NSG Senate Coffee Shop (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

[Vazdania]

Not at the moment. Would twenty percent secure the support of the Communist Party or the Red Green Party? I'm not willing to go any higher because doing so would alienate the right-leaning political organizations, and leaves us at the risk of continuing without any funding at all.

I can't speak for the rest of the left, but personally believe that the richer sections of society should contribute more than is proposed in the current draft. I would be willing to accept, perhaps, 35-40% on incomes of roughly between 50,000-85,000, with higher brackets being taxed higher.

I entirely disagree!

[Irredento]

I can't speak for the rest of the left, but personally believe that the richer sections of society should contribute more than is proposed in the current draft. I would be willing to accept, perhaps, 35-40% on incomes of roughly between 50,000-85,000, with higher brackets being taxed higher.

I will withdraw my support and encourage my party to do the same if this bill is amended any further to appease the socialists. We have enough supporters to win this vote already and we do not need their support.

[Evraim]

With the greatest of respect, most of this proposal was a combination of the PC's and the liberals and we have been working on it the last 12 hours. If we decide we want to take it to vote you can either support our liberal, conservative, monarchist bill, or not. I do sincerely hope you will join us and put forward the bill with us as you come from a similar point of view on several things.

I intend to support the resolution, especially considering how much work I invested in it. I'm not affiliated with any of the political parties mentioned above, but I was among the first to champion the NTA. I am confident that the legislation will pass. It has decent support on the right and center, and I think that a significant portion of the left will realize that this is the best for which they can hope. I'll give the original drafter and any potential co-sponsors thirty minutes to express support, and then I'll submit it to Denecap.

[Chestaan]

Such an amendment would drastically decrease the quality of life for our most downtrodden citizens. I think this unconscionable.

2.5% is next to nothing.

So then why take it? If it's nothing you won't miss it if it's absent, no? It may, however be much more than nothing to the poor, as every penny will count.

[Vazdania]

Why?

We of the Monarchist party are already giving up a lot by allowing such a large tax on the rich, it would be highly unjust for people to pay absolutely nothing. And if people are making 16,000 dollars then then they actually earn less after taxes then those who make 15,999...

Squeezing blood from a stone. And anyway, the contribution in absolute terms would be minimal and wouldn't contribute much to the budget, yet would substantially lower the standards of living for the nation's poorest citizens.

No higher taxes on the rich then please.

[Benomia]

Not at the moment. Would twenty percent secure the support of the Communist Party or the Red Green Party? I'm not willing to go any higher because doing so would alienate the right-leaning political organizations, and leaves us at the risk of continuing without any funding at all.

I can't speak for the rest of the left, but personally believe that the richer sections of society should contribute more than is proposed in the current draft. I would be willing to accept, perhaps, 35-40% on incomes of roughly between 50,000-85,000, with higher brackets being taxed higher.

This I can agree with.

[Geilinor]

We could make one change for them.The 16k-50k rate will become 10% and the 51k-100k rate will become 20%. That's how I originally had it.

[Chestaan]

Squeezing blood from a stone. And anyway, the contribution in absolute terms would be minimal and wouldn't contribute much to the budget, yet would substantially lower the standards of living for the nation's poorest citizens.

No higher taxes on the rich then please.

1) The rich can afford it without substantially lowering their standard of living.

2) An extra tax on the rich will yield a higher amount of revenue than a tax on the poorest.

[Vazdania]

No higher taxes on the rich then please.

1) The rich can afford it without substantially lowering their standard of living.

2) An extra tax on the rich will yield a higher amount of revenue than a tax on the poorest.

Taxing the rich cuts the amount that they actually spend, thereby reducing revenue and cash flow.

[Irredento]

1) The rich can afford it without substantially lowering their standard of living.

2) An extra tax on the rich will yield a higher amount of revenue than a tax on the poorest.

Our opposition to the government taking a man's hard earned money from his is mostly a moral one.

[Geilinor]

I'm not accepting a maximum rate of more than 50%. It's already at 45%.

[Chestaan]

I can't speak for the rest of the left, but personally believe that the richer sections of society should contribute more than is proposed in the current draft. I would be willing to accept, perhaps, 35-40% on incomes of roughly between 50,000-85,000, with higher brackets being taxed higher.

I will withdraw my support and encourage my party to do the same if this bill is amended any further to appease the socialists. We have enough supporters to win this vote already and we do not need their support.

There are more communists than monarchists, and are you sure it will pass? The communists, red-greens and what was once the LA will vote against it, probably some of the independents to. And can you be sure that the Libertarian party will support it?

[Vazdania]

I'm not accepting a maximum rate of more than 50%. It's already at 45%.

Would you prefer it be lower or about the same?

[Imperiatom]

I can't speak for the rest of the left, but personally believe that the richer sections of society should contribute more than is proposed in the current draft. I would be willing to accept, perhaps, 35-40% on incomes of roughly between 50,000-85,000, with higher brackets being taxed higher.

I will withdraw my support and encourage my party to do the same if this bill is amended any further to appease the socialists. We have enough supporters to win this vote already and we do not need their support.

Quite right. send the bill to chamber!!!

[Chestaan]

1) The rich can afford it without substantially lowering their standard of living.

2) An extra tax on the rich will yield a higher amount of revenue than a tax on the poorest.

Taxing the rich cuts the amount that they actually spend, thereby reducing revenue and cash flow.

The rich save a much greater proportion of their income than the poor, so really we are just taking money that will sit in a bank account and re-invest it in something useful.

[Polvia]

What about people who create their business from the ground up? Out of their own hard work they grew and expanded a business, which benefited the economy and all the workers they hired.

Successful CEO's do the same thing. They just happened to start later.

I think those people should be celebrated, but at the same time they did not build that business by themselves in most cases. The employees are often just as critical in building a business. Without the employees the ability for a business to sell and mange logistics is seriously impaired. Did I say that business managers did not work hard? I did not Honourable Senator, but just because they work hard does not mean that they are entitled to four hundred times what their workers (who often work equally hard) will be paid.

Let's say I purchase some farm land. I was there first, at the start and worked in establishing the land. I then decide to allow seven other people work the land with me so it can be more plentiful. We all work equally hard in reaping and sowing, yet when the time comes to split the crops we harvested I give myself one hundred of the crops for every one that the other workers get. That is taking what one did not produce. The same thing happens in big business and CEOs.

[Priory Academy USSR]

1) The rich can afford it without substantially lowering their standard of living.

2) An extra tax on the rich will yield a higher amount of revenue than a tax on the poorest.

Taxing the rich cuts the amount that they actually spend, thereby reducing revenue and cash flow.

The percentage of rich people is absurdly small in most countries, and probably won't have much of an impact on the economy as a whole, and the money gained will go to good causes.

[Evraim]

We could make one change for them.The 16k-50k rate will become 10% and the 51k-100k rate will become 20%. That's how I originally had it.

I think further alterations to the resolution would alienate the Libertarians and Monarchists. As it stands, we've got rather solid support from the Liberal Democrats and Progressive Conservatives, so much so that we might hope for a party-line vote when push comes to shove. The more pragmatic Communists and Green Reds might also be convinced to extend their support. I think submitting it is the best option at this point. We can argue about adjusting the tax rates later.

[Imperiatom]

With the greatest of respect, most of this proposal was a combination of the PC's and the liberals and we have been working on it the last 12 hours. If we decide we want to take it to vote you can either support our liberal, conservative, monarchist bill, or not. I do sincerely hope you will join us and put forward the bill with us as you come from a similar point of view on several things.

I intend to support the resolution, especially considering how much work I invested in it. I'm not affiliated with any of the political parties mentioned above, but I was among the first to champion the NTA. I am confident that the legislation will pass. It has decent support on the right and center, and I think that a significant portion of the left will realize that this is the best for which they can hope. I'll give the original drafter and any potential co-sponsors thirty minutes to express support, and then I'll submit it to Denecap.

Ok i will try and summon them.

[Irredento]

I will withdraw my support and encourage my party to do the same if this bill is amended any further to appease the socialists. We have enough supporters to win this vote already and we do not need their support.

There are more communists than monarchists, and are you sure it will pass? The communists, red-greens and what was once the LA will vote against it, probably some of the independents to. And can you be sure that the Libertarian party will support it?

I am quite confident that a moderate bill such as this will easily pass, perhaps even with the support of some of the more moderate leftists, and certainly with the support of the right-wing of the Senate if they see some of the alternative proposals coming from the left.

That said, if the OP wishes to compromise with your side and turn this into a communist tax bill, we will be more than happy to oppose it and rally all the libertarians and rightist independents to join us in this. A communist tax bill will not pass.

[Vazdania]

Taxing the rich cuts the amount that they actually spend, thereby reducing revenue and cash flow.

The rich save a much greater proportion of their income than the poor, so really we are just taking money that will sit in a bank account and re-invest it in something useful.

Not at all. "The Gospel of Wealth" teaches the rich that they should indeed keep their money flowing, in order to maximize not only their profits, but the profits of those around them. The higher the taxes are on the rich, the more likely they are to hoard it.

[Benomia]

We could make one change for them.The 16k-50k rate will become 10% and the 51k-100k rate will become 20%. That's how I originally had it.

Any bill with that in it will be voted down by me, and most likely the members of my party as well.

[Geilinor]

I'm not accepting a maximum rate of more than 50%. It's already at 45%.

Would you prefer it be lower or about the same?

Keep it as is. Should we change the 5% rate to 10% and the 15% rate to 20% for those who want more taxes on the average person?

[Aquitayne]

Establishment of a Nation Act
Drafted by: Aquitayne;
Co-Drafted by: N/A

To the Senators of our yet-to-be-named nation,

REALIZING that the nation the NSG Senate is a governing body in a nation yet to be named,

REALIZING that although legislation continues to be debated and passed, there is not much known about the nation in which the Senate runs;

REALIZING that this nation currently has no laws other than the Marriage Freedom Act,

ASTONISHED that simple laws such as the acts of Murder, Arson, Rape, etc., have not been labeled as illegal,

ASTONISHED that the Senate has allowed this nation to exist in a, to a degree, state of anarchy;

MANDATES that a Senatorial Committee containing of no less and no more than ten (10) Senators be created to complete the following:

1) Hire a topographical firm to label the legal borders of this nation, and to mark such on parchment for official use;
2) Make a concise list of potential names for our nation,
3) Organize and complete the first annual National Census,
4) Create a list of acts, along with their definitions, as well as sentences, to be called illegal;

MANDATES that an annual decade Census be completed of the entire nation to;

1) Map citizens movements within the country (i.e Housing),
2) Gain an accurate number of citizens living within the country (i.e Population);

MANDATES that a national Constitution and Bill of Rights be drafted immediately,

MANDATES that the following services and infrastructure be constructed immediately:

1) Police, Fire, Paramedics
2) Public Schools
3) Hospitals
4) Prisons
5) Firehouses
6) Libraries

HEREBY provides the funds of Nationstates Standard Currency thirty-billion (NSC$30,000,000,000.00),

PUSHES the NSG Senate to pass more legislation to allow legal information to be obtained about our nation.

I expect this draft to get a good deal of opposition, but I believe it is important to have some sort of information about the country we're running.

Also, I know we're in the middle of intense tax debate, but nevertheless I urge you to put this also at the forefront of your thoughts.

[Vazdania]

Would you prefer it be lower or about the same?

Keep it as is. Should we change the 5% rate to 10% and the 15% rate to 20% for those who want more taxes on the average person?

I'd like them as low as possible for every single income group.