NSG Senate Coffee Shop: 50% off Americanos [NSG Senate]

[Maryginia]

25% of the term is used for election purposes, and with a longer term more could be done with the President, PM and ministers.

Tell me, what can a president or ministers do that a senator can't, other than fiddle with the edges?

But really there are some things that OOC matter more than ICly and this is one of those things. Less elections is not going to make this RP a continuing success but continue the decline.

And that was the Primary reason Behind my drafting this, I OOC'ly find the term too short. As for a Minister IC'ly a nice bit, if they can get the votes for what they want to do.

[Next Washington]

as new guy, i'm full of ideas... so here is my next proposal, feel free to comment

Honorable Senators!

As my first proposal was "vetoed" by the Minister of Education, I thought of another, for me important topic. I haven't found this in the passed legislature (though if I overlooked it feel free to tell me), so here's my first draft:

Family Incentives Act

---

Foreword
Every modern civilization relies on enough young people who support the older ones, directly by caring about them, or indirectly, by taxes. But nowadays we see that the age pyramid changes dramatically: The old people are getting more and more, while there are areas where people have an average child number at or below 1. That means, this one child has to (partially) pay for three people in the future (parents + itself). Now, this quote is about 1/1, meaning one tax-paying person indirectly cares for another one (a retired person, student, child, ...).
In the short term this quote must be stopped from raising, in the long term even lowered. Therefore the Aurentina government shall provide special incentives, directly and indirectly, for families. Thereby the number of children will rise and the quote will lower.

---

I. In the following, "family" is defined as a two people who have one or more child of which they are fully responsible. That includes married couples with one or more child(ren) as well as registered partnerships with one or more child(ren). The law does not divide between a child as a result of sexual interaction between these two people and between an adopted child.
"Parents" is defined as the two people, regardless of their sex, who are registered as the persons reponsible for the child(ren).

II. Families shall be granted the following direct incentives:
a. A direct money transfer from the government to the parents each month. This payment shall be 100 NSG$(our currency?) per child between 0 and 18 years per month. If the child is between 18 and 24 years old, this payment shall be 50 NSG$ per child and per month.
b. This amount of money must only be paid if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. Both parents must receive the offer of 5% more free days from their employers.
d. Direct incentives end when the child reaches the age of 25 years.

III. Families shall be granted the following indirect incentives:
a. One of the parents shall be allowed to lower his fiscal relevant income by 500 NGS$ per child and per year.
b. This reduction may only happen if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. This reduction may only happen until the child reaches the age of 25 years.

IV. Single families, meaning one of the partners left the partnership by cancelling the relationship or death must receive the following treatment:
a. The incentives mentioned in II.a. and II.c. must be doubled. The age limits stay the same.
b. The reduction mentioned in III.a. must be doubled. The age limit mentioned in III.c. must remain the same.
c. II.b. and III.b. also apply for single families.
d. II.d. also applies for single families.

---

Epilogue
This law will successfully increase birth rates as families and those who want to found a family are supported by the government. The government grants parents the possibility of incentives for both raising their children easier and actively influencing their own future as they, when they are retired, will have an easier life due to increased workforce.

please comment!

[Oneracon]

I think that giving "baby bonuses" is a dangerous road to go down.

Also, and I don't want to sound mean, but the tone of the bill is a bit "bloggy" (to use WA forum terms).

[Next Washington]

I think that giving "baby bonuses" is a dangerous road to go down.

why? should i also write a child right&protectio act? ^_^

Also, and I don't want to sound mean, but the tone of the bill is a bit "bloggy" (to use WA forum terms).

so you mean i should write more formally, more "swollen"?

[Maryginia]

Three months at the end of the day won't lessen the impact too much, four will though, Especially if we get to a season with a bunch of holidays.
Are you advocating Abolishing the Senate?

No, He like me is saying the government don't do much because the nation is run by a legislature not an executive in practice. The government is not much more than a figure head, they just deal with international stuff mainly.

The bills that the senate votes on anyone?

Are you actually serious? You want to reduce the frequency of the only time this RP get's really busy?

More importantly, why wouldn't you wait until your own party is in power?

I put, After the next election for a reason, To prevent bias, If it favors one coalition the other will vote it down.

[Skeckoa]

RP wise, do we actually act like Aurentina has twon month presidential terms? Or do we act as if it is more?

[Oneracon]

I think that giving "baby bonuses" is a dangerous road to go down.

why? should i also write a child right&protectio act? ^_^

Well because you run the risk of people having children just to get the baby bonus money, which is both unfair to the children and puts an excessive strain on our social programs.

so you mean i should write more formally, more "swollen"?

Formal, yes. Swollen, no.

I found the best way to improve my "legal-ese" was to look at existing laws from RL countries to get a feel for the language and terms.

[Next Washington]

why? should i also write a child right&protectio act? ^_^

Well because you run the risk of people having children just to get the baby bonus money, which is both unfair to the children and puts an excessive strain on our social programs.

so you mean i should write more formally, more "swollen"?

Formal, yes. Swollen, no.

I found the best way to improve my "legal-ese" was to look at existing laws from RL countries to get a feel for the language and terms.

ok, thank you for your help. tomorrow i'm gonna improve my "legal-ese" and write another act that deals with the potential problem you mentioned

[The Nihilistic view]

RP wise, do we actually act like Aurentina has twon month presidential terms? Or do we act as if it is more?

We could just RP like each term is 4 years but 2 months real time.

[Maryginia]

No. Elections are the funnest part of the RP.

Elections would still happen, but they'd be farther apart, when you have 25% of the term getting ready gor election, if nor more, well you can get as much done in government,.

[Geilinor]

I think that giving "baby bonuses" is a dangerous road to go down.

What if they were only for the first one or two children? It could help parents cover the cost of a new child while preventing extra children just for the money.

[The Nihilistic view]

I think that giving "baby bonuses" is a dangerous road to go down.

What if they were only for the first one or two children? It could help parents cover the cost of a new child while preventing extra children just for the money.

How about instead having a residency qualification. E.g the parents must have lived together for 5 or more years before the birth to qualify. Better deterrent don't you think?

[The Nihilistic view]

No. Elections are the funnest part of the RP.

Elections would still happen, but they'd be farther apart, when you have 25% of the term getting ready gor election, if nor more, well you can get as much done in government,.

HOW. MANY. TIMES. THE LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE SHAPE POLICY NOT THE GOVERNMENT ON ITS OWN. WE ARE NOT LIKE THE UK FOR EXAMPLE.


Sorry to shout but several senators have said it multiple times and you keep saying the same thing despite it being disproved.

[Geilinor]

What if they were only for the first one or two children? It could help parents cover the cost of a new child while preventing extra children just for the money.

How about instead having a residency qualification. E.g the parents must have lived together for 5 or more years before the birth to qualify. Better deterrent don't you think?

Why? That's stupid, we shouldn't be punishing parents for not having lived together long enough.

[Geilinor]

Elections would still happen, but they'd be farther apart, when you have 25% of the term getting ready gor election, if nor more, well you can get as much done in government,.

HOW. MANY. TIMES. THE LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE SHAPE POLICY NOT THE GOVERNMENT ON ITS OWN. WE ARE NOT LIKE THE UK FOR EXAMPLE.


Sorry to shout but several senators have said it multiple times and you keep saying the same thing despite it being disproved.

Who said we aren't like the UK? We're like the UK but just with more parties. The number of parties points to a Dutch or Spanish system, but I don't think any of us know enough about parliamentary procedure in those countries to RP it.

[Maryginia]

Elections would still happen, but they'd be farther apart, when you have 25% of the term getting ready gor election, if nor more, well you can get as much done in government,.

HOW. MANY. TIMES. THE LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE SHAPE POLICY NOT THE GOVERNMENT ON ITS OWN. WE ARE NOT LIKE THE UK FOR EXAMPLE.


Sorry to shout but several senators have said it multiple times and you keep saying the same thing despite it being disproved.

And yet the Legislature is what is being RP'd, I don't see a non-senator being President or holding any federal position, do you? Agency as a whole don't count as they are a position.

[The Nihilistic view]

How about instead having a residency qualification. E.g the parents must have lived together for 5 or more years before the birth to qualify. Better deterrent don't you think?

Why? That's stupid, we shouldn't be punishing parents for not having lived together long enough.

Because it encourages individuals to build lasting stable relationship before the bring a child into the world. With so many children living in broken homes in some western countries along with all the disadvantages that brings to the child. We should recognize commitment to family in the tax or benefit system since it will make sure that if there is such a child benefit people can't milk the system. If we have to have a system then it will hopefully get people to think about the consequences and responsibilities producing a child brings with it.

[Britanno]

Who said we aren't like the UK? We're like the UK but just with more parties. The number of parties points to a Dutch or Spanish system, but I don't think any of us know enough about parliamentary procedure in those countries to RP it.

Because the government has little actual power besides foreign policy. The UK government can make changes to the welfare system, the healthcare system, the education system etc. without Parliament's approval.

[The Nihilistic view]

HOW. MANY. TIMES. THE LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE SHAPE POLICY NOT THE GOVERNMENT ON ITS OWN. WE ARE NOT LIKE THE UK FOR EXAMPLE.


Sorry to shout but several senators have said it multiple times and you keep saying the same thing despite it being disproved.

Who said we aren't like the UK? We're like the UK but just with more parties. The number of parties points to a Dutch or Spanish system, but I don't think any of us know enough about parliamentary procedure in those countries to RP it.

We work on a system of 100% private members bills, not as the UK does government bills and opposition amendments.

[The Nihilistic view]

Who said we aren't like the UK? We're like the UK but just with more parties. The number of parties points to a Dutch or Spanish system, but I don't think any of us know enough about parliamentary procedure in those countries to RP it.

Because the government has little actual power besides foreign policy. The UK government can make changes to the welfare system, the healthcare system, the education system etc. without Parliament's approval.

^ This too.

[The Nihilistic view]

HOW. MANY. TIMES. THE LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE SHAPE POLICY NOT THE GOVERNMENT ON ITS OWN. WE ARE NOT LIKE THE UK FOR EXAMPLE.


Sorry to shout but several senators have said it multiple times and you keep saying the same thing despite it being disproved.

And yet the Legislature is what is being RP'd, I don't see a non-senator being President or holding any federal position, do you? Agency as a whole don't count as they are a position.

I still don't think you understand the difference between legislature and executive.

[Geilinor]

Why? That's stupid, we shouldn't be punishing parents for not having lived together long enough.

Because it encourages individuals to build lasting stable relationship before the bring a child into the world. With so many children living in broken homes in some western countries along with all the disadvantages that brings to the child. We should recognize commitment to family in the tax or benefit system since it will make sure that if there is such a child benefit people can't milk the system. If we have to have a system then it will hopefully get people to think about the consequences and responsibilities producing a child brings with it.

How does 5 years show commitment to family though? What if the parents have a child in 1 year? What's so irresponsible about that?

[Maryginia]

And yet the Legislature is what is being RP'd, I don't see a non-senator being President or holding any federal position, do you? Agency as a whole don't count as they are a position.

I still don't think you understand the difference between legislature and executive.

The Legislature, Aka The Senate, is A brach of the Government, but at the End of the Day, what is being RP'd?

[Geilinor]

Elections would still happen, but they'd be farther apart, when you have 25% of the term getting ready gor election, if nor more, well you can get as much done in government,.

HOW. MANY. TIMES. THE LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE SHAPE POLICY NOT THE GOVERNMENT ON ITS OWN.

The ruling coalition is still under no obligation to negotiate with you. The Progress Coalition does have an absolute majority.

[The Nihilistic view]

Because it encourages individuals to build lasting stable relationship before the bring a child into the world. With so many children living in broken homes in some western countries along with all the disadvantages that brings to the child. We should recognize commitment to family in the tax or benefit system since it will make sure that if there is such a child benefit people can't milk the system. If we have to have a system then it will hopefully get people to think about the consequences and responsibilities producing a child brings with it.

How does 5 years show commitment to family though? What if the parents have a child in 1 year? What's so irresponsible about that?

The fact that over 50% of couples break up after 2 years, we should not encourage those people to have children.