NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[Atlanticatia]

---

The Unemployment Assistance Act
| Author: Geneviève Duflot (Geilinor, LDP) |
| Sponsors: Tony Blair (Dejanic, LDP)

An act to establish a system to assist unemployed workers, with a focus on the Ghent system, where labor unions play a significant role in the provision of benefits.

---

Article I - Definitions

I. Labor union - A voluntary association of employees that organizes to lobby for improved working conditions.
Article II
[blocktext]I. The right of labor unions to provide for a pool of unemployment insurance benefits and set the terms of contributions shall be affirmed.
II. A labor union, if it chooses to provide for unemployment benefits, must pay an amount equal to at least 70% of a displayed worker's previous monthly wages, up to a maximum of the national average full-time wage as calculated by the Ministry of Labor, for a minimum of six months.

---

Article III - State Unemployment Assistance

I. If a worker chooses to opt out of joining a union or the labor union which they are a member of does not provide for unemployment benefits, they may enroll in the State Unemployment Assistance Program, which the Ministry of Labor shall establish and administer.

II. Employees who are members of the State Unemployment Assistance Program shall have 3% of their monthly income deducted from their wages and paid to the State Unemployment Assistance Program.

III. The State Unemployment Assistance Program shall pay an amount equal to at least 70% of a displayed worker's previous monthly wages, up to a maximum of the national average full-time wage as calculated by the Ministry of Labor, for up to six months.

---

This isn't a proper Ghent system, as the market structure of the voluntary unemployment programs we want to let flourish is being determined almost wholly by the government's own 3%. As Quendi noted, this changes the reality of the system being put forward. I'd much prefer dealing with poverty first, establishing a living wage through income redistribution (negative taxes, benefits, and transfers), and then letting unions decide for unemployment subsidies by themselves. The point of the Ghent system is to make unions stronger; making the state option an attractive one totally ruins that goal.

IMO if we are having the Ghent system, contributions to the unemployment benefit funds should be tax-deductible and employers should be required to contribute to the fund if their employee decides to join one. Maybe the state could also contribute to the funds a bit. So, let's say the UB fund charges $75 per month: the employee could pay $30, the employer could pay $30, and the state could pay $15 per month. This would make the employee's premium lower and encourage union membership and joining of the funds.

Then there should be a statutory state benefit that provides a flat-rate of benefit - one tier that is a universal insurance-based one (i.e. you can claim it for say 2 years), and one tier that is a means-tested minimum income unemployment benefit, for people who haven't made enough contributions. It'd provide a safety net for a minimum living standard. (Similar to Jobseekers' Allowance in the UK.) If people want a benefit that would replace their income, then they'd join a subsidized union-provided unemployment fund, which I imagine most people would. This would allow us to balance the of union encouragement, the Ghent system, and a universal safety net.

(I can TG you the benefit system I had written up recently, if you want.) However, I think the state benefits and contributions would be left to the Welfare Ministry and the Finance Ministry

[Arkanzia (Ancient)]

---

State Revenue Administration Act

Author: Sen. Sebastián Luc Morales (Atlanticatia | DemLeft)
Sponsors:
An act to provide for the administration and collection of State revenue.

---

Definitions

tax year - the fiscal year for which entities and individuals report and file taxes.

Purposes

• To set a framework for the collection of tax revenues.
• To set a framework for administration of tax collection and tax fraud investigation.
• To establish a system of national tax numbers.
• To set a framework for distribution of tax credits and tax refunds.

§ 1 - State Tax Office

a) The State Tax Office (STO) shall be established as an executive department of the Ministry of Finance.
b) The STO shall collect taxes from individuals, businesses, and other entities.
c) The STO shall handle all administration of revenue collection.
d) The STO shall handle all distribution of tax credits and refunds.
e) To administer revenue collection and tax credit payments, STO shall create a State Tax Number (STN) for every Calaverdean worker, taxpayer, and business.
f) The STO shall have funds appropriated to it to hire employees to administer the STO and to hire executives to manage the STO.
g) The STO shall investigate tax fraud and avoidance, in accordance with the Justice Ministry.

§ 2 - State Tax Number

a) All registered businesses, paid employees, contractors, and workers, and any other individuals or entities that receive income (both earned and unearned) must have a State Tax Number.
b) All legal residents and registered businesses who have the right to work or be in business, respectively, are entitled to a State Tax Number.
c) The State Tax Office shall create an STN for all of the aforementioned groups in §2-a.
d) Groups mentioned in §2-a must get an STN from the State Tax Office in order to be employed, open for business, and earning income.
e) Employers must have an STN for any person they pay wages or salaries to in order to employ them.
f) The formula for creating the STNs shall be developed by the State Tax Office, and must be a random string of numbers.

§ 3 - Tax Collection from Individual Employees

a) People employed by a firm, not as a contractor, shall have personal income and social taxes deducted from their wages or salaries by their employer, via a "Pay As You Earn" (PAYE) system.

i.) Individuals shall be automatically enrolled in the PAYE system.

b) Individuals shall also have the right to pay their tax liability in a lump-sum at the end of the year.
c) The STO shall devise a framework for administering this system.

§ 3 - Tax Collection from other Income-Earning Individuals

a) Individuals who earn income, not as employees of a firm, must pay applicable taxes by filing an annual tax return with the STO.
b) Individuals shall have the right to pay tax on a quarterly basis or annual basis.
c) The STO shall devise a framework for administering this system.

§ 4 - Tax Collection From Private Entities

a) Private entities, such as businesses, must pay applicable taxes by filing an annual tax return with the STO.
b) The STO shall devise a framework for administering this system.

§ 5 - The Tax Year

a) The 'tax year' shall run from the 1st of January to the 31st December.
b) Tax returns must be filed with the STO by the 15th of April.

Putting this here, anyone want to sponsor, comment, etc?

Sponsored

[Malgrave]

---

An Act to Apply to Join International and Regional Organizations

Author: Sen. Cristobal Araullo (Argentarino | LibDem)
Sponsors: Sen. Lucho Sanchez Hierro (Bandwagon | WA); Sen. Shadak Fantom (Great Nepal | LibDem); Sen. Tony Blair (Dejanic | LibDem);
An act to apply to the United Nations and all of the agencies under it, as well as other International and Regional Organizations.

---

I sponsor this and Atlanticatia's bill

[The Nihilistic view]

This isn't a proper Ghent system, as the market structure of the voluntary unemployment programs we want to let flourish is being determined almost wholly by the government's own 3%. As Quendi noted, this changes the reality of the system being put forward. I'd much prefer dealing with poverty first, establishing a living wage through income redistribution (negative taxes, benefits, and transfers), and then letting unions decide for unemployment subsidies by themselves. The point of the Ghent system is to make unions stronger; making the state option an attractive one totally ruins that goal.

IMO if we are having the Ghent system, contributions to the unemployment benefit funds should be tax-deductible and employers should be required to contribute to the fund if their employee decides to join one. Maybe the state could also contribute to the funds a bit. So, let's say the UB fund charges $75 per month: the employee could pay $30, the employer could pay $30, and the state could pay $15 per month. This would make the employee's premium lower and encourage union membership and joining of the funds.

Then there should be a statutory state benefit that provides a flat-rate of benefit - one tier that is a universal insurance-based one (i.e. you can claim it for say 2 years), and one tier that is a means-tested minimum income unemployment benefit, for people who haven't made enough contributions. It'd provide a safety net for a minimum living standard. (Similar to Jobseekers' Allowance in the UK.) If people want a benefit that would replace their income, then they'd join a subsidized union-provided unemployment fund, which I imagine most people would. This would allow us to balance the of union encouragement, the Ghent system, and a universal safety net.

(I can TG you the benefit system I had written up recently, if you want.) However, I think the state benefits and contributions would be left to the Welfare Ministry and the Finance Ministry

I don't think the state should be funding anything they are not offering to everyone. If they give $15 to the unions then Job seekers should be $15 higher.

[Argentarino]

What about Caricom?

We are not a Caribbean nation. We are a Latin American nation, and our neighbors in Nicaragua and Honduras are not members of Caricom as well. We do not meet the geographical requirements to be a member of Caricom.

EDIT: The bill has five sponsors and will be moved to the Speaker's Office to be placed in the queue.

[Atlanticatia]

IMO if we are having the Ghent system, contributions to the unemployment benefit funds should be tax-deductible and employers should be required to contribute to the fund if their employee decides to join one. Maybe the state could also contribute to the funds a bit. So, let's say the UB fund charges $75 per month: the employee could pay $30, the employer could pay $30, and the state could pay $15 per month. This would make the employee's premium lower and encourage union membership and joining of the funds.

Then there should be a statutory state benefit that provides a flat-rate of benefit - one tier that is a universal insurance-based one (i.e. you can claim it for say 2 years), and one tier that is a means-tested minimum income unemployment benefit, for people who haven't made enough contributions. It'd provide a safety net for a minimum living standard. (Similar to Jobseekers' Allowance in the UK.) If people want a benefit that would replace their income, then they'd join a subsidized union-provided unemployment fund, which I imagine most people would. This would allow us to balance the of union encouragement, the Ghent system, and a universal safety net.

(I can TG you the benefit system I had written up recently, if you want.) However, I think the state benefits and contributions would be left to the Welfare Ministry and the Finance Ministry

I don't think the state should be funding anything they are not offering to everyone. If they give $15 to the unions then Job seekers should be $15 higher.

I imagine it could be in the form of a tax rebate or something, to encourage people to join one.

[The Nihilistic view]

I don't think the state should be funding anything they are not offering to everyone. If they give $15 to the unions then Job seekers should be $15 higher.

I imagine it could be in the form of a tax rebate or something, to encourage people to join one.

Not all unions are good. That's a problem we had in the UK a lots of dubious stuff and intimidation went on, it's a big part of the reason why lot's of people went anti-union and they are not that popular any more. I know it's why my Grandfather left his union, he refused to join in with a strike he did not agree with and was threatened and intimidated in several ways. Giving them a monopoly over these sorts of things is not a very good idea.

[Atlanticatia]

I imagine it could be in the form of a tax rebate or something, to encourage people to join one.

Not all unions are good. That's a problem we had in the UK a lots of dubious stuff and intimidation went on, it's a big part of the reason why lot's of people went anti-union and they are not that popular any more. I know it's why my Grandfather left his union, he refused to join in with a strike he did not agree with and was threatened and intimidated in several ways. Giving them a monopoly over these sorts of things is not a very good idea.

I don't know a lot about the Ghent system, but I think people would be allowed to one a non-union fund, if they want.

[The Neo-Confederate States of America]

I like the flag

What do you think of the other two I've designed? Which one do you prefer?

(Image)

(Image)

The top one.

[The Nihilistic view]

Not all unions are good. That's a problem we had in the UK a lots of dubious stuff and intimidation went on, it's a big part of the reason why lot's of people went anti-union and they are not that popular any more. I know it's why my Grandfather left his union, he refused to join in with a strike he did not agree with and was threatened and intimidated in several ways. Giving them a monopoly over these sorts of things is not a very good idea.

I don't know a lot about the Ghent system, but I think people would be allowed to one a non-union fund, if they want.

What i mean is that giving all power to one group does not work. There has to be a balance and we found out in the UK during the 70s that all power to the unions does not work.

[Atlanticatia]

I don't know a lot about the Ghent system, but I think people would be allowed to one a non-union fund, if they want.

What i mean is that giving all power to one group does not work. There has to be a balance and we found out in the UK during the 70s that all power to the unions does not work.

So your problem is more that a lot of the workforce will end up unionised?..

[The Nihilistic view]

What i mean is that giving all power to one group does not work. There has to be a balance and we found out in the UK during the 70s that all power to the unions does not work.

So your problem is more that a lot of the workforce will end up unionised?..

My problem is that the Union leaders will end up bulling members and using their power to direct things how they want rather than members. It always happen in any organisation where a select group get too much power. The government need to balance out this power for those who don't care to be in a union not reinforce this power and make ordinary people feel alone.

[Atlanticatia]

So your problem is more that a lot of the workforce will end up unionised?..

My problem is that the Union leaders will end up bulling members and using their power to direct things how they want rather than members. It always happen in any organisation where a select group get too much power. The government need to balance out this power for those who don't care to be in a union not reinforce this power and make ordinary people feel alone.

There isn't any compulsory union membership.

[The Nihilistic view]

My problem is that the Union leaders will end up bulling members and using their power to direct things how they want rather than members. It always happen in any organisation where a select group get too much power. The government need to balance out this power for those who don't care to be in a union not reinforce this power and make ordinary people feel alone.

There isn't any compulsory union membership.

There does not need to be if the only decent benefits are from unions.

[Atlanticatia]

There isn't any compulsory union membership.

There does not need to be if the only decent benefits are from unions.

Why is it a bad thing if a lot of people belong to unions? Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium etc are all doing relatively decent (with no constant violent class war) despite a majority of the workforce being unionised.

Unions help to rebalance the negotiations between employers and employees, putting everyone on equal footing.

[The Nihilistic view]

There does not need to be if the only decent benefits are from unions.

Why is it a bad thing if a lot of people belong to unions? Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium etc are all doing relatively decent (with no constant violent class war) despite a majority of the workforce being unionised.

Unions help to rebalance the negotiations between employers and employees.

And by giving them such power that people have to join if they want to survive with dignity you unbalance the situation. It's not a case of one should have the other over a barrel it's a case of the two needing to balance out.

[Atlanticatia]

Why is it a bad thing if a lot of people belong to unions? Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium etc are all doing relatively decent (with no constant violent class war) despite a majority of the workforce being unionised.

Unions help to rebalance the negotiations between employers and employees.

And by giving them such power that people have to join if they want to survive with dignity you unbalance the situation. It's not a case of one should have the other over a barrel it's a case of the two needing to balance out.

I have proposed that there would be universal entitlement to a statutory flat-rate state benefit. People will have numerous options.

[The Nihilistic view]

And by giving them such power that people have to join if they want to survive with dignity you unbalance the situation. It's not a case of one should have the other over a barrel it's a case of the two needing to balance out.

I have proposed that there would be universal entitlement to a statutory flat-rate state benefit. People will have numerous options.

I don't think anybody in the UK (Bar those that believe in no government) would call JSA generous and many would would not agree it allows people dignity. So if that is the plan it is not adequate enough to actually give them a proper choice espechally if the plan is to give unions more money per member per month than somebody on JSA would ever take out in between jobs.

[Atlanticatia]

I have proposed that there would be universal entitlement to a statutory flat-rate state benefit. People will have numerous options.

I don't think anybody in the UK (Bar those that believe in no government) would call JSA generous and many would would not agree it allows people dignity. So if that is the plan it is not adequate enough to actually give them a proper choice espechally if the plan is to give unions more money per member per month than somebody on JSA would ever take out in between jobs.

I was just referring to the semantics of it (how JSA has an insurance component and a means-tested component), and how it's a flat rate. The flat rate is pitifully low. I believe I proposed something like $90 a week or so awhile ago.

[Britanno]

I don't see how you can assume the union leaders will be like those of Britain in the 1970s...

[Argentarino]

To the Senators who want to add a time restraint of 24 weeks (with exceptions for rape, incest, endangered mother, etc), I am willing to write up an amendment in the event the pro-choice bill passes. Is there anyone who would like to work with me?

[Dragomerian Islands]

To the Senators who want to add a time restraint of 24 weeks (with exceptions for rape, incest, endangered mother, etc), I am willing to write up an amendment in the event the pro-choice bill passes. Is there anyone who would like to work with me?

Yes.

[Dejanic]

To the Senators who want to add a time restraint of 24 weeks (with exceptions for rape, incest, endangered mother, etc), I am willing to write up an amendment in the event the pro-choice bill passes. Is there anyone who would like to work with me?

If the bill passes, then I would support this. Though with the way things are going the bill will fail to pass and a new one will need to be written with this 24 week restraint in place. Which is good, as the bill in its current iteration is very poor.

[The Nihilistic view]

To the Senators who want to add a time restraint of 24 weeks (with exceptions for rape, incest, endangered mother, etc), I am willing to write up an amendment in the event the pro-choice bill passes. Is there anyone who would like to work with me?

Yes, to me the 24 week limit is what is making me oppose the current bill.

[Geilinor]

I made some of the suggested changes.

---

The Unemployment Assistance Act
| Author: Geneviève Duflot (Geilinor, LDP) |
| Sponsors: Tony Blair (Dejanic, LDP)

An act to establish a system to assist unemployed workers, with a focus on the Ghent system, where labor unions play a significant role in the provision of benefits.

---

Article I - Definitions

I. Labor union - A voluntary association of employees that organizes to lobby for improved working conditions.

---

Article II

I. The right of labor unions to provide for a pool of unemployment insurance benefits and set the terms of contributions shall be affirmed. Employees may also join non-union administered benefit plans.

II. Employers shall be required to contribute 25% of the cost of an unemployment insurance scheme and the Ministry of Labor shall contribute 25%.

III. The amount paid to a unemployment insurance shall be deductible from income or corporate tax.

---

Article III - State Unemployment Assistance

I. Employees may enroll in the State Unemployment Assistance Program, which the Ministry of Social Welfare shall establish and administer.

II. Employees who are members of the State Unemployment Assistance Program shall have 2% of their monthly income deducted from their wages and paid to the State Unemployment Assistance Program. The contribution is tax-deductible.

III. Employers shall contribute 2% of monthly wages paid to the State Unemployment Assistance Program if their employees choose to join the program. The contribution is tax-deductible.

IV. The State Unemployment Assistance Program shall pay an amount equal to at least 70% of a displayed worker's previous monthly wages, up to a maximum of the national average full-time wage as calculated by the Ministry of Labor, for up to six months.

---