Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Taxation Revised

[Dan <wald7330@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

oops.  Joel is right, my quoted message below should revise 436, not 431.
I'm changing that now.

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Quoth Dan:
> > [[I have provided a means by which the PTR can be changed, and also an
> > initial value of 3%.  This is nweekly. 20%/nweek would be excessive.  2%
> > of 100 is only 3 points, which would not be too hard on one of the newly
> > rich.]]
> > 
> > 
> > \begin{proposal}
> > \title{Tax the Rich!}
> > \number{431}
> > 
> > 1. Enact a new rule entitled "Taxation" with text as follows:
> > 
> > The Property Tax Rate is a variable associated with the Game.  It can be
> > changed only as described in the rules.  The Property Tax Rate may be
> > neither greater than 0.1 nor less than 0.
> > 
> > Upon Adoption of this rule set the Property Tax Rate to 0.03 and delete
> > this paragraph.
> > 
> > At the end of each nweek each agent, but not the Bank, whose score is
> > greater than 100 points, owes the Tax Rate times their score at the
> > beginning of that nweek, rounded down, in points to the bank.
> > 
> > If, at the end of an nweek, the score of that one or more agents as of the
> > beginning of that nweek is not known, the Official Bean Counter is fined
> > 20 points, and calculation of the taxation for that agent or agents is put
> > off until such time as eir score is calculated.
> > 
> > 2.  Enact a new rule entitled "Changing the Property Tax Rate"
> > 
> > The Motion to Set the Property Tax Rate is a Unilateral Secondary Motion
> > that takes effect only if the Banker and the Tax collector publicly
> > announce their approval.  If the offices of the Banker and the Tax
> > Collector are held by the same person then it is an Approvable motion
> > not subject to unanimous consent.
> > 
> > The value specified by the Motion to Set the Property Tax Rate becomes the
> > new Property Tax Rate when the motion takes effect.
> > 
> > \end{proposal}
> > 
> > 
> 
> I presume you meant this to be a revision of P436, rather than P431?
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 
>