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: Eliminate the luxury tax
Details
Submitted by[?]: Republican Party
Status[?]: passed
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: October 4030
Description[?]:
| Completely remvoed taxes on luxury goods and instead only tax corporations |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on luxury goods.
Old value:: 4
Current: 0
Proposed: 0
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:30:07, May 18, 2016 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Eliminate the luxury tax |
| Message | We have a major revenue problem. We need ideas |
| Date | 02:30:59, May 18, 2016 CET | From | Revolutionary Zennyist Party | To | Debating the Eliminate the luxury tax |
| Message | Hmmm I wonder why there is a revenue problem.... could not be at all that you've completely eliminated most taxes. |
| Date | 02:33:29, May 18, 2016 CET | From | Revolutionary Zennyist Party | To | Debating the Eliminate the luxury tax |
| Message | The Luxury tax after its repealed will literally only leave a tiny corporate tax. In 48 hours you've taken us from a 400 billion SOL defecit to a 470 billion SOL deficit, and once you pass this it will then once again surge to a grand total of about 510 billion SOL. Congrats. Such conservatism. Much fiscal responsibility. |
| Date | 02:58:41, May 18, 2016 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Eliminate the luxury tax |
| Message | We are doing every thing we can right now. We have proposed major cuts and will vote to impose role pay spending caps to prevent the defecit from increasing |
| Date | 03:00:49, May 18, 2016 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Eliminate the luxury tax |
| Message | 70 billion defecit increase is reasonable not too bad considering the defense spending and tax cuts. I think you meant surpluses 400 million |
| Date | 16:19:55, May 19, 2016 CET | From | Libertarian Socialist Confederation | To | Debating the Eliminate the luxury tax |
| Message | (OOC: RZP, you can't refer to RL hours IC.) |
| Date | 16:20:46, May 19, 2016 CET | From | Libertarian Socialist Confederation | To | Debating the Eliminate the luxury tax |
| Message | (OOC: Republican Party, you can't refer to role-play IC.) |
| Date | 16:44:40, May 19, 2016 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Eliminate the luxury tax |
| Message | Ok |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 324 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 278 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "If you're not turned on to politics, politics will turn on you." - Ralph Nader |