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: Restoration of Subsidies for Public Transportation Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: SLP-Libertarian Alliance
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 4021
Description[?]:
| We would like to restore full bus subsidies to reduce the cost of public transportation for all citizens. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Funding of public transport (where applicable).
Old value:: Public transport is fully subsidised for people with low-income, with the remainder "user-pays".
Current: Public transport is fully subsidised for people with low-income, with the remainder "user-pays".
Proposed: Public transport is fully subsidised by the government.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:54:31, April 29, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the Restoration of Subsidies for Public Transportation Act |
| Message | Having trabsport subsidies actually reduces the cost of using the mass transport system on individuals while still allowing the companies to operate. This is a great way to have our citizens daily commuting costs reduced, allowing them to spend more and contributing to the economy. |
| Date | 21:15:53, April 29, 2016 CET | From | Beluz National Freedom Union | To | Debating the Restoration of Subsidies for Public Transportation Act |
| Message | We wish to address the notion that subsidies are perfectly benign in all respects for all citizens. A full subsidy means that the price which a consumer sees is completely reduced. This increases the usage of public transport by the laws of supply and demand. This also however means that companies can charge essentially any price without any moderating effects of supply and demand. That means that companies see the government as blank check and can charge any prices they want. The government must pay this price of the subsidy with taxpayer money. That means it has a re distributive effect since the wealthy pay higher percentage of income in taxes. This means that while the price to the poor is the same with the low income subsidy and the full subsidy, the price for others is raised with the full subsidy. For this reason the full subsidy should not be implemented and we will vote against it. |
| Date | 23:24:00, April 29, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the Restoration of Subsidies for Public Transportation Act |
| Message | Firstly, by paying for transportation, the demand will go up.However, wouldn't there still be incentives to keep prices where they are now, and have the subsidy lower cost. In particular, we have to look at competition. The large variety of transport methods creates competition between various methods. If transport companies instead raise prices, wouldn't that cut into their demand. People would find it easier, and in some cases cheaper, to take a car, thus reducing profit. Competition between transportation types will keep prices down, thus reducing overall daily spending on transport. Also, the way (OOC: At least I interpret) this policy works is that the subsidy covers the full cost of transport. So, this if effectively a subsidy on the operations of transportation, which will still cut the costs for an average consumer. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 237 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 405 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 108 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to be accurate when communicating the rules to other players. Any player who manipulatively misleads another player about the rules will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice." - Friedrich August von Hayek |