Calaverdean Workers' Alliance Headquarters [NSGS]

[Osea 767]

Bump

[Osea 767]

There are a couple of proposals that the Central Committee would like to put forward to the party membership for your opinions on and to make a decision on. First concerns the current party structure. We feel that the Council system has ceased to work for a while now and would like to propose that we move to a move conventional system, with the Central Committee being a body elected by all party members rather than each member being selected by the votes of a particular council. This will be discussed in the party thread and all are warmly invited to to put forward their opinions and suggestions.

Second, there is no official party whip system. Heraklea has put one forward, though we will naturally be amenable to alternatives. I will post a copy of it in the party thread as soon as possible and, if there are no objections to it within the next 48 hours from the point of me posting it, we will hold a vote to confirm it as the whip system for the party.

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

I propose that we both move towards a more conventional system of having a Central Committee of say, 5 or 6 members elected by the general party. This would be a directorial system. Additionally, I propose that we have an element of direct democracy, in which members may propose initiatives. If those initiatives gain at least 50%+1 support by members, it shall be adopted. Additionally, major actions (agreements, etc.) adopted by the Central Committee also must be approved by the members, with at least 50%+1 support by members. And yes, I'm trying to make a Swiss-Athenian democracy mashup for the WA.

[Heraklea-]

My proposal for a whip system is as follows:

The Party Whip is a position that will be nominated by the Central Committee and approved by a majority of the party. If the Party Whip is not a member of the Central Committee, they shall be given a non-voting seat in Central Committee meetings. The Party Whip shall notify all members anytime a vote is being held and what line whip has been issued.

No Line - Free Vote - Party members are free to vote their conscience without party influence on their decision.
One Line - Recommended Vote - Party members are recommended to vote this way. Party Whip may issue without consultation if the bill is inline with the party platform, but shall revoke the one line on a decision of the Central Committee.
Two Line - Expected Vote - Party members will either vote the way the party has determined or abstain. Party Whip may issue with a majority approval by the Central Committee.
Three Line - Required Vote - Party members will vote the way the party has ruled. Party Whip may issue upon approval of the Central Committee with no dissensions (majority yeas and no nays) or for supply and confidence votes to support a WA majority government, a governing coalition that includes the WA or a governing coalition that does not include the WA but the WA has agreed to support.

As for the Central Committee, I would say five members. They are to take care of administration of the headquarters, make whip determinations, be empowered to negotiate on behalf of the party and take care of minor issues. A majority vote by the members is required to establish agreements with other parties, change the party platform and to take action on other major issues.

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

My proposal for a whip system is as follows:

The Party Whip is a position that will be nominated by the Central Committee and approved by a majority of the party. If the Party Whip is not a member of the Central Committee, they shall be given a non-voting seat in Central Committee meetings. The Party Whip shall notify all members anytime a vote is being held and what line whip has been issued.

No Line - Free Vote - Party members are free to vote their conscience without party influence on their decision.
One Line - Recommended Vote - Party members are recommended to vote this way. Party Whip may issue without consultation if the bill is inline with the party platform, but shall revoke the one line on a decision of the Central Committee.
Two Line - Expected Vote - Party members will either vote the way the party has determined or abstain. Party Whip may issue with a majority approval by the Central Committee.
Three Line - Required Vote - Party members will vote the way the party has ruled. Party Whip may issue upon approval of the Central Committee with no dissensions (majority yeas and no nays) or for supply and confidence votes to support a WA majority government, a governing coalition that includes the WA or a governing coalition that does not include the WA but the WA has agreed to support.

As for the Central Committee, I would say five members. They are to take care of administration of the headquarters, make whip determinations, be empowered to negotiate on behalf of the party and take care of minor issues. A majority vote by the members is required to establish agreements with other parties, change the party platform and to take action on other major issues.

I think that you're giving the Central Committee a bit too much power. The members should be able to negotiate, as well as the Central Committee, and Three Line whips should have some discussion with members, given that it's a pretty drastic action. Additionally, I'd like to make sure that majority votes would be required for confidence and supply agreements as well as agreements to participate in a governing coalition, given that it's the entire government we're talking about here.

[Heraklea-]

My proposal for a whip system is as follows:

The Party Whip is a position that will be nominated by the Central Committee and approved by a majority of the party. If the Party Whip is not a member of the Central Committee, they shall be given a non-voting seat in Central Committee meetings. The Party Whip shall notify all members anytime a vote is being held and what line whip has been issued.

No Line - Free Vote - Party members are free to vote their conscience without party influence on their decision.
One Line - Recommended Vote - Party members are recommended to vote this way. Party Whip may issue without consultation if the bill is inline with the party platform, but shall revoke the one line on a decision of the Central Committee.
Two Line - Expected Vote - Party members will either vote the way the party has determined or abstain. Party Whip may issue with a majority approval by the Central Committee.
Three Line - Required Vote - Party members will vote the way the party has ruled. Party Whip may issue upon approval of the Central Committee with no dissensions (majority yeas and no nays) or for supply and confidence votes to support a WA majority government, a governing coalition that includes the WA or a governing coalition that does not include the WA but the WA has agreed to support.

As for the Central Committee, I would say five members. They are to take care of administration of the headquarters, make whip determinations, be empowered to negotiate on behalf of the party and take care of minor issues. A majority vote by the members is required to establish agreements with other parties, change the party platform and to take action on other major issues.

I think that you're giving the Central Committee a bit too much power. The members should be able to negotiate, as well as the Central Committee, and Three Line whips should have some discussion with members, given that it's a pretty drastic action. Additionally, I'd like to make sure that majority votes would be required for confidence and supply agreements as well as agreements to participate in a governing coalition, given that it's the entire government we're talking about here.

My proposal does mandate that the majority must vote in favor of an agreement with other parties. The ability of the Central Committee to negotiate just means that we can get together with the leadership of another party or group of parties and hammer out a comprehensive agreement to present to our members. A three-line whip can be discussed with the members, but there is not always time to get input from everyone. The leadership of the party should be those who are able to dedicate a fair amount of time to examining legislation and making recommendations to the body. That is why it would require a majority of the Central Committee to support a three line and have none against.

[Pesda]

I think that a two or three line whip should require party approval, not just central committee. If time is an issue then start to orgainise a few days before the vote is expected.

[Heraklea-]

I think that a two or three line whip should require party approval, not just central committee. If time is an issue then start to orgainise a few days before the vote is expected.

And how much approval would you require for the threshold to make it a two or three line? What if changes are made during debate that make us in favor of a stronger whipping? The more people we need, the more time it takes to organize. If you don't have confidence in the Central Committee to provide that sort of leadership, then you should vote for someone else to be in the Central Committee.

[The New World Oceania]

How would the Worker's Alliance think about absorbing the Shi'ite Nationalist Party as a Muslim Socialist Council? Though we wish to represent Calaverde's Muslim population, we don't feel Islam is truly the defining characteristic of our party as is social libertarianism and worker's liberation.

[Heraklea-]

How would the Worker's Alliance think about absorbing the Shi'ite Nationalist Party as a Muslim Socialist Council? Though we wish to represent Calaverde's Muslim population, we don't feel Islam is truly the defining characteristic of our party as is social libertarianism and worker's liberation.

I'm in favor of welcoming in any that are supportive of the struggle, though we are discussing moving away from the council system into a more general body.

[Pesda]

I think that a two or three line whip should require party approval, not just central committee. If time is an issue then start to orgainise a few days before the vote is expected.

And how much approval would you require for the threshold to make it a two or three line? What if changes are made during debate that make us in favor of a stronger whipping? The more people we need, the more time it takes to organize. If you don't have confidence in the Central Committee to provide that sort of leadership, then you should vote for someone else to be in the Central Committee.

Personally I think a simple majority would be enough for a two line whip, and a supermajority for a three line whip (how big I wouldn't mind). I think votes that require a three line whip are ones that can be anticipated (e.g. elections).
May I suggest a compromise? The central committee could be allowed to issue whips without a vote if there's a situation is geniuenly urgent, but if there is objection from other members the whip could be cancelled/ delayed for a vote.

[Atlanticatia]

Will the WA be voting for the Universal Healthcare Act?

[Heraklea-]

And how much approval would you require for the threshold to make it a two or three line? What if changes are made during debate that make us in favor of a stronger whipping? The more people we need, the more time it takes to organize. If you don't have confidence in the Central Committee to provide that sort of leadership, then you should vote for someone else to be in the Central Committee.

Personally I think a simple majority would be enough for a two line whip, and a supermajority for a three line whip (how big I wouldn't mind). I think votes that require a three line whip are ones that can be anticipated (e.g. elections).
May I suggest a compromise? The central committee could be allowed to issue whips without a vote if there's a situation is geniuenly urgent, but if there is objection from other members the whip could be cancelled/ delayed for a vote.

But at what majority are you proposing? Those who happen to log on or the entire roster? That is why I propose the CC be the ones to deal with matters of the whip. The CC tends to be the ones who are the most active and most likely to see or call for such a vote anyway. Without the power to negotiate for the party and issue whips the CC is effectively meaningless.

Will the WA be voting for the Universal Healthcare Act?

You would expect us to vote against it? What kind of socialists do you take us for, Chinese Communists?

[Pesda]

Personally I think a simple majority would be enough for a two line whip, and a supermajority for a three line whip (how big I wouldn't mind). I think votes that require a three line whip are ones that can be anticipated (e.g. elections).
May I suggest a compromise? The central committee could be allowed to issue whips without a vote if there's a situation is geniuenly urgent, but if there is objection from other members the whip could be cancelled/ delayed for a vote.

But at what majority are you proposing? Those who happen to log on or the entire roster? That is why I propose the CC be the ones to deal with matters of the whip. The CC tends to be the ones who are the most active and most likely to see or call for such a vote anyway. Without the power to negotiate for the party and issue whips the CC is effectively meaningless.

Will the WA be voting for the Universal Healthcare Act?

You would expect us to vote against it? What kind of socialists do you take us for, Chinese Communists?

Whoever logs in during the voting time would be voting.

[Castille de Italia]

I, Senator Juan Ortiz, would like to formally apply for membership with the Calaverdean Workers' Alliance.

[Heraklea-]

I, Senator Juan Ortiz, would like to formally apply for membership with the Calaverdean Workers' Alliance.

Welcome, Senator Ortiz. We are glad to have you. There is currently a vote in the chamber on three bills, two of which (the UHCA and the MCPA) this party is highly supportive of.

[Castille de Italia]

I, Senator Juan Ortiz, would like to formally apply for membership with the Calaverdean Workers' Alliance.

Welcome, Senator Ortiz. We are glad to have you. There is currently a vote in the chamber on three bills, two of which (the UHCA and the MCPA) this party is highly supportive of.

Alright, I'll make my way to reading them shortly.

[The Liberated Territories]

I would like to ask the Worker's Alliance to consider sponsoring my LVT bill for the senate.

Land Value Tax Act
| Author: Senator fan de Westhuizen (FCP) |
| Sponsors: Kyle Estévez (PT) | Balthazar Abaroa (UCMP)

---

Article 1: Establishment of a tax on land value

I. Establishment
a. A tax shall be levied on all real properties in the Republic of Calaverde on the unimproved value of land.
b. Should the land be held collectively, the tax shall be split evenly between all owners of that land.
c. Land shall remain untaxed if it does not have a private owner, however, the land shall still be owned by the Calaverdean government de facto. This land however shall still be open to homesteaders who's borders and regulations will be enforced by municipalities.

2. Enforcement
a. The tax shall be individually determined by municipalities, however, the tax shall not exceed 3.1% and precede 1.2%
b. Should the landlord become "elusive," or is unidentifiable, or should the landlord fail to pay the tax, the land shall go up to auction by the Calaverdean government.
c. The land value tax shall be enforced in the same way as outlined in the State Revenue Administration Act.

3. Miscellaneous
a. Seniors (over 65) who are the sole property owners shall not be taxed.

Ultimately the goal of the Land Value Tax is to replace the income tax. Unlike the income tax, the LVT doesn't judge the value labor - which can be entirely different to what is actually taken out from society (e.g. labor can simply be giving an opinion, and therefore shouldn't be taxed since it costs nothing to society). However, since that is an impossibility at this moment, I hope for now that the LVT would give an incentive to remove and lower the sales tax - the tax which directly harms the poor the most.

The LVT's justification is to capture profit made by surrounding improvements to the value of the land, for example, if a business arrives in town establishing a barista, everyone's nearby land value would increase. The LVT makes sure that each property owner nearby is fairly paying the proportional tax on land rent, so that nobody is benefiting from an improvement to land that is made. In this sense, you could say that the rich would be paying the most under a LVT since the land's value would be particularly high. In addition, taxing land reduces top income earner's ability to evade paying their taxes as multinationals cannot move land overseas.

[Atlanticatia]

I would like to ask the Worker's Alliance to consider sponsoring my LVT bill for the senate.

Land Value Tax Act
| Author: Senator fan de Westhuizen (FCP) |
| Sponsors: Kyle Estévez (PT) | Balthazar Abaroa (UCMP)

---

Article 1: Establishment of a tax on land value

I. Establishment
a. A tax shall be levied on all real properties in the Republic of Calaverde on the unimproved value of land.
b. Should the land be held collectively, the tax shall be split evenly between all owners of that land.
c. Land shall remain untaxed if it does not have a private owner, however, the land shall still be owned by the Calaverdean government de facto. This land however shall still be open to homesteaders who's borders and regulations will be enforced by municipalities.

2. Enforcement
a. The tax shall be individually determined by municipalities, however, the tax shall not exceed 3.1% and precede 1.2%
b. Should the landlord become "elusive," or is unidentifiable, or should the landlord fail to pay the tax, the land shall go up to auction by the Calaverdean government.
c. The land value tax shall be enforced in the same way as outlined in the State Revenue Administration Act.

3. Miscellaneous
a. Seniors (over 65) who are the sole property owners shall not be taxed.

Ultimately the goal of the Land Value Tax is to replace the income tax. Unlike the income tax, the LVT doesn't judge the value labor - which can be entirely different to what is actually taken out from society (e.g. labor can simply be giving an opinion, and therefore shouldn't be taxed since it costs nothing to society). However, since that is an impossibility at this moment, I hope for now that the LVT would give an incentive to remove and lower the sales tax - the tax which directly harms the poor the most.

The LVT's justification is to capture profit made by surrounding improvements to the value of the land, for example, if a business arrives in town establishing a barista, everyone's nearby land value would increase. The LVT makes sure that each property owner nearby is fairly paying the proportional tax on land rent, so that nobody is benefiting from an improvement to land that is made. In this sense, you could say that the rich would be paying the most under a LVT since the land's value would be particularly high. In addition, taxing land reduces top income earner's ability to evade paying their taxes as multinationals cannot move land overseas.

Why would a left-wing party support repealing the income tax, to replace with this? No matter which way you spin it, it is a tax cut for the wealthiest. I am of the opinion that the income tax is one of the most important ways to redistribute wealth. I think land value taxes have some merit, but if anything I'd look at increasing the tax-free threshold then letting the rich keep 50% of their income. (They currently face a marginal tax rate of 50%, and 60% for unearned income -- such as that from capital.) As I said, LVT has merit, but it reduces the rich's tax burden. As I said, wealthy people who receive income from capital, not labor, currently pay a 60% rate of tax. It could also have the effect of increasing rents for the poorest if the owners are landlords.

[Heraklea-]

I would like to ask the Worker's Alliance to consider sponsoring my LVT bill for the senate.

Land Value Tax Act
| Author: Senator fan de Westhuizen (FCP) |
| Sponsors: Kyle Estévez (PT) | Balthazar Abaroa (UCMP)

---

Article 1: Establishment of a tax on land value

I. Establishment
a. A tax shall be levied on all real properties in the Republic of Calaverde on the unimproved value of land.
b. Should the land be held collectively, the tax shall be split evenly between all owners of that land.
c. Land shall remain untaxed if it does not have a private owner, however, the land shall still be owned by the Calaverdean government de facto. This land however shall still be open to homesteaders who's borders and regulations will be enforced by municipalities.

2. Enforcement
a. The tax shall be individually determined by municipalities, however, the tax shall not exceed 3.1% and precede 1.2%
b. Should the landlord become "elusive," or is unidentifiable, or should the landlord fail to pay the tax, the land shall go up to auction by the Calaverdean government.
c. The land value tax shall be enforced in the same way as outlined in the State Revenue Administration Act.

3. Miscellaneous
a. Seniors (over 65) who are the sole property owners shall not be taxed.

Ultimately the goal of the Land Value Tax is to replace the income tax. Unlike the income tax, the LVT doesn't judge the value labor - which can be entirely different to what is actually taken out from society (e.g. labor can simply be giving an opinion, and therefore shouldn't be taxed since it costs nothing to society). However, since that is an impossibility at this moment, I hope for now that the LVT would give an incentive to remove and lower the sales tax - the tax which directly harms the poor the most.

The LVT's justification is to capture profit made by surrounding improvements to the value of the land, for example, if a business arrives in town establishing a barista, everyone's nearby land value would increase. The LVT makes sure that each property owner nearby is fairly paying the proportional tax on land rent, so that nobody is benefiting from an improvement to land that is made. In this sense, you could say that the rich would be paying the most under a LVT since the land's value would be particularly high. In addition, taxing land reduces top income earner's ability to evade paying their taxes as multinationals cannot move land overseas.

Why would a left-wing party support repealing the income tax, to replace with this? No matter which way you spin it, it is a tax cut for the wealthiest. I am of the opinion that the income tax is one of the most important ways to redistribute wealth. I think land value taxes have some merit, but if anything I'd look at increasing the tax-free threshold then letting the rich keep 50% of their income. (They currently face a marginal tax rate of 50%, and 60% for unearned income -- such as that from capital.) As I said, LVT has merit, but it reduces the rich's tax burden. As I said, wealthy people who receive income from capital, not labor, currently pay a 60% rate of tax. It could also have the effect of increasing rents for the poorest if the owners are landlords.

We are quite capable of giving drivel the respect it deserves without you coming in to say exactly what we would anyway.

[Atlanticatia]

Why would a left-wing party support repealing the income tax, to replace with this? No matter which way you spin it, it is a tax cut for the wealthiest. I am of the opinion that the income tax is one of the most important ways to redistribute wealth. I think land value taxes have some merit, but if anything I'd look at increasing the tax-free threshold then letting the rich keep 50% of their income. (They currently face a marginal tax rate of 50%, and 60% for unearned income -- such as that from capital.) As I said, LVT has merit, but it reduces the rich's tax burden. As I said, wealthy people who receive income from capital, not labor, currently pay a 60% rate of tax. It could also have the effect of increasing rents for the poorest if the owners are landlords.

We are quite capable of giving drivel the respect it deserves without you coming in to say exactly what we would anyway.

Shh, you know you enjoy my presence in this thread.

[Heraklea-]

We are quite capable of giving drivel the respect it deserves without you coming in to say exactly what we would anyway.

Shh, you know you enjoy my presence in this thread.

True. You are one of our favorite members of the governing coalition.

[Lykens]

Shh, you know you enjoy my presence in this thread.

True. You are one of our favorite members of the governing coalition.

Insulted.

[Heraklea-]

True. You are one of our favorite members of the governing coalition.

Insulted.

You are also well loved, don't worry.

Though you haven't written anywhere near as many bills that we support.

[Lykens]

Insulted.

You are also well loved, don't worry.

Though you haven't written anywhere near as many bills that we support.

The Prostitution bill shall earn thy love.