The National Liberal Party HQ [NSG Senate]

[The Nihilistic view]

Very Interesting, thanks for digging out those articles.

I'm glad that you're taking a shine to this, I would happily draft a policy if it would aid in this however basics would be needed such as if we're charging fees, taxes or duty and whether it should apply to all land or a resource or to something else entirely as one of the articles suggest it really can be used regardless of if we are resource rich or not.

My own thoughts are that maybe it should be separate but smaller bills fed into the chamber as on there own each bill may have more chance to be passed. I just think to some, mostly the government it will be a controversial proposal and obviously the government has the current majority.

So for example; One bill for the commercial properties on government land and then each natural resource could have its own small bill using a basic template. That way different minerals can be charged different amounts depending on the markets situation, thus maximize the potential whilst not damaging the mining of mineral with low profit margins.

[The Nihilistic view]

Also additionally, it has sort of been done in Hong Kong but not as far as I'm suggesting we go with this.

Whilst I am sure a lot of people will see this as a progressive and left wing idea, it really can benefit everyone from citizens to big business and it's an important opportunity that we can grab right now.

No I would not suggest that either, It looks to me like the way HK have done it, it could potentially go wrong very easily inflation wise and also with unaffordable housing price rises for the local residents. a good example of how not to do it.

EDIT: The Alaskan example looked much better.

[Battlion]

I'm glad that you're taking a shine to this, I would happily draft a policy if it would aid in this however basics would be needed such as if we're charging fees, taxes or duty and whether it should apply to all land or a resource or to something else entirely as one of the articles suggest it really can be used regardless of if we are resource rich or not.

My own thoughts are that maybe it should be separate but smaller bills fed into the chamber as on there own each bill may have more chance to be passed. I just think to some, mostly the government it will be a controversial proposal and obviously the government has the current majority.

So for example; One bill for the commercial properties on government land and then each natural resource could have its own small bill using a basic template. That way different minerals can be charged different amounts depending on the markets situation, thus maximize the potential whilst not damaging the mining of mineral with low profit margins.

Using too many resources will damage the environment too much, I really think we should go with one profitable resource or area we can use. However I agree we should allow some flexibility on which area we use however I fear this could lead to speculation from investors and could drive some away which will be bad for the nation and could lead to high inflation. I propose we go with one area... if we go with several whilst it would open more chances of revenue it will lead to less people investing as what we choose would depend on markets which as we all know can change at the tip of a hat.

[The Nihilistic view]

My own thoughts are that maybe it should be separate but smaller bills fed into the chamber as on there own each bill may have more chance to be passed. I just think to some, mostly the government it will be a controversial proposal and obviously the government has the current majority.

So for example; One bill for the commercial properties on government land and then each natural resource could have its own small bill using a basic template. That way different minerals can be charged different amounts depending on the markets situation, thus maximize the potential whilst not damaging the mining of mineral with low profit margins.

Using too many resources will damage the environment too much, I really think we should go with one profitable resource or area we can use. However I agree we should allow some flexibility on which area we use however I fear this could lead to speculation from investors and could drive some away which will be bad for the nation and could lead to high inflation. I propose we go with one area... if we go with several whilst it would open more chances of revenue it will lead to less people investing as what we choose would depend on markets which as we all know can change at the tip of a hat.

Ok, Which one would you recommend depending on if we have any deposits?

[Battlion]

Also additionally, it has sort of been done in Hong Kong but not as far as I'm suggesting we go with this.

Whilst I am sure a lot of people will see this as a progressive and left wing idea, it really can benefit everyone from citizens to big business and it's an important opportunity that we can grab right now.

No I would not suggest that either, It looks to me like the way HK have done it, it could potentially go wrong very easily inflation wise and also with unaffordable housing price rises for the local residents. a good example of how not to do it.

EDIT: The Alaskan example looked much better.

The Alaskan example is the way I'd like us to go with it, I'd also suggest we need to decide at what age a citizen becomes available for the dividend. I believe that in Alaska everyone who has been a resident for a year, hasn't committed an offence in the previous year.

This is how Alaska determines how much it pays...

1. Add Fund Statutory Net Income from the current plus the previous four fiscal years.
2. Multiply by 21%
3. Divide by 2
4. Subtract prior year obligations, expenses and PFD program operations
5. Divide by the number of eligible applicants

The lowest individual dividend payout was $331.29 in 1984 and the highest was $2,069 in 2008.


Here is how much it has been since the year 2000

2012 - $878.00
2011 - $1,174.00
2010 - $1,281.00
2009 - $1,305.00
2008 - $2,069.00
2007 - $1,654.00
2006 - $1,106.96
2005 - $845.76
2004 - $919.84
2003 - $1,107.56
2002 - $1,540.76
2001 - $1,850.28
2000 - $1,963.86 Figures here

As you can see, fairly consistent with economic fortunes of the state at the time therefore whilst we are a young nation with good economic health this will be very beneficial.

Using too many resources will damage the environment too much, I really think we should go with one profitable resource or area we can use. However I agree we should allow some flexibility on which area we use however I fear this could lead to speculation from investors and could drive some away which will be bad for the nation and could lead to high inflation. I propose we go with one area... if we go with several whilst it would open more chances of revenue it will lead to less people investing as what we choose would depend on markets which as we all know can change at the tip of a hat.

Ok, Which one would you recommend depending on if we have any deposits?

Oil or Coal, definitely one of those two.

[The Nihilistic view]

No I would not suggest that either, It looks to me like the way HK have done it, it could potentially go wrong very easily inflation wise and also with unaffordable housing price rises for the local residents. a good example of how not to do it.

EDIT: The Alaskan example looked much better.

The Alaskan example is the way I'd like us to go with it, I'd also suggest we need to decide at what age a citizen becomes available for the dividend. I believe that in Alaska everyone who has been a resident for a year, hasn't committed an offence in the previous year.

This is how Alaska determines how much it pays...

1. Add Fund Statutory Net Income from the current plus the previous four fiscal years.
2. Multiply by 21%
3. Divide by 2
4. Subtract prior year obligations, expenses and PFD program operations
5. Divide by the number of eligible applicants

The lowest individual dividend payout was $331.29 in 1984 and the highest was $2,069 in 2008.


Here is how much it has been since the year 2000

2012 - $878.00
2011 - $1,174.00
2010 - $1,281.00
2009 - $1,305.00
2008 - $2,069.00
2007 - $1,654.00
2006 - $1,106.96
2005 - $845.76
2004 - $919.84
2003 - $1,107.56
2002 - $1,540.76
2001 - $1,850.28
2000 - $1,963.86 Figures here

As you can see, fairly consistent with economic fortunes of the state at the time therefore whilst we are a young nation with good economic health this will be very beneficial.

Ok, Which one would you recommend depending on if we have any deposits?

Oil or Coal, definitely one of those two.

Ok, in Europe, especially Germany coal seems to be making a comeback so I with go with coal, especially as reserves are predicted to last for a long time yet.

As for who should be eligible to receive the money my ideas are;

1) Any individual who both holds citizenship and has lived in the country continuously for the 5 years prior. (In effect most people will get it from age 5) the length of time is just to stop abuse and an incentive for loyalty to the country as is the fact that only those who hold Aurentine citizenship should get the money. It also mean expats would lose it unless they came back and then lived here for 5 years.

2) Those with a criminal record should be barred from getting the money for the rest of their lives.

[Battlion]

1) I can agree with
2) I cannot, I personally feel they should be barred for some time but not for the rest of their life.

[The Nihilistic view]

Oh and

3) Those in the Armed forces and the emergency services should get double the normal amount due to the sacrifices they are prepared to make for the benefit of the rest of society.

[The Nihilistic view]

[quote="Battlion";p="16003837"]1) I can agree with

Why not? From my POV if you commit a crime you show a lack of respect and thought for your fellow citizens you should lose the right to share in their social dividend. Us it a tool to promote good citizen ship and to think about others and the consequences of your actions.

How about they have the opportunity to win it back if in the eyes of a judge they are seem to have helped society by

A) Volunteering for a charity or
B)Perform an act of good citizenship.

[Battlion]

Why not? From my POV if you commit a crime you show a lack of respect and thought for your fellow citizens you should lose the right to share in their social dividend. Us it a tool to promote good citizen ship and to think about others and the consequences of your actions.

How about they have the opportunity to win it back if in the eyes of a judge they are seem to have helped society by

A) Volunteering for a charity or
B)Perform an act of good citizenship.

See, that I could go with if there was more detail to it.

And regarding the AF, I can't agree whilst it would be nice we should give everybody in good standing the exact same amount. If we alter that we're changing the fundamentals of the dividend, the idea is create equality giving more to someone won't help that just make it more unequal. Plus when the AF grows it could become unaffordable very fast.

I think we should look at other methods for rewarding the AF not use the dividend for that.

[The Nihilistic view]

Why not? From my POV if you commit a crime you show a lack of respect and thought for your fellow citizens you should lose the right to share in their social dividend. Us it a tool to promote good citizen ship and to think about others and the consequences of your actions.

How about they have the opportunity to win it back if in the eyes of a judge they are seem to have helped society by

A) Volunteering for a charity or
B)Perform an act of good citizenship.

See, that I could go with if there was more detail to it.

And regarding the AF, I can't agree whilst it would be nice we should give everybody in good standing the exact same amount. If we alter that we're changing the fundamentals of the dividend, the idea is create equality giving more to someone won't help that just make it more unequal. Plus when the AF grows it could become unaffordable very fast.

I think we should look at other methods for rewarding the AF not use the dividend for that.

Ok, Well I will think about writing a section about those with a criminals winning it back and post it here later for you to look at.


I also thought about the AF because soldiers etc mostly come from the poorest sections of society so I thought increasing their divided would help with equality.

[Battlion]

I understand the reasoning behind the AF idea, just don't think the Citizens Dividend isn't the way for it. I think an alternate reward for them should be arranged on top of their dividend...

Everyone should receive the same dividend...

[Battlion]

Another alternative source for the dividend could be the surplus of whole state revenue, although this relies on a constant surplus which I don't think will be possible forever.

[Battlion]

I'd also like to discuss our policy regarding pensions...

I personally think we should support our own version of this currently being introduced in the United Kingdom

[The Nihilistic view]

Another alternative source for the dividend could be the surplus of whole state revenue, although this relies on a constant surplus which I don't think will be possible forever.

It also defies the whole point of running a surplus.

[Battlion]

Another alternative source for the dividend could be the surplus of whole state revenue, although this relies on a constant surplus which I don't think will be possible forever.

It also defies the whole point of running a surplus.

Then I think Coal will be the best option for the dividend

[New Corenea]

Wait, please explain your economic agenda please, I can't follow what you guys are saying

[Battlion]

Wait, please explain your economic agenda please, I can't follow what you guys are saying

From our finance policy

It is proposed that all citizens receive regular payments (dividends) from revenue raised by the state through leasing or selling natural resources for private use. This concept is a form of basic income guarantee, where the Citizen's Dividend depends upon the value of natural resources or what could be titled as "common goods" like location values, the industrial use of air (CO production), etc.

We look to the State of Alaska for Inspiration for this proposal; The State of Alaska dispenses a form of citizen's dividend in its Permanent Fund Dividend, which holds investments initially seeded by the state's revenue from mineral resources, particularly petroleum. In 2005, every eligible Alaskan resident (including children) received a check for $845.76.

Over the 24-year history of the fund, it has paid out a total of $24,775.45 to every resident. This will ensure that private companies and the government are compensating citizens for the use of their resources and will be an excellent measure for invigorating the economy.

[Seitonjin]

May I bring something up.

Is the economy an economy that can give us surplus?

If not, I can tell you right now that it won't work out.

[Battlion]

May I bring something up.

Is the economy an economy that can give us surplus?

If not, I can tell you right now that it won't work out.

Yes, but the surplus isn't really what matters in regard to the Citizens Dividend if we go along with a natural resource like Coal.

The proposal where it has been implemented properly has proven itself to work and make the lives of citizens much better even resulting in income tax in Alaska to be completely dropped. This is something we must consider and is official party policy.

[Seitonjin]

May I bring something up.

Is the economy an economy that can give us surplus?

If not, I can tell you right now that it won't work out.

Yes, but the surplus isn't really what matters in regard to the Citizens Dividend if we go along with a natural resource like Coal.

The proposal where it has been implemented properly has proven itself to work and make the lives of citizens much better even resulting in income tax in Alaska to be completely dropped. This is something we must consider and is official party policy.

Wait for other party members first. Poll maybe?

Anyways. I don't really like the idea of using coal as a primary export. After all, coal is not the cleanest source of energy on my mind. Wouldn't that go against our environmental playform all together? This surplus needed ensure that the citizens get improved lives seems to require of continous exports of materials that can cause the degradation of the environment. Of course there should be other ways of implementing this to an extent along side a income tax for safe measure. But the long term effects of this policy and the finite amout of resources able to be exported is bugging me and may cause some qualms with other members.

I like the idea of an income tax in that it has worked in other places and works to this very day. I just have disapproval of extremely high corporate and sales taxes.

[New Corenea]

Why not use it in the case of minnerals found here? Or better yet, why not nuclear? Nuclear energy is cheap, clean, and stable. It's good for the environment which correlates to the NLP's environmental platform. It's cleaner than coal and gas and it's cheaper and more reliable than solar powered.

[Seitonjin]

Why not use it in the case of minnerals found here? Or better yet, why not nuclear? Nuclear energy is cheap, clean, and stable. It's good for the environment which correlates to the NLP's environmental platform. It's cleaner than coal and gas and it's cheaper and more reliable than solar powered.

Export nuclear energy ja?

I like i like like like like like asdfghjkl.

[Geilinor]

Also additionally, it has sort of been done in Hong Kong but not as far as I'm suggesting we go with this.

Whilst I am sure a lot of people will see this as a progressive and left wing idea, it really can benefit everyone from citizens to big business and it's an important opportunity that we can grab right now.

No I would not suggest that either, It looks to me like the way HK have done it, it could potentially go wrong very easily inflation wise and also with unaffordable housing price rises for the local residents. a good example of how not to do it.

EDIT: The Alaskan example looked much better.

Singapore has most of its land under a government-owned tenure system as well, with most residential property held under 99-year leases from the government.

[Battlion]

Yes, but the surplus isn't really what matters in regard to the Citizens Dividend if we go along with a natural resource like Coal.

The proposal where it has been implemented properly has proven itself to work and make the lives of citizens much better even resulting in income tax in Alaska to be completely dropped. This is something we must consider and is official party policy.

Wait for other party members first. Poll maybe?

Anyways. I don't really like the idea of using coal as a primary export. After all, coal is not the cleanest source of energy on my mind. Wouldn't that go against our environmental playform all together? This surplus needed ensure that the citizens get improved lives seems to require of continous exports of materials that can cause the degradation of the environment. Of course there should be other ways of implementing this to an extent along side a income tax for safe measure. But the long term effects of this policy and the finite amout of resources able to be exported is bugging me and may cause some qualms with other members.

I like the idea of an income tax in that it has worked in other places and works to this very day. I just have disapproval of extremely high corporate and sales taxes.

It's not an export, that isn't what we're suggesting.

What the dividend would do is that land where coal is located needs to be mined by business correct? The government owns that land, the government would lease or charge rent on that land which the business pays. This can be done all around the country, that money is then applied to the previously mentioned formula and each citizen of the nation that meets the criteria receives an equal payment.

Nuclear energy cannot apply to this, it is merely land resources or land in general.

Singapore is a prime example of somewhere that could benefit from it if there was a dividend on land as for previously mentioned reasons.

Also, this has been party policy since it's inception and is in the manifesto. So it doesn't require a vote, plus voting on all policies will be completely stupid as nothing will get done so it will merely be changed when there is a compelling case for it.