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: Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A
Details
Submitted by[?]: Malivianese Militarist Party
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: February 2194
Description[?]:
| The Assembly agrees and orders that: 1. Corporate Taxes will now be assessed at 15% 2. Sales tax for food and essential items are non-existant at 0% 3. Employers cannot fire workers that go on strike 4. Foreign investors may not have a majority share in national companies |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Tax percentage of the profit made by corporations.
Old value:: 12
Current: 5
Proposed: 15
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on essential goods such as food and non-luxury clothing.
Old value:: 1
Current: 0
Proposed: 0
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Employer's rights in regards to firing striking workers.
Old value:: Employers can fire workers who are deemed to have gone on strike without reasonable reasons.
Current: Employers can fire workers who are deemed to have gone on strike without reasonable reasons.
Proposed: Employers cannot fire workers who have gone on strike.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change
The government's policy regarding foreign investments.
Old value:: Foreign investors may freely invest in national companies.
Current: Foreign investors may freely invest in national companies.
Proposed: Foreign investors may invest in national companies, but may not get a majority share.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:31:39, February 23, 2006 CET | From | Imperial Malivian Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | Against |
| Date | 22:32:57, February 23, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | Reasons? |
| Date | 03:34:19, February 24, 2006 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | Against |
| Date | 05:08:44, February 24, 2006 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | Support the first 2 as a better method of taxation. The third raises concern about the rights of the owners of a company. But we feel we can work with it. The last we dislike as we believe in openning our borders and economy to others freely. Malivia should position itself as the crossroads and market for all who wish, and if a company would like to establish itself within our borders, and hire Malivians, we should not limit to what level investment can occur. |
| Date | 18:14:12, February 24, 2006 CET | From | Free Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | We concur with all but article 3. Strikers lacking legitimacy are simply bad employees. |
| Date | 21:38:53, February 24, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | We believe the Protectorate Party has misunderstood the last article... Foreign companies cannot own a majority share of national companies; however, if they wish to establish themselves in the Federation, they will of course own their own company. We are simply protecting the Federation people from foreign ownership. Would the FPA be supportive of the requirement of government approval in regards to Article 3? We simply want to prevent employers from firing workers en masse for what they deem is an unreasonable strike, yet in reality it is... |
| Date | 22:27:30, February 24, 2006 CET | From | Social Democrat League | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | Agreed with article 1 and 2. Disagree with article 3 and 4, the companies don't decide what is an unreasonable reason and we should allow free market. |
| Date | 02:20:42, February 26, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | Then will the SDL be in favor of the government deciding reasonable reasons? |
| Date | 12:18:43, February 26, 2006 CET | From | Social Democrat League | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | Laws stating those reasonable reasons are already in place. |
| Date | 19:48:05, February 26, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | Do you have a link? |
| Date | 22:47:54, February 26, 2006 CET | From | Social Democrat League | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | OOC: Well ... no, not really. I'm just assuming that's the case. I think those reasonable reasons are pretty much the same for everyone (not counting strikes supporting other strikes)/ |
| Date | 20:43:32, February 27, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | OOC: Reasonable reasons are not the same for everyone. In order to ensure rights, you must enumerate them, not just assume they are your's. This was the reasoning behind the Bill of Rights and the reasoning for this proposal here. If you feel government permission is a better alternative, please say so. |
| Date | 21:09:16, February 27, 2006 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 2190 Part A |
| Message | We would like to point out that is the reason why we proposed the rule change #3. Different people can have different interpetations of the law and we would like to settle these issues prior to the bill's vote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 47 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 153 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 59 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." - Vladimir Lenin |