[PASSED] Protecting Borrower Rights

[Wrapper]

OOC: Am I missing something here, or would tax evasion no longer be an imprisonable offense?

[Falcania]

Aha! I went to bed wishing the morning could bring better news, and lo and behold, it did. While the legislation proposed is likely to raise a few grumbles as our delegation discusses it today, it is at least recognisable as legislation, and as such constitutes a marked improvement. We thank the author for their efforts.

[Wallenburg]

"I would urge the authoring delegation to go further. The accumulation of chronic debt that is unlikely or impossible to be paid off, particularly among laborers, represents a root issue that has encouraged the criminalization of debt. By permitting member states to continue the imposition of civil penalties against all unpaid debts, these individuals will necessarily become destitute if they already are not. Such individuals are likely to seek employment of any manner for any wage in order to mitigate their financial situation, or even resort to crime in order to either avoid civil liabilities or to pay them off after such obligations are imposed. A resolution addressing the issue of criminalized debt should also address the exploitation of economically and financially vulnerable individuals by lenders of ill repute and of little to no concern for the welfare of their debtors."

[Falcania]

Okay, I've had my morning cup of steaming hot mouse blood, let's talk details.

Clause 2: "holding any person to labour" - I'm assuming this is the "Debt Slavery" that the title talks about. I have a slight concern that this is a little vague. Debt slavery in the Free Kingdom is usually taken to mean a situation where a creditor demands service from a debtor, typically without any legal stipulation of the conditions. This practice is not accepted in the Free Kingdom. What is accepted is that insolvent people or entities may be compelled to provide services to their creditors, the differences being as follows: that the services rendered are commensurate with the expertise of the debtor; that the services rendered serve to repay the debt at a comparable rate; and that the debtor has a mechanism to appeal their situation to a higher authority if they deem their conditions to be unfair. I will provide two examples to explain:

In the first example, Person A builder, or professional construction worker. Person A purchases materials from Person B on a line of credit, which she defaults on due to a lack of income. Person B demands that Person A work for them in a menial capacity, until the debt is settled. This is an example of debt slavery in the Free Kingdom, and would be considered illegal.

In the second example, Person A has also defaulted on the credit owed to Person B. Person B stipulates that Person A can render her services as a construction worker to build an extension on their home. Person B has calculated the hourly labour rate, and agrees that each hour of labour workig on the construction project will repay the appropriate portion of A's accrued debt. If A believes these terms to be unreasonable, A is empowered to take B to a court of A's choosing. The court may compel B to improve the terms if they deem them unreasonable. The court is also empowered to compel A to carry out the service to B, as long as the terms agreed are reasonable.

Would such an arrangement be considered a violation of Clause 2?

Clause 2 also mandates that debts may not be inherited unless the terms of the debt explicitly state that the debt is hereditary, and these terms are stated and agreed at the time the debt is taken. If a nation's legislation explicitly states that debts incurred by citizens of that nation, in debt to other citizens or organisations of that nation, are inherited, would that satisfy the conditions of Clause 2?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The Haven does not believe that a contract freely entered into between people of full legal competence should be overturned by this assembly. If an individual has used his future labour as security against a debt, and this has been accepted by a creditor, then so be it.

[Bears Armed]

Seeing that persons in member nations are incarcerated merely for failing to repay debt obligations undertaken, and believing that this:
1. both reduces the ability for that person to earn income to repay such obligations and does little to induce repayment,
2. creates significant disincentives for entrepreneurs to take risks and invest in new business opportunities, and

"but would this proposal not, likewise, create a significant disincentive for people or organisations with money to take risks and lend that money to others?"

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

[Nintendo Switch Parental Controls]

Okay maybe payable debts should apply.

But not unpayable debts.

[Imperium Anglorum]

To Wrapper, as far as there exists only one reasonable interpretation: https://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/wh ... y-and-debt

To Wally, you do it.

To BA, I'll find my reference materials so to speak empirically on that subject.

To Kenmoria, thanks.

[Wrapper]

To Wrapper, as far as there exists only one reasonable interpretation: https://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/wh ... y-and-debt

That does not answer my question. Particularly since your link mentions different perspectives and understanding of terminology.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you have two interpretations, one saying that debt are "formal, written financing agreements such as short-term loans payable, long-term loans payable, and bonds payable" ... and the other saying that debt is any liability whatsoever, including tax liabilities, then the latter would definitely get RNT-ed into non-existence under [2017] GAS 8:

If the premise is not an Honest Mistake, it's gibberish because it bears no relation to actual national practice, and therefore doesn't belong in a repeal argument, while if it does claim relevance to national practice it is false and therefore an Honest Mistake.

[Wrapper]

If the premise is not an Honest Mistake, it's gibberish because it bears no relation to actual national practice, and therefore doesn't belong in a repeal argument, while if it does claim relevance to national practice it is false and therefore an Honest Mistake.

This has zero to do with Honest Mistakes. It’s not a repeal. So why don’t you just answer the question in a straightforward manner instead of clouding the issue with needless and tiresome obfuscation?

[Imperium Anglorum]

So why don’t you just answer the question in a straightforward manner instead of clouding the issue with needless and tiresome obfuscation?

I just did. And my answer is that your interpretation gets RNT'ed into non-existence.

[Wallenburg]

What IA is saying is that there exists a reasonable and valid interpretation of this that does not legalize tax evasion, and that any self-interested member state that wishes to collect taxes will adopt that interpretation over one that legalizes tax evasion.

Although, IA could save headache and make the matter clear by clarifying in the proposal that member states may enforce residents' obligation to pay taxes and enact criminal punishments for failure to pay them.

[Wrapper]

What IA is saying is that there exists a reasonable and valid interpretation of this that does not legalize tax evasion

Time out here. My question had nothing to do with legalizing tax evasion, which I certainly don’t think it would do. I was asking if this would prevent nations from imprisoning tax evaders. Big difference.

However. In the same vein, what about people who evade paying child support? In many jurisdictions, the threat of incarceration is considered a definitive deterrent to that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Section 4.

[Wrapper]

Non-payment of child support and contempt of court are two different things.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Nope. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the- ... t-payments

Even if set up otherwise, enforce it via court judgement.

[Wrapper]

Read your link again. It varies by jurisdiction and is not necessarily contempt of court everywhere.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Read your link again. It varies by jurisdiction and is not necessarily contempt of court everywhere.

Even if set up otherwise, enforce it via court judgement. And before you say, 'then it does nothing because you can still imprison people', imprisonment for contempt in civil cases cannot be punishment, but rather, can only be coercive.

However that is, if the purpose of this discussion is to have me define exactly what is meant by debt in this resolution, I can definitely do that. And before someone says 'but you didn't define it in the resolution at vote', (1) there is significantly more nuance required here because of economic concerns and externalities in other spheres of activity, (2) either interpretation is acceptable, though I would have selected the more restrictive one as implied here, and (3) explicit expansion to liability would make it unpalatable to anyone who thinks that voting should be contingent on tax payment.

[Kowani]

Oh good, some actual decent legislation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Next.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Okay. After major tonight.

[Lecosia]

"Lecosia votes strongly in favor, and further commends Imperium Anglorum on their noble struggle to defend the poor citizens within predatory capitalist societies."

[Chrysostomos]

Novel: "Borrowing" any amount with interest is Usury

Lets just ban usury

[Chrysostomos]

The Haven does not believe that a contract freely entered into between people of full legal competence should be overturned by this assembly. If an individual has used his future labour as security against a debt, and this has been accepted by a creditor, then so be it.

Eloquently Stated.

Another Representative was rather frank when, in essence, they asked if this allows tax/debt evasion.

It certain seems to, while making the very subtle implication that it's REALLY protecting people from indentured servitude.
Perhaps we should just move to ban usury, I wasn't joking.
This wouldn't even have to be a discussion.