NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 4

[Haelunor]

I would like to know how many small businesses and hard hit families require jet fuel. I would tend to think the main consumers of that are large airlines and the extremely wealthy. I do not recall ever meeting a factory worker in my district that had a private jet.

[The Nihilistic view]

I would like to know how many small businesses and hard hit families require jet fuel. I would tend to think the main consumers of that are large airlines and the extremely wealthy. I do not recall ever meeting a factory worker in my district that had a private jet.

I believe this question has already been answered.

I am no economist, but even from my ignorant viewpoint it looks good. Sponsored.

Edit: I don't know why people need jet fuel, however.

Brings down the cost of air travel thus making holidays, business trips or vists to family more affordable.


EDIT: Some of the things on the list are there because they are component part of or used in the manufacturing process of other secondary goods, so if you reduce the cost of the inputs the cost of the output can also decrease in a competitive market economy such as ours.

[Haelunor]

Your argument is unconvincing. I doubt the airlines will be dropping their prices regardless of any taxes they might pay on jet fuel.

[The Nihilistic view]

Your argument is unconvincing. I doubt the airlines will be dropping their prices regardless of any taxes they might pay on jet fuel.

Instead of possibly and probably making it cheaper, you want to definitely keep it more expencive?

Cheap no frills Short haul firms in Europe are very price competitive, that is their business model. It would be odd not to pass it on and all it takes is one Airline to make the rest have to follow suit. It also reduces the need for future price rises in the short term as these are no longer justifiable to consumers. So either straight away or over time this cut will be passed onto consumers. And who uses low budget Airlines? The Working class.

[Haelunor]

Low budget airlines also have a notorious safety record. Something has to be cut out. It could theoretically make it cheaper while certainly reducing revenues collected through that tax. That money is used to regulate the airlines and ensure planes do not crash into the Progressive Coalition headquarters.

Anyway, air travel is horribly inefficient, and if we are committed to cutting our carbon footprint, we should not encourage it.

A tax cut on jet fuel remains a bad decision.

[The Saint James Islands]

That money is used to regulate the airlines and ensure planes do not crash into the Progressive Coalition headquarters.

Let's not go through with that again. Please note that I have no plans to crash a plane into ProgCo headquarters, as do my colleagues.

[The Nihilistic view]

Low budget airlines also have a notorious safety record. Something has to be cut out. It could theoretically make it cheaper while certainly reducing revenues collected through that tax. That money is used to regulate the airlines and ensure planes do not crash into the Progressive Coalition headquarters.

Anyway, air travel is horribly inefficient, and if we are committed to cutting our carbon footprint, we should not encourage it.

A tax cut on jet fuel remains a bad decision.

We are cutting our surplus not our spending with this bill.

[Haelunor]

I realize that. Just because there is a surplus at the moment does not mean taxes should be slashed for the sole benefit of a few companies and individuals in Aurentina. The environmental impact of expanded air travel is more than enough to make me intend to vote Nay on this bill.

[The Nihilistic view]

I realize that. Just because there is a surplus at the moment does not mean taxes should be slashed for the sole benefit of a few companies and individuals in Aurentina. The environmental impact of expanded air travel is more than enough to make me intend to vote Nay on this bill.

Well when your constituent's can't afford to see their family or are unable to go on holiday, struggle with their heating or cooling bills, with their electricity bill's and struggle to get to work they know who to blame. It's for the benefit of everyone and most of all the benefit of the poor who are most affected by consumption taxes.

I also think you underestimate the scope and scale of the efforts by aircraft manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency of their planes and the continuing gains being made. For Example the Dreamliner uses around 20% less fuel than the plane it replaces. Large strides have been made and more are continuing to be made in this area.

Air travel remains the only mode of transport able to allow people to visit family/have a half decent holiday abroad or in some cases in another part of ones country. Only enabling the Rich to use this transport is wrong.

[Costa Fierro]

And who uses low budget Airlines?

Holiday makers. There's a reason budget airlines fly to all the holiday destinations. I'm assuming you're aware of the controversy surrounding Ryanair and their fuel allowances.

[Libertechie]

"Thank you sir for your speech on some of the bills at hand. Who next seeks the floor to speak?"

"Point of order Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that you would use a term that is genderless for my gender is not that of masculinity, please."

[Unicario]

"Thank you sir for your speech on some of the bills at hand. Who next seeks the floor to speak?"

"Point of order Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that you would use a term that is genderless for my gender is not that of masculinity, please."

*facepalms from orbit* I don't believe that's a valid Point of Order.

[New Zepuha]

"Thank you sir for your speech on some of the bills at hand. Who next seeks the floor to speak?"

"Point of order Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that you would use a term that is genderless for my gender is not that of masculinity, please."

Not valid. Point dismissed.

[Libertechie]

"Point of order Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that you would use a term that is genderless for my gender is not that of masculinity, please."

*facepalms from orbit* I don't believe that's a valid Point of Order.

May as well try.

[Beta Test]

*facepalms from orbit* I don't believe that's a valid Point of Order.

May as well try.

No it's not.

[Libertechie]

May as well try.

No it's not.

*but at least it gave me a chance to remind him*

[Beta Test]

No it's not.

*but at least it gave me a chance to remind him*

Don't raise POO's about matters like that. Remind him informally if you have to.

[Pesda]

I'd like to speak about the fair taxation act, if I may.

When I first saw this bill, I was very glad. It seemed that the government (and any supporters outside the government) cared about the poor, struggling consumers, and those in our society who need help. Something is being done, finally, to reduce the evil that is the Value Added Tax. This would be great aid to our people.

I was, however extremely disappointed that the main tax reduction in this bill would be taxes on fossil fuels. There was an oppurtinity to cut taxes on clothes, electrionic devices, and so on. Better still, the 10% VAT on secondary goods and services could have been eliminated completely.

I question, why cut taxes on fuel and not other things? Why is saving £400 on heating more important than saving £400 on any other consumer good commonly brought? Did you also consider raising the income tax threshold, which would also help our consumers?

Don't get me wrong, I still commend the intention of this bill. The problem is, it doesn't go far enough. I'll probably vote "aye" despite being grumpy, though I am still ready to be conviced otherwise, should someone make a strong enough argument.

Finally, I'd like to comment on the environmental issue that the bill raises. The argument has been made that taxation on consumers will not reduce their demand for fossil fuels. This is only true if there's no alternative in the energy market. What is the government doing to make sure there is an alternative? How soon will there be an alternative? When will people be able to choose to heat their homes with clean electricity, rather than burning gas? How easy will it be to travel without burning petrol or jet fuel, and when? Will you find ways to reduce demand for energy without punishing the poor, for example by insulating homes?

While we realise that the poor are dependent on fossil fuels, and cutting this tax would without doubt help them, this is a short term solution to the long term problem of rising energy prices due to peak oil. We must not let this fool our people into thinking that we've got infinite petrol to burn.

To summerise, I will only support this bill if I am promised that our effots to combat climate change and a dependency on fossil fuels will continue and be redoubled. I will only support this bill if I am promised that the government is interested in other ways to cut the consumer's fuel bill, for example by being creative about reducing our demand for fossil fuels. And despite it not being conditional for my support, I'd be glad if we finally got rid of VAT once and for all.

Thank you.

[Placenza]

I just want to know why Liquid Hydrogen, Uranium and Plutonium are included as essential goods under the Fair Taxation Act.

[Haelunor]

Nuclear terrorists are on a budget, you know.

[Regnum Dominae]

I just want to know why Liquid Hydrogen, Uranium and Plutonium are included as essential goods under the Fair Taxation Act.

Nuclear power. Why should we end the VAT on all other energy sources but not nuclear?

[Placenza]

I just want to know why Liquid Hydrogen, Uranium and Plutonium are included as essential goods under the Fair Taxation Act.

Nuclear power. Why should we end the VAT on all other energy sources but not nuclear?

Because of the added potential dangers of nuclear power.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Nuclear power. Why should we end the VAT on all other energy sources but not nuclear?

Because of the added potential dangers of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is pretty dam safe assuming you dont build it in an earthquake zone and you build a decent structure.

[Placenza]

Because of the added potential dangers of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is pretty dam safe assuming you dont build it in an earthquake zone and you build a decent structure.

I'm totally aware of that. I'm an advocate for nuclear power, but accidents do happen.

[Aragon-Francho]

Nuclear power is pretty dam safe assuming you dont build it in an earthquake zone and you build a decent structure.

I'm totally aware of that. I'm an advocate for nuclear power, but accidents do happen.

In order to have 99.99% safe nuclear energy their would need to be a BAT (Best Available Technology) and Non-Hazardous Nuclear Plant Placement Regulation.

Either way, it is pretty freaking safe.