The First Cabinet of Calaverde [NSG Senate]

[Heraklea-]

I think we should try to pass it before - that way we have a legacy to carry us into the elections. In two months, we established education system, we established criminal code and we established welfare state. If we go bit back and include time from campaigning as well, we also established the judicial system. Obvious question our candidate would pose to opposition is "what have you done to make lives of our people better?"

I agree. We can at least pass a basic criminal code.

I still have a number of issues with the code as proposed, of which one was somewhat addressed in the IRC prviously but I remain unsatisfied on. And it is still incomplete.

-snip-

§1.2.b - Trial in absentia is a trial without the force of justice behind it.
§3.4.a.i - Hatred on basis of race, religion, sexual preference, etc. is vile and to be despised, but it is not the government's place to silence people on these matters if they do not in fact advocate an illegal act.
§4.1.a.ii - As it reads, just making the enticement to murder is enough to be found guilty, regardless of the actual outcome. I'm not necessarily opposed to this, I just want to make sure of your intent.
§4.4.a.i - This needs the inclusion of language that establishes that the offender must have been engaged in a criminal act or an act that a reasonable person would expect to cause death or serious bodily harm. As it stands, if I gave a new neighbor a casserole with peanut oil and they were deathly allergic to peanuts, I would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. That does not meet the typical requirements for involuntary manslaughter in most jurisdiction of constructive or criminally negligent manslaughter.
§4.5.a.ii - Why is the BAC so high? 0.08% is about as high as I would allow, and I would also add in that if the arresting officer finds them to be impaired, regardless of the lower BAC, that is still grounds.
§4.7.a.i, §4.7.a.ii, §4.8.a.i, §5.1.a.i, and §5.2.a.ii - Instead of "of another person" it should read "not their own". After all, it is possible to rob from businesses and the government.
§5.1 and §5.2 - I don't really see the need for two different levels based on the amount stolen.
§12 - Still trying to decide on this section. Is this a restriction on sentencing for individual offences or cumulative at that time?

[Valluto]

I think we should try to pass it before - that way we have a legacy to carry us into the elections. In two months, we established education system, we established criminal code and we established welfare state. If we go bit back and include time from campaigning as well, we also established the judicial system. Obvious question our candidate would pose to opposition is "what have you done to make lives of our people better?"

I agree. We can at least pass a basic criminal code.

It's my understanding that several bills have criminal offences already included in them. How do y'all want to move forward with that? We can add in a provision that declares all previous established criminal statutes are either null and void or subordinate to the ones within the new Criminal Code. Of course, they would all have to be replaced.

[Valluto]

Sorry for double post, but here is the new Ministry of Justice thread

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=332354

[The Nihilistic view]

"The budget is up for debate so get our there and support it. Especially the Boris Johnson inspired top rate of capital gains, I suspect that will come under the biggest attack. "

[Estva]

As a third world, developing nation, we really need to encourage foreign investment before we focus on an expansive welfare state. Once we become developed, then we can play around with that, but extremely high taxation on the upper classes is going to stifle economic activity.

We are not a third world, developing nation. We have a GDP per capita of $20,000. Members of the OECD have lower than that.

Also are you really going to oppose progressive taxation? I don't buy into the mantra that wealth trickles down...it doesn't. Allowing rich people to keep more money isn't going to make our economy boom, and would be extremely unfair. Our taxes aren't even that high - this budget will only raise between 20 and 25% of GDP. Not to mention we have competitive corporate tax rates of 22%, and a 15% rate for small businesses.

You're essentially saying that we should give tax cuts to the rich, and cut back welfare programs for the poor. That ultra-Thatcherite BS is simply false... we have so many people living in poverty, and people at the top are doing extremely well. We need to ameliorate that, by asking the rich to pay a bit more tax because they can afford it, so we can help the poorest in our society.

My issue is not with a progressive tax, of course I believe such a tax is necessary.

My issue is the exhaustive, extensive public welfare we just cannot afford. Stringent regulations, maternal and parental leave of almost a year, very strong unions, and more social democracy to come, does not in any way help what will be an export-focuses nation. When we, if we, transition to a service economy, then we can focus on all this welfare.

I believe in cuts to currently proposed labor regulations and social spending, not so much the taxation.

[Malgrave]

I've been meaning to take a tour of Europe but I think it is far too late now. >_>

[Collatis]

I've been meaning to take a tour of Europe but I think it is far too late now. >_>

I was planning on taking a trip to Europe as well, but then I remembered that I would need money to do that...

[CENTRALISED POLICE AUTHORITY]

Cabinet members are advised to use caution when in public areas, when possible travel in groups. If contacted by unknown persons, report it to the police immediately. Thank you for your cooperation.

[Geilinor]

Several improvements have been made to the bill I was working on with the Minister of Finance.

Retirement Savings Act

---

Authors: Geneviève Duflot [LDP], Sebastian Luc Morales [DL]
Sponsors: Michael Giuliani [DL], Cristobal Araullo [LDP], Sebastian Canonge [LDP], David Vera Cruz [WA]

---

Preamble:
To establish a universal personal pension savings scheme, as a supplement to the universal state pension to improve retirement security among the elderly, and to ensure more young families can purchase their first home.

Article I: Definitions

1.) "Employer" shall be defined as "A person or entity who is contractually bound to a worker - the employee - to give that worker money as a salary or wages, in exchange for ongoing work and for which the employer directs the work and exercises fundamental control over the work".

Article II: Retirement Savings Plans

1.) A publicly managed National Personal Pension Plan shall be established, which shall be managed and invested by a board of directors, appointed by the President on the advice of the Minister of Finance.
2.) Private savings plans may be established and information regarding fees charged, expected annual returns, composition of investments, and risk must be released to the public.
3.) Employees may choose the plan of their choice and shall have the option to transfer funds once annually.
4.) The self-employed who would otherwise not qualify shall have the option to join a plan.

Article III: Employer Contributions

1.) Employers shall contribute 5% of their employees' wages to their retirement savings plan in the first year.
b.) The contribution rate shall increase by 1% per year until it reaches 10%.
2.) The first $3,500 of employer contributions shall be tax-free.

Article IV: Government Contributions

1.) The government of Calaverde will contribute $1 for every $2 of contributions, up to the first $1,000 of contributions. This will mean a maximum annual subsidy of $500.
2.) The government of Calaverde will make an annual contribution of $100 to anyone with gross earnings of less than $8,000 per annum, called the "Low Income Contribution".
3.) For anyone who wishes to withdraw funds for a deposit on their first home, they may be entitled to a 'Home Deposit Subsidy' of $1000. Combined household income must be less than $40,000.

Article V: Personal Contributions

1.) Members of savings plans shall be free to contribute to their retirement fund at any time.
2.) The first $3,000 of personal, voluntary contributions shall be tax-free, deducted from taxable income.

Article VI: Withdrawal of Funds

1.) Members of savings plans may withdraw up to $30,000 from their fund for a down payment on their first home or for medical costs.
2.) Plan holders shall be able to fully access their funds after the age of 60.

[Argentarino]

I'll sponsor it

[Valluto]

Sponsor

[Battlion]

All Cabinet members, go vote AYE on the budget!

[Heraklea-]

I to will sponsor, and have already voted.

[Atlanticatia]

So I think it'd make sense to vote on the Social Insurance and Retirement Security Act, Social Safety Net Act, and Universal Family Assistance Act all at once (as an omnibus?), and get all of our welfare spending out of the way. (6 days for debating and voting on everything might not leave us enough time to do everything we want to do and pass all this.) The Social Insurance and Retirement Security Act, and the Social Safety Net Act for example are intertwined with one another as far as definitions go etc. Also perhaps we could include the Unemployment Assistance Act in that too since it creates an unemployment benefit, but that's up to the Minister of Labour and it contains other provisions unrelated to welfare spending so maybe it'd be best to do that separately.

Thoughts?

[Ainin]

Can we randomly tack 1A-NJA and 3A-GEA onto that?

[Battlion]

And Paid-Parental leave (which is my policy)

[Atlanticatia]

And Paid-Parental leave (which is my policy)

Oh yes, that too. Forgot about that.

So yeah, we should just get all the social benefits out of the way in one go.

[Lykens]

Fifteen people need to second the motion to do that.

[Battlion]

We may as well try, the current pace is awfully slow

[Atlanticatia]

Fifteen people need to second the motion to do that.

In the chamber?

[Geilinor]

I'd support the motion, but I have to log off now.

[Lykens]

Fifteen people need to second the motion to do that.

In the chamber?

There or Boris' office.

[The Nihilistic view]

Pretty sure we have been through this several times over but it can carry no procedural weight. Bill order is solely the speakers prerogative. So even 15 seconds can't be binding. Though of course a well supported motion would influence any decision made. Though it might be best for the person thinking of making the motion to go and speak to the speaker first.

[Lykens]

Pretty sure we have been through this several times over but it can carry no procedural weight. Bill order is solely the speakers prerogative. So even 15 seconds can't be binding. Though of course a well supported motion would influence any decision made. Though it might be best for the person thinking of making the motion to go and speak to the speaker first.

c. Any member of parliament may introduce a non-binding motion with approval from eight other members of parliament or introduce a binding motion with approval from fifteen other members of parliament. Such motions are not subject to reverse motions however may be quashed by the presiding officer subject to point of order approved by equal number of backers as that gained by the motion.

[The Nihilistic view]

Pretty sure we have been through this several times over but it can carry no procedural weight. Bill order is solely the speakers prerogative. So even 15 seconds can't be binding. Though of course a well supported motion would influence any decision made. Though it might be best for the person thinking of making the motion to go and speak to the speaker first.

c. Any member of parliament may introduce a non-binding motion with approval from eight other members of parliament or introduce a binding motion with approval from fifteen other members of parliament. Such motions are not subject to reverse motions however may be quashed by the presiding officer subject to point of order approved by equal number of backers as that gained by the motion.

d. Presiding officer shall have complete discretion on order of the bills when they are debated or voted on, subject to clause c above.