NSG Senate (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

by **Othelos** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:27 pm

Chestaan wrote:My fellow senators, you are all aware of my position on this tax bill. I would ask the Lib-Dems and PCs how they hope to fund universal healthcare and social welfare with these rates?

We'll raise taxes later, if necessary.

by **Aquitayne** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:29 pm

Chestaan wrote:My fellow senators, you are all aware of my position on this tax bill. I would ask the Lib-Dems and PCs how they hope to fund universal healthcare and social welfare with these rates?

Senator, I do believe that when the time comes the rates may be changed.

by **Chestaan** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:29 pm

Othelos wrote:
Chestaan wrote:My fellow senators, you are all aware of my position on this tax bill. I would ask the Lib-Dems and PCs how they hope to fund universal healthcare and social welfare with these rates?

It's called raising taxes later, if necessary.

And the libertarians are fine with this? Why waste our time with this bill, if we will have to be constantly amending it? Why not get it right first time?

Also, do I take it then, that the senator agrees with higher tax rates, of at least 40% if we want an adequate health service, in the future?

by **Othelos** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:32 pm

Chestaan wrote:
Othelos wrote:It's called raising taxes later, if necessary.

And the libertarians are fine with this? Why waste our time with this bill, if we will have to be constantly amending it? Why not get it right first time?

Also, do I take it then, that the senator agrees with higher tax rates, of at least 40% if we want an adequate health service, in the future?

It depends on what our other expenditures cost.

by **Vazdania** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:33 pm

Chestaan wrote:
Othelos wrote:It's called raising taxes later, if necessary.

And the libertarians are fine with this? Why waste our time with this bill, if we will have to be constantly amending it? Why not get it right first time?

Also, do I take it then, that the senator agrees with higher tax rates, of at least 40% if we want an adequate health service, in the future?

You have a Libertarian Monarchist's support of the Bill.. I'm sure that the Libertarians will support this.

by **Chestaan** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:35 pm

Othelos wrote:
Chestaan wrote:
And the libertarians are fine with this? Why waste our time with this bill, if we will have to be constantly amending it? Why not get it right first time?

Also, do I take it then, that the senator agrees with higher tax rates, of at least 40% if we want an adequate health service, in the future?

It depends on what our other expenditures cost.

Of course, senator, but you will not I am just being realistic here. If tax rates had to be raised, on average incomes, to 40% in order to fund universal healthcare, would you support such a rise?

by **Chestaan** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:36 pm

Vazdania wrote:
Chestaan wrote:
And the libertarians are fine with this? Why waste our time with this bill, if we will have to be constantly amending it? Why not get it right first time?

Also, do I take it then, that the senator agrees with higher tax rates, of at least 40% if we want an adequate health service, in the future?

You have a Libertarian Monarchist's support of the Bill.. I'm sure that the Libertarians will support this.

But I doubt that they will support further tax rises to fund social welfare and healthcare.

by **Polvia** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:36 pm

Aeken wrote:Senatorial Limitation Act will now shift over to the Coffee Shop, where it will be more appropriate to discuss modifications.

Now, we will begin debate on the National Tax Act. You may initiate discussion.

National Tax Act
Urgency: Very High
Drafted By: Geilinor
Co-Sponsors: Evraim, Wolfmanne, Gallup, Imperiatom
The government of our yet to be named nation:
RECOGNIZING: the necessity of taxation if the state and government are to be sustained and preserved
ESTABLISHING: a national code of taxation applicable to all citizens and residents, without exception, unless otherwise authorized by the Senate
DEFINING: legal nonmedical drugs as substances, with the exception of foods and non-alcoholic beverages, employed for purposes other than those approved by medical professionals for the treatment of aches, smarts, and illnesses, and which are lawful to possess and use in the aforementioned capacities
MANDATING: that the Senate begin the process of determining which drugs should be legal and which drugs should not be legal with all due urgency
STIPULATING: that the tax code shall operate as follows:
Income Taxes shall be levied at:
0% of income earned between 0.00 and 15,999.99 NSC shall be levied
5.00% of income earned between 16,000.00 and 30,999.99 NSC shall be levied
10.00% of income earned between 31,000.00 and 50,999.99 NSC shall be levied.
15.00% of income earned between 51,000.00 and 100,999.99 NSC shall be levied
25.00% of income earned between 101,000.00 and 250,999.99 NSC shall be levied
35.00% of income earned between 251,000.00 and 500,999.99 NSC shall be levied.
40.00% of income earned between 501,000.00 and 1,000,999.99 NSC shall be levied
45.00% of income earned between 1,001,000.00 NSC and up shall be levied.
Sales Taxes shall be levied at:
For nonessential services(including legal medical drugs): 2%
For gasoline: 2.50%
Miscellaneous Taxes shall be levied at:
For corporate tax up to 1.5 mil (small business): 10.00%
First two years of a business: 0%
Third year: 5.00%
Fourth year and all following years:
Cooperative or Publicly-owned: 5.00%
Unionized Business: 7.50%
Traditional Business Model: 10.00%
Larger business: 15%
First two years of a business: 0%
Third year: 7.50%
Fourth year and all following years:
Cooperative or Publicly-owned: 7.50%
Unionized Business: 11.25%
Traditional Business Model: 15.00%
For capital gains tax: 20.00%

Honourable Senators,
I present the following as a potential revision. By eliminating taxes for business for their first two years in business, and a reduced rate the third year, this revision helps starting businesses and offers incentives for unionization and cooperatives..

by **Soldati Senza Confini** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:37 pm

Chestaan wrote:
Othelos wrote:It depends on what our other expenditures cost.

Of course, senator, but you will not I am just being realistic here. If tax rates had to be raised, on average incomes, to 40% in order to fund universal healthcare, would you support such a rise?

Being pro-business I would not support such a rise.

by **Evraim** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:38 pm

Senatorial Limitation Act

I oppose the motion for a suspension. The votes are quite close, and I feel that the arguments in favor of suspending the democratic process at this point are rather baseless. We should conclude with one issue before beginning another.

For: 21

Against: 23

Approval: 47.73%

by **Vazdania** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:39 pm

Evraim wrote:Senatorial Limitation Act

I oppose the motion for a suspension. The votes are quite close, and I feel that the arguments in favor of suspending the democratic process at this point are rather baseless. We should conclude with one issue before beginning another.

For: 21
Bleckonia, Geilinor, The Republic of Pantalleria, Fulflood, Mike the Progressive, Soldati senza confini, Wolfmanne, New Sapienta, Braxil, Urumgard, Aeken, Crata, TaQud, Mollary, Subramani, Benomia, The State of Czecho-Slovakia, Chettsland, Radiatia, Gallup, Priory Academy USSR

Against: 23
Regnum Dominae, Othelos, Raurosia, Ziegenhain, Fessleria, Aquitayne, United Provinces of Atlantica, Diopolis, Oneracon, Evraim, Irredento, Polvia, Chestaan, Uiiop, Great Nepal, Reggae Magmia, Ceni, Old Tyrannia, Vietnam, Estope, Azurand, Vazdania, Silent Majority

Approval: 47.73%

THE BILL HAS BEEN SUSPENDED. with a vote of 5 in the affirmative to suspend the bill needs to be sent back to the coffee shop for revision.

by **Vazdania** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:41 pm

Polvia wrote:
Aeken wrote:Senatorial Limitation Act will now shift over to the Coffee Shop, where it will be more appropriate to discuss modifications.

Now, we will begin debate on the National Tax Act. You may initiate discussion.

Honourable Senators,
I present the following as a potential revision. By eliminating taxes for business for their first two years in business, and a reduced rate the third year, this revision helps starting businesses and offers incentives for unionization and cooperatives..

Thumb's down. No Go.

by **Chestaan** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:41 pm

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Chestaan wrote:
Of course, senator, but you will not I am just being realistic here. If tax rates had to be raised, on average incomes, to 40% in order to fund universal healthcare, would you support such a rise?

Being pro-business I would not support such a rise.

Exactly. The centrists and rightists have co-operated in creating this piece of legislation. Yet the centrists fully intend to increase taxes in the future while the right will not support this. Essentially we are wasting our time as we are just passing this bill for the sake of passing it and not because it is a good bill.

by **Soldati Senza Confini** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:41 pm

Vazdania wrote:
Evraim wrote:Senatorial Limitation Act

I oppose the motion for a suspension. The votes are quite close, and I feel that the arguments in favor of suspending the democratic process at this point are rather baseless. We should conclude with one issue before beginning another.

For: 21
Bleckonia, Geilinor, The Republic of Pantalleria, Fulflood, Mike the Progressive, Soldati senza confini, Wolfmanne, New Sapienta, Braxil, Urumgard, Aeken, Crata, TaQud, Mollary, Subramani, Benomia, The State of Czecho-Slovakia, Chettsland, Radiatia, Gallup, Priory Academy USSR

Against: 23
Regnum Dominae, Othelos, Raurosia, Ziegenhain, Fessleria, Aquitayne, United Provinces of Atlantica, Diopolis, Oneracon, Evraim, Irredento, Polvia, Chestaan, Uiiop, Great Nepal, Reggae Magmia, Ceni, Old Tyrannia, Vietnam, Estope, Azurand, Vazdania, Silent Majority

Approval: 47.73%

THE BILL HAS BEEN SUSPENDED. with a vote of 5 in the affirmative to suspend the bill needs to be sent back to the coffee shop for revision.

Nah, let him oppose it. He could make a new precedent after all. Although this should be discussed in the coffee shop for re-issue of the bill.

by **Evraim** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:44 pm

Polvia wrote:Honourable Senators,
I present the following as a potential revision. By eliminating taxes for business for their first two years in business, and a reduced rate the third year, this revision helps starting businesses and offers incentives for unionization and cooperatives..

I oppose this increase because I do not believe that the government should incentivize companies for adopting Socialist economic philosophies. I also believe that creating a progressive corporate tax with possible exemptions for beginning businesses might be a sound policy. At the moment, I propose the following amendment. It is in red.

by **Aeken** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:47 pm

Evraim wrote:
Polvia wrote:Honourable Senators,
I present the following as a potential revision. By eliminating taxes for business for their first two years in business, and a reduced rate the third year, this revision helps starting businesses and offers incentives for unionization and cooperatives..

I oppose this increase because I do not believe that the government should incentivize companies for adopting Socialist economic philosophies. I also believe that creating a progressive corporate tax with possible exemptions for beginning businesses might be a sound policy. At the moment, I propose the following amendment. It is in red.

National Tax Act

Urgency: Very High

Drafted By: Geilinor

Co-Sponsors: Evraim, Wolfmanne, Gallup, Irredento

The government of our yet to be named nation:

RECOGNIZING: the necessity of taxation if the state and government are to be sustained and preserved

ESTABLISHING: a national code of taxation applicable to all citizens and residents, without exception, unless otherwise authorized by the Senate

DEFINING: legal nonmedical drugs as substances, with the exception of foods and non-alcoholic beverages, employed for purposes other than those approved by medical professionals for the treatment of aches, smarts, and illnesses, and which are lawful to possess and use in the aforementioned capacities

MANDATING: that the Senate begin the process of determining which drugs should be legal and which drugs should not be legal with all due urgency

STIPULATING: that the tax code shall operate as follows:

Income Taxes shall be levied at:
0.00% of income earned between 0.00 and 15,999.99 NSC shall be levied
5.00% of income earned between 16,000.00 and 30,999.99 NSC shall be levied
10.00% of income earned between 31,000.00 and 50,999.99 NSC shall be levied
15.00% of income earned between 51,000.00 and 100,999.99 NSC shall be levied
25.00% of income earned between 101,000.00 and 250,999.99 NSC shall be levied
35.00% of income earned between 251,000.00 and 500,999.99 NSC shall be levied
40.00% of income earned between 501,000.00 and 1,000,999.99 NSC shall be levied
45.00% of income earned between 1,001,000.00 and 2,000,999.99 NSC shall be levied

Sales Taxes shall be levied at:
For nonessential services: 7.25%
For gasoline: 2.50%
For publications, admission tickets to cultural events: 2.00%
For legal nonmedical drugs: 1.25%

Corporate Taxes shall be levied at:
0.00% of revenue earned below 1,000,000.00 NSC shall be levied
5.00% of revenue earned between 1,000,000.01 and 5,000,000.00 NSC shall be levied
7.25% of revenue earned between 5,000,000.00 and 10,000,000.00 NSC shall be levied
9.00% of revenue earned between 10,000,000.01 and 25,000,000.00 NSC shall be levied
11.25% of revenue earned between 25,000,000.00 and 50,000,000.00 NSC shall be levied
13.00% of revenue earned between 50,000,000.01 and 100,000,000.00 NSC shall be levied
14.00% of revenue earned between 100,000,000.01 and 200,000,000.00 NSC shall be levied
15.00% of revenue earned between 200,000,000.00 and 500,000,000.00 NSC shall be levied
16.00% of revenue earned above 1,000,000,000.00 NSC shall be levied

Miscellaneous Taxes shall be levied at:
For capital gains tax: 20.00%

The state only gets 160 million out of billion? Outrageous. I oppose this revision.

by **Soldati Senza Confini** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:47 pm

Evraim wrote: -snip-

I said I was pro-business, not anti-taxation.

In other words, this is a no-go from the get go when it comes to corporate taxes. As corporate taxes are only levied on corporate profits, it would be utterly pointless to give the corporation a free ride if they are 1 million NSC or less worth.

by **Irredento** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:53 pm

Despite hoping for a flat tax system in future, I fully support the bill as is and intend to rally my party to vote in favour of it, although I'm sure many of them won't need to be encouraged when they realise that the only alternative on offer at the moment is socialist tyranny.

by **Evraim** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Evraim wrote: -snip-

I said I was pro-business, not anti-taxation.

In other words, this is a no-go from the get go when it comes to corporate taxes. As corporate taxes are only levied on corporate profits, it would be utterly pointless to give the corporation a free ride if they are 1 million NSC or less worth.

What would you propose, Senator?

by **Polvia** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:58 pm

Evraim wrote:
Polvia wrote:Honourable Senators,
I present the following as a potential revision. By eliminating taxes for business for their first two years in business, and a reduced rate the third year, this revision helps starting businesses and offers incentives for unionization and cooperatives..

I oppose this increase because I do not believe that the government should incentivize companies for adopting Socialist economic philosophies. I also believe that creating a progressive corporate tax with possible exemptions for beginning businesses might be a sound policy. At the moment, I propose the following amendment. It is in red.

Honourable Senator,
If I were to remove the tax rates for specific types of businesses, and merely leave the two tax free years and reduced third year rate would that change your opinion on the revision to a more favourable one? I currently do not approve of your proposed revision, but that is not to say that I would not be willing to consider progressive corporate taxation. Though I think the current bill, to a degree, already accomplishes this.

by **Soldati Senza Confini** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:59 pm

Evraim wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote:
I said I was pro-business, not anti-taxation.

In other words, this is a no-go from the get go when it comes to corporate taxes. As corporate taxes are only levied on corporate profits, it would be utterly pointless to give the corporation a free ride if they are 1 million NSC or less worth.

What would you propose, Senator?

My proposal would be to make corporate taxes based not on a corps' net worth, but rather its net quarterly profits. Start them at 6% on the lowest bracket and increase proportionally by the dollar.

Example:

the first million NSC should be taxed at 6 cents of the dollar, then every subsequent dollar after that should be taxed at 10 cents on the dollar and so forth to top a 25 cent on the dollar tax on 1 billion plus corporations. No taxation on corporate gains of 1 million or less (down to 1 dollar profit) is quite unlikely to pass.

I quite insist that the corporate tax not be levied on total revenue though, only on marginal profits.

by **Irredento** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:02 pm

Chestaan wrote:But I doubt that they will support further tax rises to fund social welfare and healthcare.

I'm not a modern libertarian as I'm more of a neo-feudalist distributist sort but, if you're talking about monarchists and the far-right in general, you are correct. I won't support any further rises in taxation.

That's the thing with having multiple parties. You have to compromise and one single party isn't going to entirely get their way because there will be parties who oppose some of their beliefs. I want a small decentralised state and a nation covered in small businesses. I believe that low taxation and leaving most things to the private sector is the way to get there.

by **Evraim** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:08 pm

Polvia wrote:Honourable Senator,
If I were to remove the tax rates for specific types of businesses, and merely leave the two tax free years and reduced third year rate would that change your opinion on the revision to a more favourable one? I currently do not approve of your proposed revision, but that is not to say that I would not be willing to consider progressive corporate taxation. Though I think the current bill, to a degree, already accomplishes this.

I consider the first an obligatory concession if this resolution is to pass. Nobody on the right or center will vote in favor of an amendment which bolsters Socialism at the expense of Capitalism. It's simply not going to happen. I would prefer to incorporate the two year tax-exemption in the bill, but I would also like to see a progressive corporate tax system. I would remind my colleagues on the left that the present flat corporate tax rate would probably raise less revenue than my proposed amendment.

by **Soldati Senza Confini** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:11 pm

Evraim wrote:
Polvia wrote:Honourable Senator,
If I were to remove the tax rates for specific types of businesses, and merely leave the two tax free years and reduced third year rate would that change your opinion on the revision to a more favourable one? I currently do not approve of your proposed revision, but that is not to say that I would not be willing to consider progressive corporate taxation. Though I think the current bill, to a degree, already accomplishes this.

I consider the first an obligatory concession if this resolution is to pass. Nobody on the right or center will vote in favor of an amendment which bolsters Socialism at the expense of Capitalism. It's simply not going to happen. I would prefer to incorporate the two year tax-exemption in the bill, but I would also like to see a progressive corporate tax system. I would remind my colleagues on the left that the present flat corporate tax rate would probably raise less revenue than my proposed amendment.

A flat corporate tax rate hurts smaller corps more than what it does any good.

And I agree, heavy taxation is never good for businesses, although no taxation is bad for governments as well.

A two year tax exemption? That sounds like enough time for industries to prepare for the tax changes.

by **Evraim** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:13 pm

Soldati senza confini wrote:A flat corporate tax rate hurts smaller corps more than what it does any good.

And I agree, heavy taxation is never good for businesses, although no taxation is bad for governments as well.

Hence my efforts to secure a progressive corporate tax amendment. The status qou could pass without amendments, and the amendments proposed by the left-leaning parties lack enough appeal to do anything other than hinder this resolution from passing.

NSG Senate (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

Who is online