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: Budget proposal of January 4019
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Front
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill proposes to change the allocation of funds in the budget. 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: January 4020
Description[?]:
| The The National Front Party propose to adjust the government's spending budget to better address the economic and social situation of the Federal Republic of Beluzia. |
Proposals
Article 1
| Ministry | Current Budget | Old Budget | Propesed Budget |
| Head of Government | 550,000 BEL | 10,000,000 BEL | 10,000,000 BEL |
| Foreign Affairs | 220,000,000 BEL | 50,000,000 BEL | 50,000,000 BEL |
| Internal Affairs | 1,300,000,000 BEL | 200,000,000 BEL | 200,000,000 BEL |
| Finance | 1,000,000,000 BEL | 1,755,000,000 BEL | 1,755,000,000 BEL |
| Defence | 1,070,000,000 BEL | 35,000,000,000 BEL | 35,000,000,000 BEL |
| Justice | 9,300,000,000 BEL | 7,000,000,000 BEL | 7,000,000,000 BEL |
| Infrastructure and Transport | 10,000,000,000 BEL | 11,900,000,000 BEL | 10,900,000,000 BEL |
| Health and Social Services | 42,600,000,000 BEL | 58,000,000,000 BEL | 58,000,000,000 BEL |
| Education and Culture | 50,000,000,000 BEL | 42,000,000,000 BEL | 42,000,000,000 BEL |
| Science and Technology | 14,000,000,000 BEL | 17,100,000,000 BEL | 17,100,000,000 BEL |
| Food and Agriculture | 13,000,000,000 BEL | 17,000,000,000 BEL | 17,000,000,000 BEL |
| Environment and Tourism | 1,600,000,000 BEL | 25,000,000,000 BEL | 22,000,000,000 BEL |
| Trade and Industry | 8,500,000,000 BEL | 25,000,000,000 BEL | 22,000,000,000 BEL |
| Total | 152,590,550,000 BEL | 240,015,000,000 BEL | 233,015,000,000 BEL |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:17:47, April 25, 2016 CET | From | Party of Liberty | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | This proposal is to FIX the failure that the Social Liberal party has imposed on this great country by taking it swiftly out of the deficit and into the green without harming vital services such as Healthcare, and simply going back on several spending increases made by the Social Liberals in areas less needed. We need to reverse the wreckless Crosby Budget Plan and bring this country back into a surplus. Thank you. |
| Date | 21:20:45, April 25, 2016 CET | From | National Front | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | Just for the information of all parties. Infrastructure and transport: This is still 1 billion BEL up from the original spending plan before the social-liberal budget. Envirnoment: This is still 1 billion BEL up from the original budget. Trade and Industry: This is still 2 Billion up from the original budget. This is a comprise that will give the nation a surplus of just over 2 Billion. We hope all parties will agree to this comprise and not to a tax increase when taxes have just been reduced. |
| Date | 22:08:42, April 25, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | We are not accepting this. What we want is not more cuts. Want to reach an agreement. How about we use a tax on corporations, which was slashed hard thanks to the glorious theory of Trickle Down economics. If it were not for your instance in making the rich richer, we would not be in this mess. |
| Date | 22:52:12, April 25, 2016 CET | From | Party of Liberty | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | Don't try and paint the picture that we're cutting trillions of of everything. In the bigger picture, there is /still/ an increase in all the areas increased in the Crosby Plan. Just not so much that we are not in deficit. If you had not put through the Crosby Plan we would not be in this mess - do not blame our attempt at increasing employment as the cause of this. Businesses expand and create jobs to make more money - this is the nature of business. |
| Date | 23:00:40, April 25, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | The Income taxes are not equal to corporate taxes. This is on individual incomes, not corporate profits. |
| Date | 23:20:45, April 25, 2016 CET | From | Party of Liberty | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | Yes, but you were talking about corporate tax. You did say "how about we use a tax on corporations" |
| Date | 23:46:53, April 25, 2016 CET | From | National Front | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | The Social liberal party drove this nation into a deficit. The income tax plan put forward by the Government was clearly shown that there would be a surplus. The Social-liberal party then moved on to create a spending plan that would not match the new taxation policy of the cabinet. I ask, looking back now would the Social- liberal party hold their hands up and say they got it wrong after this party asked them to hold off voting on their spending plans until the taxation bill failed or not, this would have allowed the Social-liberal party to use real numbers to plan the spending increases not pick them from what they hope would be the outcome. I would also like to thank The Party of Liberty for making it clear that this new spending plan involves NO CUTS at all from the original budget ( before the social liberal party spending plan) in fact if you look at the budget before the Social liberals threw us into a deficit then this spending plan increases spending by over 15,000,000,000 BEL. That is a comprise but the social liberal party needs to accept that this new spending plan still holds all the key features and spending increases they wanted just at a rate that the Government can afford. |
| Date | 02:51:07, April 26, 2016 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | This plan has the Republican parties full support. Although we did not see the reason for increased spending in the first place, we are glad that a new plan has been developed, which will bring us out of a deficit. We applaud the National Front Party for trying to compromise with SLP, while making the smart decision of bringing us out of a deficit. Well done National Front Party |
| Date | 13:14:33, April 26, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | You never said to wait on the spending plan, look at the bills for proof. Don't try to fabricate lies on what we did and did not do We are proposing a tax plan that is still lower than it was before you passed your disaster, and it was know since my luxury goods tax bill that I was planning on proposing a spending bill. Again, if you want proof, look back. I was going to propose that bill anyway and it would have had a surplus if you did not cut taxes. Really, it is you that brought us into this mess by exploiting the gap between the luxury tax and spending bills. |
| Date | 14:54:49, April 26, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | You know what, I will just abstain on all economical proposals. We are mostly fiscal conservative, but we also have a few elements of economic liberalism, which results in our party not really having an official stance |
| Date | 15:02:36, April 26, 2016 CET | From | Party of Liberty | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | Even if he had not said to wait on the spending plan, it is simple common sense. Could you not see that it was going to drive us into deficit if you proposed this disastrous Crosby plan? It seems sad that other parties have to point this sort of thing out. |
| Date | 15:03:15, April 26, 2016 CET | From | Party of Liberty | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | And we are proposing a spending plan that is still higher than the initial value. We believe that this is a better course of action. |
| Date | 17:20:12, April 26, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | The point of the plan was that we would have a surplus under the tax laws that the plan was devised in. That was our economic plan and we went ahead with it. It is surely a good course of action to keep these programs at Crosby plan levels. And again, we still cut taxes if we go with the other tax plan, just not as much. We both really have the same argument, just one flipped over the other. |
| Date | 17:36:04, April 26, 2016 CET | From | Party of Liberty | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | But the real argument here is it's effectiveness. A 1% tax change is not going to be effective at all, while a 1 BILLION BEL spending increase is going to change a lot, and more so in some areas. The spending increases proposed here will still do a lot of good, however the tax proposal you have proposed will not do as much good as this and we would prefer to keep them doing as good as they are doing now. |
| Date | 17:43:45, April 26, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the Budget proposal of January 4019 |
| Message | Well, if you are saying that spending increases do more then why are you voting to cut spending. This spending will go do a lot more for our society than cutting taxes will. More spending will create public sector jobs and help our environment and poor more than tax cuts will. Also, with regards to 1%, when you make 20000 BEL that 1% makes a difference. Yes, not as much as 2%, but it is still a difference. Not to mention the creation of public sector jobs and the other benefits mentioned. This will allow us to create more jobs. Did I also mention the infrastructure jobs that this spending proposal will cut. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 508 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 194 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 48 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, special care must be taken to ensure realism is maintained when role-playing a government controlled by an ethnic and/or religious minority. If it is to be supposed that this government is supported by a majority of the population, then this should be plausibly and sufficiently role-played. The burden of proof is on the player or players role-playing such a regime to demonstrate that it is being done realistically |
| Random quote: "You don't have to buy from anyone. You don't have to work at any particular job. You don't have to participate in any given relationship. You can choose." - Harry Browne |