum' profits. Yet risks aren't always sensible sounding. When a business model has already dominated a market and is running a strong profit, why should they seek to improve? That is, obviously, bad for innovation. Now, an example of what happens when you subsidize Likaton's industries. That same company has dominated the market, however, they are running at a minimal profit or even at a loss. Let's assume this company is a major employer and exporter. Likaton can't afford to lose this business - so it gets subsidized. Now it runs at a strong profit, by taking the taxpayer's money. Yet again, there's no reason to innovate. We shouldn't subsidize them. Counter-intuitive as it may seem, when the industry behemoth starts losing profits and closing down because it's gotten too big, someone else will step in and fill in their shoes - a supplier went down, but the market demand still exists. That new person will have a reason to innovate, because they're challenging a larger, more entrenched company. This cycle is natural to business and will continue if the government does not interfere. That cycle may seem unstable, but it promotes new technologies and greater efficiencies. Ultimately, it's better for everyone. |
| Date | 19:31:22, May 25, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | One of the main issues that really should be decided before this debate goes any further is which services, if any, are state run. Public transport for example - is that state run? if not, those companies should be subsidised so that they do better and can have lower fares so we have fewer people using their cars and polluting. In transport, innovation merely leads to higher efficiency, which would be in the company's interest to invest in, and too much innovation can be a dangerous thing. |
| Date | 03:20:56, May 26, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | Intra-city mass transit systems should be state run. Transit between cities should not be. However and to be honest, I was not even considering transportation as a business. Still, arguments can be made against them. Buses get most of their innovation from car manufacturers, rather than themselves. They're not in danger of growing stagnant if they're subsidized. Our only complaint here is that there are better uses for the taxpayer's money than making travel between cities cheaper - like making travel WITHIN cities cheaper. We support a state-owned inner city mass transit system. People who can afford to travel between cities are more likely to be able to afford higher fares, too, while people who are living paycheck to paycheck will be grateful if getting to work is affordable. Unlike buses, trains have much room for innovation and that innovation is lead by the railroad companies themselves. The railroad companies always want to have faster trains, less bumpy trips, more efficient engines, and greater cargo hauling. Furthermore, many construction techniques were invented by railroads that were expanding through difficult terrain. Perhaps a limited, targetted subsidy can be permitted - when they're thinking about expanding to a new area, we can help pay for construction but will cut off funding once the route is laid. A full subsidy doesn't encourage these things, though. Why should they expand to a new area when they're already being paid a lot where they are? Will we increase their subsidies to encourage them to expand? How far will we allow that expense to balloon? |
| Date | 19:15:05, May 27, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | This is such a slippery slope. On the one hand, we don't want to discourage business, but we don't want to encourage inefficiecies. |
| Date | 20:37:49, May 27, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | To prevent from discouraging businesses, we should ensure that we have an open business climate free from over-regulation. Both regulations and subsidies are costly, and both are ultimately bad for the economy. The money we'll save from cutting both can be spent in better ways - such as investments in public works and infrastructure that will open new resources to the market, for instance. |
| Date | 05:30:20, May 28, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | Id always prefer to see our Likaton made cars than Foriegn cars |
| Date | 07:53:57, May 28, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | Yet what if foreign cars are half the cost and run with lower emissions and less gas? We must ensure that in Likaton, true innovators are the ones who succeed, not just the giants that the government chooses to grace with its favor. Competition is good for the consumer, and that includes foreign competition too. |
| Date | 07:53:11, May 29, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | That's true. A healthy and competitive market is one that is consumer friendly. |
| Date | 21:05:39, May 29, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | Are there any other remarks to bring up and address now? |
| Date | 13:37:09, May 30, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | I made an amendment to the bill, which would allow short-term subsidization of construction ventures. |
| Date | 20:28:22, May 30, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | Do corporate subsidies apply to charitable and religious organizations? Do they apply to for profit businesses that provide services to the poor? Like Microcredit (Grameen Bank) for example? |
| Date | 07:22:38, May 31, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | Non-profit and charities should have an exemption status. |
| Date | 13:39:04, May 31, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | A "corporate" subsidy obviously isn't going to apply to a charity, non-profit, or religious organization - those aren't businesses. I shouldn't think it would ever apply to a for-profit business. They shouldn't profit out of other people's taxes, they should profit out of their own business. Note: This probably won't ever be actually brought to vote - it's more a discussion about spending. |
| Date | 04:51:21, June 02, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | I do believe that instituitions like the Grameen Bank represent a new exciting face of capitalism ...with microcredit that can really change the fate of the poor. They will grow into big business over time, but if we gave them a one time boost it could be hugely effective in increasing the incomes of the poor. |
| Date | 13:07:08, June 02, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | OOC: What is microcredit? IC: Our spending is limited, I'll remind you, and as it is now the poor - along with part of the middle class - get to keep their entire income already. This makes it easier to escape poverty in our country than in nearly anywhere, since one can keep their entire income to do with as they choose. |
| Date | 02:43:33, June 04, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | There is no room in our budget for subsidy spending. The LFP will bring this to vote now. It can be repealed later, but for now we need to drastically cut back ALL areas of spending. |
| Date | 03:01:28, June 04, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | Our committment to a balanced budget as well as fiscal restraint forces us to vote for this bill. We would have liked to help the poor by preserving valuable social goods, but unfortunately the Left has forced our hand... |
| Date | 04:13:11, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | Likaton is Unbelievably poor raise taxes. |
| Date | 14:14:25, June 04, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | From a basis of a near-complete ban, we can deliberate on which subsidies to specifically exclude from the ban later. It will force us to carefully examine government expenditures and not waste our money freely. RWLP: Thankfully, our people aren't especially impoverished, just our government. |
| Date | 14:41:13, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | Yes our people are free to squander their gains on stuff that dosent improve their lives. |
| Date | 19:59:02, June 04, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Corporate Subsidy Ban |
| Message | We can't really remove that right. People are free to be stupid, and some of them always will be. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 98 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 13 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 26 |
| Random fact: There is a phpBB forum dedicated to Particracy. Please click the Forum link in the top game menu. Additions to the game, suggestions and discussion is held there so get involved. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson |