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: National Wealth Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tenshi no Kami
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: January 2222
Description[?]:
... |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding child benefit.
Old value:: The state does not provide child benefit.
Current: The state guarantees child benefit to both low-income families and large families.
Proposed: The state guarantees child benefit to families classified as low-income or poor.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Guarantee of minimum income.
Old value:: There shall be no direct cash payments to individuals to guarantee a minimum income.
Current: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a reasonable, though not high, standard of living by the government.
Proposed: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 09:14:32, May 02, 2006 CET | From | Bachelor Party | To | Debating the National Wealth Act |
Message | We feel that this bill would serve to impose government intervention upon the private matters of families and individuals. Further, it would dilute the strong incentives to achievement that currently exist in Zardugal and have made ours a strong nation of achievers. This can only result in weakining our nation and our people. We oppose strongly. - Maya Certz, Bachelor Party Advisor, Health and Social Services |
Date | 12:35:55, May 02, 2006 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the National Wealth Act |
Message | Not to mention, it would make a buncha broke people actually poor... and I'm sure the finance ministry is unlikly to release funds for it. |
Date | 17:29:45, May 02, 2006 CET | From | Jacobin Society | To | Debating the National Wealth Act |
Message | I'm not sure I'm too keen on this either. The Society likes the idea of a (very) minimum wage, but we don't agree with child benefit (for the above mentioned reasons). Sorry, we're gonna vote "No" on this one. |
Date | 23:52:12, May 02, 2006 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the National Wealth Act |
Message | Since we have a newb in here, I'm going to make my basic arguement against welfare. There is a difference between 'broke' and 'poor'. Now, the way things work in Zardugal right now, if you're poor, you're really, really poor. You have nothing to do anything, and rely on the kindness of strangers to provide you with everything, because the state won't. It's not that the state is cold-hearted, no, in fact we want very much for the lower classes to succeed and earn more money, and we'd like to do everything possible to put more money in your pocket, instead of taking it out before you can spend it. The advantage to this somewhat harsh system is that there comes to be no entitlement mentality. Immigrants to the nation know they must either work, or fall destitute. Citizens know the same, and know they must work to get anything they have, but the big plus is, when they do, they can be confident to know that their money is not going to support anyone that's not working like they are to live. The literal definition of poor is: # Having little or no wealth and few or no possessions. # Lacking in a specified resource or quality: an area poor in timber and coal; a diet poor in calcium. # Not adequate in quality; inferior: a poor performance. 1. Lacking in value; insufficient: poor wages. 2. Lacking in quantity: poor attendance. # Lacking fertility: # Undernourished; lean. # Humble: a poor spirit. # Eliciting or deserving pity I am of the particular belief that calling someone 'poor' should be insulting. You're telling them they're inadequate, of low quality, and you're implying that you're better than they are. It is my firm belief that those with low income are not 'poor', but 'broke'. Let's look at that definition. Now of course there are too many to look at, but let's focus on one in particular. # To be without money; to go into bankruptcy. What that says to me is that being broke is a temporary circumstance. And in our nation, this is almost inherantly true. If all you need to do is live, you are taxed a mere two percent, and only when you purchase something. You get to keep the very vast majority of your money, making it easier for you to live on less money, compared to a place, where, even if you are at the lowest rungs of society, you must still pay to help others worse off than you are, even if you don't want to. Again, I'm not saying that helping those worse off than you is a bad thing, but being forced to is. Being broke is a temporary situation, a setback, something that with work and dedication, will pass. Being poor never changes, never ends, and I want no one within my nation to be so disenfranchied, so low, so lacking in confidence that they feel poor. I don't want anyone to be broke either, but it happens to everyone, and I'd like to feel that someone helping you out of the kidness of their heart is far preferrable, both in principle and practice, than someone forced to do so unwillingly. Shuu Rei "Kento" Fuan Consul, Zardugal |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes |
Total Seats: 149 | ||||
no |
Total Seats: 184 | ||||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Particracy has been running since 2005. Dorvik was Particracy's first nation, the Dorvik Social Democrats the first party and the International Greens the first Party Organisation. |
Random quote: "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." - Albert Einstein |