Join the new world

Yeah congress has now taken the WT rate out of the bill, which means that we could end up with a 6% WT rate and no rebate system, or a rebate system (set up for 6% WT) and only 5% WT.

Oh and now we have to have an extra congress vote to put the same system into effect. Of course this could all have been put into practice several days ago if we hadn't been faffing with six different amendments, a good deal of which either made no practical difference to the bill, weren't even written properly into the bill or didn't make sense.

And no, Congress are not being kept in the dark over Pluto; the government has not heard anything either. I will be in touch with the other members again to try and find out what is going on.

the MU rebate system is still there with my amendments

Yeah, but congress could end up adopting the rebate system and voting down the 6% rate the system was designed to work with! It would slice away at our income even further

the rebate kicks in when WT is above 3% surely, not just when it's 6%

But the system was not not designed to do that Neil, I set the %'s of the rebate based on a work tax rate of 6%. Giving 3% of the WT back to MU suppliers if they only paid a rate of 4-5% is just going to screw our finances

Tough, that's how the rebate system is going to work ... now

You're so unbelievably petty Neil. Couldn't give a damn about the impact it has on our finances, so long as you get to one-up me

"Giving 3% of the WT back to MU suppliers if they only paid a rate of 4-5%"

That's not how I read the amendments - The amendments stipulate a rebate which creates an effective rate of 3% or 4% if the Work Tax is higher than these rates. So if WT was only 3% there would be no rebates at all - i.e. the rebate will be adjusted to reflect any change in Work Tax that may occur and is not fixed as a specific amount.

That's precisely why I worded my rebate amendments that way Paul. Now Addaway is trying to twist my words to win political points.

As I stated in my reasons, anyone with basic maths can work out how much the rebate is. And we won't have to amend the bill in 3 or 4 places every time the WT rate changes as the rate is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill - something supported by more than one congressman, I believe.

Haha *I'm* the one twisting your words into political points? All you seem to exist for in this game is to try and score points over me Neil

And enough with this nonsense accusation that I was somehow trying to deceive congress when I put the Work Tax rate in the bill; Congress were well aware that it was there and debated it. The merits of having work tax and the rebate system in the same place were clearly set out, and Congress disagreed- that's fine, but have some dignity Neil. Not everything is a scandal, as much as you'd like it to be

I'm entitled to my opinion; that's how I interpreted it

And based off philosophical, logical, rational, and inductive lines of reasoning...


your opinion is crap.

Now that the amendments have been approved, they have to be applied to the main bill which then has to be voted on again.

@Addaway: as you're CP and you proposed the Finance Bill, presumably you can withdraw it if you're now unhappy with the result. In particular, if you think the final bill will be damaging when WT isn't 6%, just ditch it. Congress can't vote in a bill that's been withdrawn.

If Congress votes against the 6% WT, then that's what I will do

I can't see a provision in the Congressional Procedure Act that allows for proposed legislation to be withdrawn once it has begun its passage through Congress if you don't agree with a likely outcome.

Yeah I don't think Addaway can just withdraw it now but he can propose to repeal the act if it passes - but I doubt the result would change unless there was a good reason for people to change their minds which they weren't aware of before (or we get a new Congress.)

He can't repeal an act which hasn't been passed. There's been no final vote.

Yeah I said if it passes...

I can't believe its come to a situation where congress could actually adopt a tax rate meant for a particular rebate system and not the rebate system itself or vice-versa. It's all been made far more complicated that it was ever worth.

Tax change and rebate was meant to be a single package of changes, now its all over the place

Or Addaway, you could of proposed a budget based on the actual current work tax as proposed in your election article, rather than proposing a budget based upon a WT not actually in place...

I would have thought that the person who proposes something can withdraw their proposal if it hasn't been voted on. Otherwise we saying that as soon as something is proposed it takes on a life of its own, and the original proposer, really, doesn't own it any more.

That's anarchy!

I'm confused. Why are budgets treated like their own bills? Surely it just allows for CP's (as Addaway as done) to sneakily put in place other laws and legislation. They should be treated as a sub-bill thing, in which only an actual budget is proposed, based on the current tax income.

Also Addaway, you were complaining not long ago that Neil based his budget off of 4%, but then you go and set yours off of 6%?

And what have you actually done so far, Addaway? We are almost half way through your term, and you have done close to nothing as described in your election articles.

No, his budget was based on 5%, being the WT at the time - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I5HmY-zidyq08AT0HKj9_R30eGJiSCEGGLSnMa7mn_c/edit?pli=1

The Finance Bill as originally proposed was to include a rate of WT that at a sensible rate of 6% would become the norm for the eUK. It did not mean it could never be changed as Congress would as has always been the case have the right to repeal or amend the legislation. But what it would have given us to our benefit was to rid us of the constant unnecessary debate that goes on each time taxes are discussed, where we have a significant number of Congressman who seem to believe their own personal circumstances are more important than that of the eUK as a whole.

The WT still is 5% though, so surely he should be submitting a bill based upon that.

And no tax should become the norm, it should depend on the current situation. Sometimes a high work tax is necessary, other times it's fine to lower it.

I am confused by the last statement, because if the WT could still be changed by amending or removing the legislation, how will this stop discussion on taxes? The only thing it does is it just adds more steps, and makes the process of changing it more complicated than it should be.

IMO, the basic eRepublik Laws should be left alone, the point of the current dictator system the eUK has was meant to allow congress to still have their default powers, not to bury them in extra steps and legislation.

The things you said above, Scarfar, are the exact reasons why I voted against having a set tax in legislation, and why I tried to get other people to vote the same.

If nothing else, reading your reviews will encourage people to think objectively. Because I'm yet to see a single ounce of objectivity in any of your reviews. So, thanks for showing everyone how not to do it!

Did you actually read it?

I found very little bias if any at all. All Neil has done is state what has currently happened in regards to Addaways Budget and France.

Which parts did you find to be bias?

The tone of the article is not even close to being even remotely subtle. I'd suggest you read it again and tell me how it isn't biased.

I see absolutely no reason to set a CP's budget - with or without a tax rate - in law anyway. To me this is over-complicating things.

CP candidates are free to show a budget in their campaign, and then work to that budget if they're elected. Asking Congress to ratify it serves no purpose.