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 4517
Details
Submitted by[?]: Patriotic League
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 4518
Description[?]:
. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The professional retirement age.
Old value:: 55
Current: 55
Proposed: 65
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on luxury goods.
Old value:: 20
Current: 3
Proposed: 0
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Employer's rights in regards to firing striking workers.
Old value:: Employers cannot fire workers who have gone on strike.
Current: Employers cannot fire workers who have gone on strike.
Proposed: Employers are free to fire workers who go on strike.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on minimum wage regulation.
Old value:: There shall be a minimum wage at a level that a full time worker on it can support a family of four without falling under the poverty line.
Current: There shall be a minimum wage at a level considered a "living wage," well above the poverty line for a full time worker.
Proposed: There is no provision for a minimum wage.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 14:55:16, January 18, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | Although we might reopen the issue of the retirement age in the future,this bill is beneficial to support for now |
Date | 14:57:13, January 18, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | Article 2 is alao somewhat of an issue as the Finance Minister can inform us in detail the removal of the tax although beneficial may lead to a budget deficit |
Date | 15:03:21, January 18, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | Removing the luxury goods tax would take us out of our nice surplus and put the government funding into a deficit. We're always up for cutting taxes, but never for putting the government on a road which would lead to debt. |
Date | 20:09:07, January 18, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | We will absolutely refuse to support this bill if articles 1 and 3 remain. |
Date | 20:25:22, January 18, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | We have decided to support this legislation and after it passes,we shall propose another bill reducing the retirement age to 60 from the 65 and increasing the luxury goods tax to 5% so that the deficit is removed |
Date | 20:28:49, January 18, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | Also we could also propose to also change the legislation in regards to firing workers who have gone on strike to “Employers can fire workers who are deemed to have gone on strike without reasonable reasons.” |
Date | 20:39:26, January 18, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | Maybe. |
Date | 22:12:40, January 18, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | LDP Deputies, Under your current policy of privatization, passing laws which would allow employers to fire workers for striking and removing the minimum wage is extremely dangerous to the common Kalistani. This could leave our citizens impoverished and/or unemployed. However, if the plight of the common Kalistani doesn't convince you to change your stance on your bill, think about it this way: These freshly impoverished and unemployed workers will likely be upset by the current administration's attack against them and may flock to the ideology which claims to hold them preeminent, socialism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but representatives of the LDP have stated many times their opposition to socialism, so why would it want to take actions which would push more people towards supporting it? Deputy Keane Farrel (NCP - Neveras) Leader of the NCP Minority |
Date | 22:40:41, January 18, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | Exactly. For a party that decries Socialism, they seem eager to push the public towards it. |
Date | 22:48:29, January 18, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | From the Finance Ministry: The current surplus is valued at 315 b KRB. We have been running a surplus for a very long time and using this surplus as needed to carry on operations not budgeted for annually. We would also use this surplus for one time expenditures as needed, like, for example, rearming the Republic. The luxury tax accounts for 327 be KRB. Meaning that the surplus and thensome of our general operating budget on top of that is entirely funded by the luxury tax. As this amounts to a wealth tax, usually charged on non-necessities, if we were to cut taxes, the finance minister would prefer to cut income taxes, and leave the wealth tax alone. The income tax is on production by industrious people. The luxury tax is on consumption by idle people. But the math says that the abolition of the luxury tax will put Kalistan in the red for the first time in more than 100 years, and will jeopardize any modernization we had in mind, as well as the status quo budget. It would be fiscally irresponsible to vote to abolish the luxury tax without a corresponding increase in taxes elsewhere. |
Date | 22:52:05, January 18, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | If the President’s Party opposes this bill and seeks to alter it immediately after it passes, why not just vote against this one and propose the bill the President’s Party would like passed instead. No doubt the League will still support it, as it hurts Workers as much as possible, and no doubt the parties who oppose it currently will still do so, and it will pass, but it won’t throw us into a deficit situation. We urge the Liberals to oppose this bill. |
Date | 22:57:04, January 18, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | The plea’s that have come from our coalition partners has been very concerning. With the intervention of the President, the deputies have changed their mind,the LDP will abstain from voting for this proposal. |
Date | 02:45:28, January 19, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Economic Reform Act of 4517 |
Message | We thank the President for his wisdom in this matter. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes |
Total Seats: 56 | |||
no |
Total Seats: 124 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 70 |
Random fact: Players should not role-play characters without the consent of the owner, and if they find they have role-played the character beyond what the owner intended, they should withdraw or amend the role-play appropriately. |
Random quote: "Laundry is the only thing that should be separated by color." - Author Unknown |