NSG Senate (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

[Vazdania]

Is voting for the Senatorial Limitation Act still going?

It is suspended and should be back in the coffee house.

[Polvia]

The higher rate would only apply to income above 1.5 mil, I believe. Tax rates are marginal to avoid penalizing those who move up to the lower end of the next tax bracket.

Waiting from confirmation from Senator Polvia before I support the amendment.

As per the original proposal. Businesses making 1,500,000 NSD will have a tax bracket of 10%, while businesses making 1,500,001 NSD would fall under the 15% bracket. This is part of the current proposal. I just added the part about the starting business' reduced taxes, the red on the part mentioning 1.5 mil was fixing a typo in the original proposal.

[Regnum Dominae]

Waiting from confirmation from Senator Polvia before I support the amendment.

As per the original proposal. Businesses making 1,500,000 NSD will have a tax bracket of 10%, while businesses making 1,500,001 NSD would fall under the 15% bracket. This is part of the current proposal. I just added the part about the starting business' reduced taxes, the red on the part mentioning 1.5 mil was fixing a typo in the original proposal.

I can't support this unless the rates are marginal.

[Polvia]

As per the original proposal. Businesses making 1,500,000 NSD will have a tax bracket of 10%, while businesses making 1,500,001 NSD would fall under the 15% bracket. This is part of the current proposal. I just added the part about the starting business' reduced taxes, the red on the part mentioning 1.5 mil was fixing a typo in the original proposal.

I can't support this unless the rates are marginal.

The rates are already set in the proposal. My revision does not edit the rates in any way. It merely exempts starting businesses from the rates in the proposal for their first two years, and a reduced third year. The rates (10% & 15%) are already in the proposal, and are not a part of my revision.

[Regnum Dominae]

I can't support this unless the rates are marginal.

The rates are already set in the proposal. My revision does not edit the rates in any way. It merely exempts starting businesses from the rates in the proposal for their first two years, and a reduced third year. The rates (10% & 15%) are already in the proposal, and are not a part of my revision.

Then I support the amendment.

[Vazdania]

Waiting from confirmation from Senator Polvia before I support the amendment.

As per the original proposal. Businesses making 1,500,000 NSD will have a tax bracket of 10%, while businesses making 1,500,001 NSD would fall under the 15% bracket. This is part of the current proposal. I just added the part about the starting business' reduced taxes, the red on the part mentioning 1.5 mil was fixing a typo in the original proposal.

This makes it so that those who make 1,500,000 make MUCH more than those who make a single dollar more. HOW THE HELL IS THAT LOGICAL???

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As per the original proposal. Businesses making 1,500,000 NSD will have a tax bracket of 10%, while businesses making 1,500,001 NSD would fall under the 15% bracket. This is part of the current proposal. I just added the part about the starting business' reduced taxes, the red on the part mentioning 1.5 mil was fixing a typo in the original proposal.

This makes it so that those who make 1,500,000 make MUCH more than those who make a single dollar more. HOW THE HELL IS THAT LOGICAL???

Wait.

Marginal profits means that the 1,500,001th NSD will be taxed at 15%; not that the person with 1,500,001 NSD will have to pay 15% on all of that, as it would be unfair.

[Geilinor]

This makes it so that those who make 1,500,000 make MUCH more than those who make a single dollar more. HOW THE HELL IS THAT LOGICAL???

Wait.

Marginal profits means that the 1,500,001th NSD will be taxed at 15%; not that the person with 1,500,001 NSD will have to pay 15% on all of that, as it would be unfair.

Exactly.

[Vazdania]

This makes it so that those who make 1,500,000 make MUCH more than those who make a single dollar more. HOW THE HELL IS THAT LOGICAL???

Wait.

Marginal profits means that the 1,500,001th NSD will be taxed at 15%; not that the person with 1,500,001 NSD will have to pay 15% on all of that, as it would be unfair.

okay.

[Radiatia]

Honourable Senators, I rise to speak on the National Tax Act.

This bill is the result of cross-party co-operation, particularly between the Progressive-Conservatives and our friends in the Liberal Democrats. While the bill acknowledges the concerns of the left, in that it is necessary for public services to be paid for and that taxation is the only reliable method of generating government revenue, I feel it is a triumph for the right too in that we have prevented the sort of extremism and high taxation which would hinder economic growth.

The bill, with it's 0% bottom marginal tax rate, is one which shows compassion to the poor, while incentivising them to find work with the promise of low early taxes rather than to punish them for coming off welfare. Likewise, we seek to avoid extreme and punitive taxes on the wealthy which could see them either a) Leave the country, and take that money with them b) Stop investing in jobs and projects which spur on economic growth or c) Discourage ordinary citizens from working hard and getting ahead, thus disabling social mobility.

In regards to the proposed corporate tax amendment, I register my surprise at the Honourable Senator Regnum Dominae, a libertarian, who is vowing he will only support apparently a progressive corporate tax, unless I have misread his remarks in which case I apologise. I am surprised that the libertarians, who are usually supporters of flat taxation, are taking this route.

However I am pleased that we have a general agreement not to raise corporate taxation above 15%. This is an excellent achievement, and will ensure we remain competitive on the world stage especially in considering that most countries levy corporate taxes of around 30%. By having such a low rate, we can encourage foreign or even domestic investment.
'
I do support a corporate tax that is graduated based on how long a business has been around and strongly support having a 0% corporate tax for the first year of two in business. As someone with some experience in running a small business, and who lives in a country where taxes are levied on businesses before they've even had a chance to make a profit, I can tell you first hand how necessary it is to keep taxes low and encourage small business owners to grow and prosper. We cannot afford to cut at the roots before the plant has even begun to sprout!

For the most part, I speak favourably of this bill and look forward to the negotiations and positive compromises which can and will be made in order to ensure its passage into law.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

^ And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a proper speech to the legislature is supposed to look.

[Benomia]

That's nice.

So where's the bill?

[Regnum Dominae]

Honourable Senators, I rise to speak on the National Tax Act.

This bill is the result of cross-party co-operation, particularly between the Progressive-Conservatives and our friends in the Liberal Democrats. While the bill acknowledges the concerns of the left, in that it is necessary for public services to be paid for and that taxation is the only reliable method of generating government revenue, I feel it is a triumph for the right too in that we have prevented the sort of extremism and high taxation which would hinder economic growth.

The bill, with it's 0% bottom marginal tax rate, is one which shows compassion to the poor, while incentivising them to find work with the promise of low early taxes rather than to punish them for coming off welfare. Likewise, we seek to avoid extreme and punitive taxes on the wealthy which could see them either a) Leave the country, and take that money with them b) Stop investing in jobs and projects which spur on economic growth or c) Discourage ordinary citizens from working hard and getting ahead, thus disabling social mobility.

In regards to the proposed corporate tax amendment, I register my surprise at the Honourable Senator Regnum Dominae, a libertarian, who is vowing he will only support apparently a progressive corporate tax, unless I have misread his remarks in which case I apologise. I am surprised that the libertarians, who are usually supporters of flat taxation, are taking this route.

However I am pleased that we have a general agreement not to raise corporate taxation above 15%. This is an excellent achievement, and will ensure we remain competitive on the world stage especially in considering that most countries levy corporate taxes of around 30%. By having such a low rate, we can encourage foreign or even domestic investment.
'
I do support a corporate tax that is graduated based on how long a business has been around and strongly support having a 0% corporate tax for the first year of two in business. As someone with some experience in running a small business, and who lives in a country where taxes are levied on businesses before they've even had a chance to make a profit, I can tell you first hand how necessary it is to keep taxes low and encourage small business owners to grow and prosper. We cannot afford to cut at the roots before the plant has even begun to sprout!

For the most part, I speak favourably of this bill and look forward to the negotiations and positive compromises which can and will be made in order to ensure its passage into law.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

^ And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a proper speech to the legislature is supposed to look.

Honorable Senator Radiatia, I'm afraid that you misunderstood me. That amendment actually lowered tax rates, which is why I supported it. However, I was clarifying that I would only support it if the tax difference between small business and large corporation was based on marginal rates.

[Imperiatom]

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?

Because my fellow senator what you believe to be right is not at this time the present consensus.

It is right the first time because the bill is a wonderful example of how parties who do not hold out for unrealistic demands can triumph in the face of what a mere 12 hours ago seemed impossible. The impossible is now possible thanks to a four party coalition in support of the bill.

The bill if it has escaped the senators notice has a top rate of 45%. At this level higher taxes are both unnecessary and are currently on the level most rational senators think is best anyway.

[Imperiatom]

Seeing the opposition to the tax deductions granted to unionized and cooperative businesses. I propose this alternate version of the proposal to be amended to the bill, as a compromise.

First two years of being in business: 0%
Third year: 5.00%
Fourth year and all following years: 10.00%

These are to be the maximum tax rates any firm may face in each corresponding year. All profit no mater how high will be charged at the corresponding rate for the age of the business.
For all private firms older than four years the following tax rates apply;
10.00% is levied on profits of between 0 and 1,500,000.00 million :
15.00% is levied on all profits above but not including the first 1,500,000.00 million Which is still charged at 10.00%

First two years of being in business: 0%
Third year: 7.50%
Fourth year and all following years:15.00%

Its simple just add the part i underline and remove the parts i cross out. You can't differentiate between small an large businesses in such a way.

This amendment now both makes sense and is supportable.

Who will second me senators? And third, fourth, and fifth me?

EDIT: I have finished editing it. Its not that difficult to get it right in the first place, but there has been some awful hashing going on in concocting what was before such a disaster.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Seeing the opposition to the tax deductions granted to unionized and cooperative businesses. I propose this alternate version of the proposal to be amended to the bill, as a compromise.

First two years of being in business: 0%
Third year: 5.00%
Fourth year and all following years: 10.00%

These are to be the maximum tax rates any firm may face in each corresponding year. All profit no mater how high will be charged at the corresponding rate for the age of the business.
For all private firms older than four years the following tax rates apply;
10.00% is levied on profits of between 0 and 1,500,000.00 million :
15.00% is levied on all profits above but not including the first 1,500,000.00 million Which is still charged at 10.00%

First two years of being in business: 0%
Third year: 7.50%
Fourth year and all following years:15.00%

Its simple just add the part i underline and remove the parts i cross out. You can't differentiate between small an large businesses in such a way.

This amendment now both makes sense and is supportable.

Who will second me senators?

EDIT: I have finished editing it. Its not that difficult to get it right in the first place, but there has been some awful hashing going on in concocting what was before such a disaster.

I second this motion, gentlemen as it is both fair and realistic.
I also hope that the left honourable gentlemen (and ladies) would see this proposal through, otherwise show your proposal to the senate.

[Old Tyrannia]

I still have concerns with the following part of the bill:

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

I do not believe any non-medicinal drugs should be legal. They are all harmful substances that should be prohibited for the public's own good. Unless this clause and all subsequent mentions of "non-medical drugs" are removed from the bill, I will not be supporting this bill, nor will I be allowing any member of the Classical Monarchist Party to support this bill.

[Imperiatom]

Seeing the opposition to the tax deductions granted to unionized and cooperative businesses. I propose this alternate version of the proposal to be amended to the bill, as a compromise.

First two years of being in business: 0%
Third year: 5.00%
Fourth year and all following years: 10.00%

These are to be the maximum tax rates any firm may face in each corresponding year. All profit no mater how high will be charged at the corresponding rate for the age of the business.
For all private firms older than four years the following tax rates apply;
10.00% is levied on profits of between 0 and 1,500,000.00 million :
15.00% is levied on all profits above but not including the first 1,500,000.00 million Which is still charged at 10.00%

First two years of being in business: 0%
Third year: 7.50%
Fourth year and all following years:15.00%

Its simple just add the part i underline and remove the parts i cross out. You can't differentiate between small an large businesses in such a way.

This amendment now both makes sense and is supportable.

Who will second me senators? And third, fourth, and fifth me?

EDIT: I have finished editing it. Its not that difficult to get it right in the first place, but there has been some awful hashing going on in concocting what was before such a disaster.

Should this amendment be accepted, I move to close debate on this piece of legislation and begin the vote.

[Imperiatom]

I still have concerns with the following part of the bill:

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

I do not believe any non-medicinal drugs should be legal. They are all harmful substances that should be prohibited for the public's own good. Unless this clause and all subsequent mentions of "non-medical drugs" are removed from the bill, I will not be supporting this bill, nor will I be allowing any member of the Classical Monarchist Party to support this bill.

In our nation we have no current drug laws. This clause allows tax to be levied on those drugs we deem legal in the future such as alcohol or tobacco. If we chose to ban those to then the clause will be left unused.

I have lost count of the number of people i have corrected in this. Can we all please make sure that as senators we are up to date with the current laws of our nation.

[Old Tyrannia]

I still have concerns with the following part of the bill:

I do not believe any non-medicinal drugs should be legal. They are all harmful substances that should be prohibited for the public's own good. Unless this clause and all subsequent mentions of "non-medical drugs" are removed from the bill, I will not be supporting this bill, nor will I be allowing any member of the Classical Monarchist Party to support this bill.

In our nation we have no current drug laws. This clause allows tax to be levied on those drugs we deem legal in the future such as alcohol or tobacco. If we chose to ban those to then the clause will be left unused.

I have lost count of the number of people i have corrected in this. Can we all please make sure that as senators we are up to date with the current laws of our nation.

Yes, but I don't believe there should be such a "category" as "non-medical drugs." I would maybe tolerate alcohol- goodness knows I could do with a brandy to calm my nerves most evenings after college- but any other drug, including tobacco, should be completely illegal to possess and distribute. This tax makes the assumption that future legislation will legalize certain drugs for non-medical purposes. As such, I will not support it until these clauses are removed. If necessary, you may replace it with a clause concerning taxation of alcohol.

And I would request that the honourable senator does not address me in such a patronizing tone again.

[Imperiatom]

In our nation we have no current drug laws. This clause allows tax to be levied on those drugs we deem legal in the future such as alcohol or tobacco. If we chose to ban those to then the clause will be left unused.

I have lost count of the number of people i have corrected in this. Can we all please make sure that as senators we are up to date with the current laws of our nation.

Yes, but I don't believe there should be such a "category" as "non-medical drugs." I would maybe tolerate alcohol- goodness knows I could do with a brandy to calm my nerves most evenings after college- but any other drug, including tobacco, should be completely illegal to possess and distribute. This tax makes the assumption that future legislation will legalize certain drugs for non-medical purposes. As such, I will not support it until these clauses are removed. If necessary, you may replace it with a clause concerning taxation of alcohol.

And I would request that the honourable senator does not address me in such a patronizing tone again.

That's fine, i am anti most drugs myself. This clause needs to be their even for alcohol. I am saying currently every drug known to man is legal in our nation. We have no laws, we must rightly move to ban them but whilst they are legal why not make some money at the expense of the wasters. Save's higher tax rates else where.

[Old Tyrannia]

Yes, but I don't believe there should be such a "category" as "non-medical drugs." I would maybe tolerate alcohol- goodness knows I could do with a brandy to calm my nerves most evenings after college- but any other drug, including tobacco, should be completely illegal to possess and distribute. This tax makes the assumption that future legislation will legalize certain drugs for non-medical purposes. As such, I will not support it until these clauses are removed. If necessary, you may replace it with a clause concerning taxation of alcohol.

And I would request that the honourable senator does not address me in such a patronizing tone again.

That's fine, i am anti most drugs myself. This clause needs to be their even for alcohol. I am saying currently every drug known to man is legal in our nation. We have no laws, we must rightly move to ban them but whilst they are legal why not make some money at the expense of the wasters. Save's higher tax rates else where.

I never thought about it that way. I merely take issue with the bill seeming to endorse the fact that there will be legal non-medicinal drugs in our nation in the future. However, I suppose you have a point about all drugs technically being legal at the moment. Had you responded to my complaint in the CMP thread, there wouldn't have been an issue on this. But I'll withdraw my objection.

[Imperiatom]

That's fine, i am anti most drugs myself. This clause needs to be their even for alcohol. I am saying currently every drug known to man is legal in our nation. We have no laws, we must rightly move to ban them but whilst they are legal why not make some money at the expense of the wasters. Save's higher tax rates else where.

I never thought about it that way. I merely take issue with the bill seeming to endorse the fact that there will be legal non-medicinal drugs in our nation in the future. However, I suppose you have a point about all drugs technically being legal at the moment. Had you responded to my complaint in the CMP thread, there wouldn't have been an issue on this. But I'll withdraw my objection.

Thank you. I am very willing to engage my fellow party members to take a tough stance on drugs as i do myself. I would in the future support any ban on non medical drugs that did not include alcohol. (helium might be a tricky one too due to how to class it but anyway that's for another day. The future is now, lets go forward to the past .)

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

I never thought about it that way. I merely take issue with the bill seeming to endorse the fact that there will be legal non-medicinal drugs in our nation in the future. However, I suppose you have a point about all drugs technically being legal at the moment. Had you responded to my complaint in the CMP thread, there wouldn't have been an issue on this. But I'll withdraw my objection.

Thank you. I am very willing to engage my fellow party members to take a tough stance on drugs as i do myself. I would in the future support any ban on non medical drugs that did not include alcohol. (helium might be a tricky one too due to how to class it but anyway that's for another day. The future is now, lets go forward to the past .)

Yes, I believe that the drugs that fall under the category of Hallucinogens, Inhalants, and Narcotics, must be deemed illegal, unless some drugs that fall under this category are actually proven to benefit mankind by science...

[Regnum Dominae]

Thank you. I am very willing to engage my fellow party members to take a tough stance on drugs as i do myself. I would in the future support any ban on non medical drugs that did not include alcohol. (helium might be a tricky one too due to how to class it but anyway that's for another day. The future is now, lets go forward to the past .)

Yes, I believe that the drugs that fall under the category of Hallucinogens, Inhalants, and Narcotics, must be deemed illegal, unless some drugs that fall under this category are actually proven to benefit mankind by science...

Anything that does not harm non-users should be legal. By taking the drug, you are consenting to accept the consequences of it. As long as no nonconsenting person is harmed, there is no justification to ban the drug.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Yes, I believe that the drugs that fall under the category of Hallucinogens, Inhalants, and Narcotics, must be deemed illegal, unless some drugs that fall under this category are actually proven to benefit mankind by science...

Anything that does not harm non-users should be legal. By taking the drug, you are consenting to accept the consequences of it. As long as no nonconsenting person is harmed, there is no justification to ban the drug.

So what you're saying, Mr. Chairman, is that you're willing to legalise a drug that has the potential to have lethal effects only on the user? So you wish for health costs to go up? Is that right? Because if it is, then I am very worried about your opinion in healthcare...