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: Public Transport Pay Act 2182
Details
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: August 2182
Description[?]:
| How can our workforce get to work if they don't have any transportation? |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Funding of public transport (where applicable).
Old value:: Public transport is fully user-pays.
Current: Local governments decide upon the funding policy.
Proposed: Public transport is fully subsidised for people with low-income, with the remainder "user-pays".
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:39:49, February 06, 2006 CET | From | Judean People's Front | To | Debating the Public Transport Pay Act 2182 |
| Message | nononononono Thats not how it works. I remind the legislature of simple urban economics. The poor people, being, those that cannot afford as much transportation expense as other people, live closer to their place of work ( the CBD) , and pay more in rent (per acre) because of it. HOWEVER, the poor people hardly ever live on an acre of land, and more likely, they live in a 15 story high rise on 1/8 acre of land (so their rent is cheap). The richer people live farther away because they CAN afford to spend more money and time on transportation, and land. All subsidizing transportation would do is hasten the process of surburbanization and sprawl, not to mention a larger radius of crime, plague, and on top of that higher rent rates for everyone involved. You say "How can our workforce get to work if they don't have any transportation?" out of sympathy for the poor. A simple assumption of socialist thought is that poor people are useless unless the government dictates their every action. However, the poor can afford to get to work even without subsidies. The Transportation system still exists!! it is just more expensive. It forces the poor to make better choices regarding the places they live and better choices regarding their personal expenditures. I vote no, out of sanity, and urge you to reconsider putting this to a vote. |
| Date | 22:44:22, February 06, 2006 CET | From | United Beiteynu Party | To | Debating the Public Transport Pay Act 2182 |
| Message | Again, JPF is correct. |
| Date | 02:54:23, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Judean People's Front | To | Debating the Public Transport Pay Act 2182 |
| Message | Again, You say "How can our workforce get to work if they don't have any transportation?" out of sympathy for the poor. A simple assumption of socialist thought is that poor people are useless unless the government dictates their every action. |
| Date | 05:25:38, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Kadima | To | Debating the Public Transport Pay Act 2182 |
| Message | I recognize that poor people can get to work if they live near work by walking or whatever, however, like it or not, I believe our communities would be better if they were less urban, as I believe we would see stronger, tighter, healthier, and more viable communities. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 110 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 272 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 98 |
| Random fact: Periodically, it is a good idea to go through your nation's Treaties and arrange to withdraw from any that are unwanted. |
| Random quote: "I have opinions of my own - strong opinions. But I don't always agree with them." - George W. Bush |