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: Income tax proposal of December 2172
Details
Submitted by[?]: Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes to change income taxes. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2175
Description[?]:
| The Kurui propose to adjust the government's income tax policy to better address the economic situation of the Republic of Pontesi. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 |
| > 15,000 PON | 10% | 121,594,000,000 PON |
| > 45,000 PON | 30% | 84,421,000,000 PON |
| > 60,000 PON | 40% | 245,986,000,000 PON | Total | 452,001,000,000 PON |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:33:15, January 19, 2006 CET | From |  Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry' | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of December 2172 |
| Message | To the GotNation Party - We can agree the spending when we have the money to spend. That class you are referring to is only the upper bracket, CEOs etc. They can give themselves bonuses on top of their wage if they insist, but this means a malevolent CEO has to take that bit longer to save up that nestegg they're making at the company's expense, thus jobs of the employees under them are safer the longer, keeping income disparity down, unemployment down, and giving law enforcement more time to locate those who seek responsibility to abuse the relevent power. At least when a CEO rewards himself through bonuses, it's released to shareholders (who can easily jump ship if they are disaffected and have no obligation to stay other than a share of the profits in a reliable company) and the press if some foul play is suspected, and then the law enforcement community. This way, jobs are secure, the responsibilites that come with great power are enforced, and of course this allows a free market company to exist with the values that a government would want to nationalise an industry for - reliability, secure jobs, whilst maintaining economic competance. Of course those who oppose taxation altogether will see this and think "you're punishing the minority at the cost of the majority" but with the wage packets they're earning, it's not as if we're sending them below the poverty line, nor are we seriously denting their quality of life. To the THEM - The nobility get their incomes from being born to the right person at the right time with the right genetic code under the correct circumstances. Pot luck, not skill, judgement or character. Feudalism is dead - we're a democracy, not a hall of elders. Please bear this in mind. To the FHP - Your stance to this proposal doesn't surprise me in the slightest with regard to your economic standing. However, with flat taxation at such a level you propose, the government would have no money to enforce democratic intent. Crime would be fought by a police force which would be funded by hardly any tax at all. What use would a tax-free foot be when it could be stolen so easily? Simply put, the system would spiral out of control on flat taxation and eventually remove the funding and thus the ability of the government to represent the people. The opposite extreme is by all means also unpleasent, and I'm more than convinced you're in this government because you want to use it's power to protect business and not to bring government down from the inside. We ask you to consider comprimising with us in what we consider a slightly more socialist taxation scheme to drive standards upwards by having more competitors present in it and not psychologically traumatised or disadvantaged by even the most easily preventable of crimes. However, a tax free foot, albeit not as significant as you might perhaps as hoped, would probably be good to get the lower end of the wage pyramid into competition. Having seen your points, Kurui acknowledges that perhaps 40% is a little steep, but put it in place originally to stay in line with the bars already set. We now propose the following: >15, 000 PON - 10% >45, 000 PON - 30% >60, 000 PON - 60% This will give the cabinet a net gain of 38,904,238,492 PON from the old value of 219,846,761,508 PON, the allocation of which to be discussed in a later bill. The adjustments: - The Tax-Free foot is anyone below a wage of 15,000 PON, almost a doubling from that of 8,000 PON previously, although the percentage has gone up from 8% to 10% for this tier. This is to allow low-wage workers to survive without the government taking so much from them, so the quality of life for those workers in essential services improves, and so our infrastructure is more stable. - The tiers now increase linearly with the 30,000 PON tier taken out as an incentive for employees in large corporations to attempt to climb the wage ladder. The next ceiling is much higher at 45,000 PON with the tax at 30%, 3/4 that of the original proposal's third tier which was for wages 2,500 PON less and above. This reduces the hit on those who wield power responsibly. - The top tier at 40% for 60,000 PON is paid only by those who can afford it and with fewer places to rise to in the heirarchy of jobs. Their quality of life will not be too badly affected by this. Having introduced the FHP's request for a larger tax-free foot, addressed the GotNation's concern about incentives, reduced the percentages as suggested by the PFC, and proposed to give the government more to spend on helping the people it represents, the Kurui now puts this revised bill on the table. |
| Date | 03:55:58, January 19, 2006 CET | From | Pontesi Fascist Coalition | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of December 2172 |
| Message | We see this as sensible legislation that will encourage growth while meeting then needs of a centralized state. You have our support. |
| Date | 19:34:45, January 19, 2006 CET | From | GotNation Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of December 2172 |
| Message | The is 'equality of outcome' at its worst, punishing success and hard work to benefit the lazy. The GotNation party supports leveling of the playing field, but not leveling of the final score. This adjustment punishes the middle class and successful for being over achievers, and for what? To pad a government budget that is already showing a surplus. The effect is to tell the people that they are not qualified to decide how to spend their hard earned money, but that we the legislators are much better qualified to make those decisions. |
| Date | 23:13:45, January 19, 2006 CET | From | Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry' | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of December 2172 |
| Message | You assume that everyone that is unemployed is lazy. This doesn't stand when there are those who are handicapped or have been made redundant and are seeking jobs. This does NOT punish the middle class, in fact, it gives them a break from the current scheme! The only higher boundary is the last one, so it only takes more from those who already have a lot more than everyone else. At least half of those jobs are jobs such as CEOs who are basically touring spokespeople with large wallets for very little work. |
| Date | 23:25:44, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Union of Duntrekkers | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of December 2172 |
| Message | The top tier still seems too low. Look how much more it raises, which suggests that the number of people paying the maximum rate is equal too, if not more than, the number of people paying the medium tier. We therefore suggest that this third tier is raised to at least 100k. |
| Date | 00:49:59, January 23, 2006 CET | From | One Nation Conservative Party | To | Debating the Income tax proposal of December 2172 |
| Message | This bill will only result in increased taxes for the majority of Pontesians. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 142 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 157 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where players have failed to clearly and accurately reference their nation's RP laws in the "Bills under debate" section, Moderation will rule them invalid if a challenge is made to their validity. |
| Random quote: "The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain |