Minarchist States wrote:Guys, these are tax CAPS. Under this act, the socialist government cannot raise taxes ABOVE these values.
Agh, I always have trouble with compromise.
I suppose stealing less than 75% is better than stealing more :/
Advertisement
by Joe Washington » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:45 pm
Minarchist States wrote:Guys, these are tax CAPS. Under this act, the socialist government cannot raise taxes ABOVE these values.
▇▇▇▇▇▇
...Anarcho-capitalist...
Christian Fundamental
One people, under God.
▇▇▇▇▇▇
God made you special
And He loves you very much!
Such is my manifesto.
▇▇▇▇▇▇
Do you want to know where spiritual anarchists hide themselves?
You will find them on the thrones of worldly tyrannies!
▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇
by Zurkerx » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:48 pm
Minarchist States wrote:Guys, these are tax CAPS. Under this act, the socialist government cannot raise taxes ABOVE these values.
by Joe Washington » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:49 pm
Zurkerx wrote:Minarchist States wrote:Guys, these are tax CAPS. Under this act, the socialist government cannot raise taxes ABOVE these values.
Yes I know, but don't you think we should lower the cap so they can take less money? Alright, disregard my old numbers. How about 15, 30, 45? It's just a suggestion by the way.
▇▇▇▇▇▇
...Anarcho-capitalist...
Christian Fundamental
One people, under God.
▇▇▇▇▇▇
God made you special
And He loves you very much!
Such is my manifesto.
▇▇▇▇▇▇
Do you want to know where spiritual anarchists hide themselves?
You will find them on the thrones of worldly tyrannies!
▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇
by Minarchist States » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:02 pm
Zurkerx wrote:Minarchist States wrote:Guys, these are tax CAPS. Under this act, the socialist government cannot raise taxes ABOVE these values.
Yes I know, but don't you think we should lower the cap so they can take less money? Alright, disregard my old numbers. How about 15, 30, 45? It's just a suggestion by the way.
Tax caps if done correctly are something I could support, if done poorly then it's something which could ruin the country...
by Zurkerx » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:14 pm
by Zurkerx » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:15 pm
by Minarchist States » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:22 pm
Zurkerx wrote:
The 45% part I would assume?
by Zurkerx » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:24 pm
by Minarchist States » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:48 pm
by Inyourfaceistan » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:46 pm
by Battlion » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:53 pm
Inyourfaceistan wrote:How about 2.5% flat tax, assuming we HAVE to have an income tax...
by Ainin » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:54 pm
First Amendment to the Broadcasting Act
Author: Ainin [TR] | Urgency: Very Low | SIMBEDS: Domestic Development
Sponsors:
The Senate of the Aurentine Commonwealth,
Noting that the Aurentisë Televisënetwörk, as Aurentina's public broadcaster, was prohibited from carrying any form of commercial advertising by the Broadcasting Act,
Acknowledging that this clause was flawed and that advertising revenues are essential to keeping television networks profitable and financially viable,
Wishing to reduce the strain imposed by the activities of the Aurentisë Televisënetwörk on the Budget of the Aurentine Government,
The following act, to be referenced to as the First Amendment to the Broadcasting Act of 2013, is passed into law:
The clause of Section IV of the Broadcasting Act reading "ATN shall not carry any advertising, save for Public Service Announcements" is struck out and rendered null and void.
by Joe Washington » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:54 pm
Inyourfaceistan wrote:How about 2.5% flat tax, assuming we HAVE to have an income tax...
▇▇▇▇▇▇
...Anarcho-capitalist...
Christian Fundamental
One people, under God.
▇▇▇▇▇▇
God made you special
And He loves you very much!
Such is my manifesto.
▇▇▇▇▇▇
Do you want to know where spiritual anarchists hide themselves?
You will find them on the thrones of worldly tyrannies!
▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇
by Inyourfaceistan » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:55 pm
Ainin wrote:Thoughts?First Amendment to the Broadcasting Act
Author: Ainin [TR] | Urgency: Very Low | SIMBEDS: Domestic Development
Sponsors:
The Senate of the Aurentine Commonwealth,
Noting that the Aurentisë Televisënetwörk, as Aurentina's public broadcaster, was prohibited from carrying any form of commercial advertising by the Broadcasting Act,
Acknowledging that this clause was flawed and that advertising revenues are essential to keeping television networks profitable and financially viable,
Wishing to reduce the strain imposed by the activities of the Aurentisë Televisënetwörk on the Budget of the Aurentine Government,
The following act, to be referenced to as the First Amendment to the Broadcasting Act of 2013, is passed into law:
The clause of Section IV of the Broadcasting Act reading "ATN shall not carry any advertising, save for Public Service Announcements" is struck out and rendered null and void.
by Inyourfaceistan » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:02 pm
Ainin wrote:Is that enough to get a sponsorship? Because right now, ATN's just randomly sitting there guzzling up £90,000,000.
by Minarchist States » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:07 pm
Ainin wrote:Thoughts?First Amendment to the Broadcasting Act
Author: Ainin [TR] | Urgency: Very Low | SIMBEDS: Domestic Development
Sponsors:
The Senate of the Aurentine Commonwealth,
Noting that the Aurentisë Televisënetwörk, as Aurentina's public broadcaster, was prohibited from carrying any form of commercial advertising by the Broadcasting Act,
Acknowledging that this clause was flawed and that advertising revenues are essential to keeping television networks profitable and financially viable,
Wishing to reduce the strain imposed by the activities of the Aurentisë Televisënetwörk on the Budget of the Aurentine Government,
The following act, to be referenced to as the First Amendment to the Broadcasting Act of 2013, is passed into law:
The clause of Section IV of the Broadcasting Act reading "ATN shall not carry any advertising, save for Public Service Announcements" is struck out and rendered null and void.
by Battlion » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:15 pm
Protection of Workers Act
Urgency: Moderate | Author: Battlion [NDP] | Category: Order
Co-sponsors: Gothmogs [PDP], NEO Rome Republic [NDP], Macedonian Grand Empire [RefP], Finium [NCP], Bering [NDP]
Preamble
An Act of the Senate of Aurentina to make it an offence to assault certain persons in the course of
or by reason of their employment; and for connected purposes.
Section I – Assault of Workers
1. A person, being a member of the public, who assaults a worker ––(a) in the course of that worker’s employment, or
2. No offence is committed —
(b) by reason of that worker’s employment, commits an offence.(a) under subsection (1)(a) unless the person who assaults knows or ought to know that the worker is acting in the course of the worker’s employment,
3. In this section—
(b) under subsection (1)(b) unless the assault is motivated, in whole or in part, by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.“worker” means a person whose employment involves dealing with members of the public, to any extent, but only if that employment involves —
(a) being physically present in the same place and at the same time as one or
4. Evidence from a single source is sufficient evidence to establish for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a person is a worker.
more members of the public, and
(b) (either or both)—(i) interacting with those members of the public for the purposes of the employment, or
“employment” means any paid or unpaid work whether under a contract, apprenticeship, or otherwise.
(ii) providing a service to either particular members of the public or the
public generally,
Section II – Penalties
1. A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine of which a Judge may determine upon sentencing.
by Joe Washington » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:46 pm
Battlion wrote:Protection of Workers Act
Urgency: Moderate | Author: Battlion [NDP] | Category: Order
Co-sponsors: Gothmogs [PDP], NEO Rome Republic [NDP], Macedonian Grand Empire [RefP], Finium [NCP], Bering [NDP]
Preamble
An Act of the Senate of Aurentina to make it an offence to assault certain persons in the course of
or by reason of their employment; and for connected purposes.
Section I – Assault of Workers
1. A person, being a member of the public, who assaults a worker ––(a) in the course of that worker’s employment, or
2. No offence is committed —
(b) by reason of that worker’s employment, commits an offence.(a) under subsection (1)(a) unless the person who assaults knows or ought to know that the worker is acting in the course of the worker’s employment,
3. In this section—
(b) under subsection (1)(b) unless the assault is motivated, in whole or in part, by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.“worker” means a person whose employment involves dealing with members of the public, to any extent, but only if that employment involves —
(a) being physically present in the same place and at the same time as one or
4. Evidence from a single source is sufficient evidence to establish for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a person is a worker.
more members of the public, and
(b) (either or both)—(i) interacting with those members of the public for the purposes of the employment, or
“employment” means any paid or unpaid work whether under a contract, apprenticeship, or otherwise.
(ii) providing a service to either particular members of the public or the
public generally,
Section II – Penalties
1. A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine of which a Judge may determine upon sentencing.
Sponsors please x
▇▇▇▇▇▇
...Anarcho-capitalist...
Christian Fundamental
One people, under God.
▇▇▇▇▇▇
God made you special
And He loves you very much!
Such is my manifesto.
▇▇▇▇▇▇
Do you want to know where spiritual anarchists hide themselves?
You will find them on the thrones of worldly tyrannies!
▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇
by Minarchist States » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:52 pm
Battlion wrote:Protection of Workers Act
Urgency: Moderate | Author: Battlion [NDP] | Category: Order
Co-sponsors: Gothmogs [PDP], NEO Rome Republic [NDP], Macedonian Grand Empire [RefP], Finium [NCP], Bering [NDP]
Preamble
An Act of the Senate of Aurentina to make it an offence to assault certain persons in the course of
or by reason of their employment; and for connected purposes.
Section I – Assault of Workers
1. A person, being a member of the public, who assaults a worker ––(a) in the course of that worker’s employment, or
2. No offence is committed —
(b) by reason of that worker’s employment, commits an offence.(a) under subsection (1)(a) unless the person who assaults knows or ought to know that the worker is acting in the course of the worker’s employment,
3. In this section—
(b) under subsection (1)(b) unless the assault is motivated, in whole or in part, by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.“worker” means a person whose employment involves dealing with members of the public, to any extent, but only if that employment involves —
(a) being physically present in the same place and at the same time as one or
4. Evidence from a single source is sufficient evidence to establish for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a person is a worker.
more members of the public, and
(b) (either or both)—(i) interacting with those members of the public for the purposes of the employment, or
“employment” means any paid or unpaid work whether under a contract, apprenticeship, or otherwise.
(ii) providing a service to either particular members of the public or the
public generally,
Section II – Penalties
1. A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine of which a Judge may determine upon sentencing.
Sponsors please x
by Inyourfaceistan » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:22 pm
Minarchist States wrote:Inyourfaceistan wrote:
Which ones? The ones who want to expand the power of the state at the expense of invidual liberty, weaken all political opposition and monopolize their standing in government, create a state-controlled economy with heavy regulations and possible nationalization of private property and restrict the right of the people to self-defense; or the ones who wear snazzy symbols and think absolutism is hip?
by Skeckoa » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:59 pm
Minarchist States wrote:The Freedom From Taxation Act
Authored by: Minarchist States (LPA)
Sponsors:
Urgency: Low
Preamble: In several recent years it has come to our attention that even in the most affluent countries, some households are forced to pay high, debilitating taxes that harm the economy by driving away both the upper and middle classes while stagnating the lower class and forcing them to keep being poor. Also, we understand that large amounts of assets and debts that could push people - particularly the rich - into rates as high or higher than 75%,as exemplified by some households in France,while doing nothing particular for the economybut only add a few hundred million to the country's coffers. On that note,
This Act shall be passed with the goal of prohibiting the government fromcollecting too much money in taxes on different wealth classes,overtaxing its citizens as well as preventing citizenstofrom becoming too overwhelmed with tax levies.
This Act hereby mandatesthesethe following tax caps on the following wealth classes (defining wealth classes on the amount of income they earn TBA).
Tax Cap on the underclass: 10%
Tax Cap on the lower class: 25%
Tax Cap on the middle class: 50%
Tax Cap on the upper class: 75%
*Explain sales tax* <-- Please do, will this be included. If a sales tax goes above 10%, will people have a limit of how much they can spend?
Since this is my first act, help would be appreciated! ^^
by Oneracon » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:01 pm
Inyourfaceistan wrote:Which ones? The ones who want to expand the power of the state at the expense of invidual liberty, weaken all political opposition and monopolize their standing in government, create a state-controlled economy with heavy regulations and possible nationalization of private property and restrict the right of the people to self-defense; or the ones who wear snazzy symbols and think absolutism is hip?
Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
Pro: | LGBTQ+ rights, basic income, secularism, gun control, internet freedom, civic nationalism, non-military national service, independent Scotland, antifa |
Anti: | Social conservatism, laissez-faire capitalism, NuAtheism, PETA, capital punishment, Putin, SWERF, TERF, GamerGate, "Alt-right" & neo-Nazism, Drumpf, ethnic nationalism, "anti-PC", pineapple on pizza |
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement