NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[Arkolon]

What, really? I don't remember the last time IC stuff happened here.

Most posts here have been IC, even the one above your post is.

Well, yeah, I meant before Nihil and Atlanticatia, who have used IC for the... first time I've noticed it in the Coffee Shop. I mean, looking back at pages 1, 2, 3 of this thread, IC no IC.

[Ainin]

Most posts here have been IC, even the one above your post is.

Well, yeah, I meant before Nihil and Atlanticatia, who have used IC for the... first time I've noticed it in the Coffee Shop. I mean, looking back at pages 1, 2, 3 of this thread, IC no IC.

People don't add speech marks because of habit, but everything in this thread that's not explicitly or implicitly OOC is IC.

[Arkolon]

Well, yeah, I meant before Nihil and Atlanticatia, who have used IC for the... first time I've noticed it in the Coffee Shop. I mean, looking back at pages 1, 2, 3 of this thread, IC no IC.

People don't add speech marks because of habit, but everything in this thread that's not explicitly or implicitly OOC is IC.

Huh. Interesting. So Boris really is an IC alcoholic.

[Geilinor]

The current plan is backwards. Raise really high taxes, force the use of expensive methods of energy creation and expect an economy to thrive. It won't, everybody will go elsewhere the rich of this nation will invest in foreign companies. The foreign companies won't invest here. The brightest will move abroad where they can get a job and earn money. "

Who's forcing the use of expensive energy?

[The Nihilistic view]

The current plan is backwards. Raise really high taxes, force the use of expensive methods of energy creation and expect an economy to thrive. It won't, everybody will go elsewhere the rich of this nation will invest in foreign companies. The foreign companies won't invest here. The brightest will move abroad where they can get a job and earn money. "

Who's forcing the use of expensive energy?

"The plan to ban offshore drilling, which is where most of the oil is in this part of the world. The Gulf of Mexico."

[Atlanticatia]

Who's forcing the use of expensive energy?

"The plan to ban offshore drilling, which is where most of the oil is in this part of the world. The Gulf of Mexico."

"So we should sacrifice our environment for short-term economic gains? The PM plans to build eco-tourism. Can't do that if there are oil spills on our beaches."

[The Nihilistic view]

"The plan to ban offshore drilling, which is where most of the oil is in this part of the world. The Gulf of Mexico."

"So we should sacrifice our environment for short-term economic gains? The PM plans to build eco-tourism. Can't do that if there are oil spills on our beaches."

"Key word if, with the proper regulations they can be mostly avoided. Has the landscape of Scotland or Northern England been ruined by the half a dozen small sills in the North sea? No, because the regulation is good. Anyway, banning drilling in our waters does not in anyway prevent our shores from suffering from oil spills. Tankers can still ground/sink and of course all the other nations in the Gulf of Mexico are drilling. If they have a spill the currents can take the oil spills to our coast anyway. It really does nothing to lessen the risk."

EDIT: Talking about major spills that have a measurable impact.

[Geilinor]

"The plan to ban offshore drilling, which is where most of the oil is in this part of the world. The Gulf of Mexico."

"So we should sacrifice our environment for short-term economic gains? The PM plans to build eco-tourism. Can't do that if there are oil spills on our beaches."

"The risk of oil spills is very small. Our environment is not going to be destroyed and if we have natural resources, we should use them."

[Royalsoldiers]

We are trying to make some sort of European, college-state, liberal paradise with all these ideas. If we are being realistic to our nation, we do not have the money to pay for these programs. Honestly, I feel like to get our economy going we should regulate and lease our off-shore natural resources to bring jobs and money into Calaverde. Banning off-shore drilling is a sure job killer, plus with proper regulations oil spills will almost never happen and we will get the jobs and taxes from the corporations. If we can even get them to invest here with the current taxation and the proposed retirement system.

[Atlanticatia]

we do not have the money to pay for these programs.

Why not? It's called taxes.

[Royalsoldiers]

we do not have the money to pay for these programs.

Why not? It's called taxes.

We don't have a tax plan if you haven't noticed, or even a proposed budget. Also last time I checked you're the minister of finance. Plus how would you know if we can afford this. We don't even know how much tax revenue we will bring in in 2015. You can't just say we will get the money from taxes when we don't even know what kind of money we will get from taxes. Plus there are many essential programs that I'd rather have funding go to rather than a retirement plan better than those of first-world, developed countries when we just had a revolution and are finally getting a solid governmental state with armed militias running around.

[Atlanticatia]

Why not? It's called taxes.

We don't have a tax plan if you haven't noticed, or even a proposed budget. Also last time I checked you're the minister of finance. Plus how would you know if we can afford this. We don't even know how much tax revenue we will bring in in 2015. You can't just say we will get the money from taxes when we don't even know what kind of money we will get from taxes. Plus there are many essential programs that I'd rather have funding go to rather than a retirement plan better than those of first-world, developed countries when we just had a revolution and are finally getting a solid governmental state with armed militias running around.

Why would we appropriate funding to ministries when we aren't 100% sure what the ministries will need?

So far we are probably going to end up with a budget of around $50-60 billion based on things that have been discussed by various ministers and the PM. That's about 23% of our GDP - hardly a huge amount.

[Geilinor]

We are trying to make some sort of European, college-state, liberal paradise with all these ideas. If we are being realistic to our nation, we do not have the money to pay for these programs. Honestly, I feel like to get our economy going we should regulate and lease our off-shore natural resources to bring jobs and money into Calaverde. Banning off-shore drilling is a sure job killer, plus with proper regulations oil spills will almost never happen and we will get the jobs and taxes from the corporations. If we can even get them to invest here with the current taxation and the proposed retirement system.

Off-shore drilling, a policy I disagree with, has nothing to do with a bill proposed here. I think we should move some of this stuff to the Lobby.

[Geilinor]

Why not? It's called taxes.

We don't have a tax plan if you haven't noticed, or even a proposed budget. Also last time I checked you're the minister of finance. Plus how would you know if we can afford this. We don't even know how much tax revenue we will bring in in 2015. You can't just say we will get the money from taxes when we don't even know what kind of money we will get from taxes. Plus there are many essential programs that I'd rather have funding go to rather than a retirement plan better than those of first-world, developed countries when we just had a revolution and are finally getting a solid governmental state with armed militias running around.

It isn't better than those of developed countries, it is equal to those in Hong Kong and Australia.

[The Nihilistic view]

We don't have a tax plan if you haven't noticed, or even a proposed budget. Also last time I checked you're the minister of finance. Plus how would you know if we can afford this. We don't even know how much tax revenue we will bring in in 2015. You can't just say we will get the money from taxes when we don't even know what kind of money we will get from taxes. Plus there are many essential programs that I'd rather have funding go to rather than a retirement plan better than those of first-world, developed countries when we just had a revolution and are finally getting a solid governmental state with armed militias running around.

Why would we appropriate funding to ministries when we aren't 100% sure what the ministries will need?

So far we are probably going to end up with a budget of around $50-60 billion based on things that have been discussed by various ministers and the PM. That's about 23% of our GDP - hardly a huge amount.

"So no reason for 24%+ social security contributions then. And why are both the welfare and finance and in some cases commerce ministers doubling up to do the same things?"

[Atlanticatia]

Why would we appropriate funding to ministries when we aren't 100% sure what the ministries will need?

So far we are probably going to end up with a budget of around $50-60 billion based on things that have been discussed by various ministers and the PM. That's about 23% of our GDP - hardly a huge amount.

"So no reason for 24%+ social security contributions then. And why are both the welfare and finance and in some cases commerce ministers doubling up to do the same things?"

"That is why I said those numbers that were proposed quite awhile ago aren't relevant anymore. Before we had begun actually planning and doing calculations, I assumed much higher spending. 24% social contributions will not be needed.. for example, in the original plan, I assumed that our pension scheme would be a defined benefit scheme that paid 70% of income to retirees. But the one proposed at the moment for example is a flat-rate scheme that is more affordable, which would be funded out of general revenues, most likely."

[Geilinor]

Why would we appropriate funding to ministries when we aren't 100% sure what the ministries will need?

So far we are probably going to end up with a budget of around $50-60 billion based on things that have been discussed by various ministers and the PM. That's about 23% of our GDP - hardly a huge amount.

And why are both the welfare and finance and in some cases commerce ministers doubling up to do the same things?"

"Hopefully that will be avoided in the future through better communication."

[Arkolon]

If public spending will only represent 23% of GDP, I will be very disappointed if I see an income tax bracket with any rate over 35%. 23% is practically a libertarian paradise; a single VAT levy could cover most of these expenses.

[Atlanticatia]

If public spending will only represent 23% of GDP, I will be very disappointed if I see an income tax bracket with any rate over 35%. 23% is practically a libertarian paradise; a single VAT levy could cover most of these expenses.

This is so far based on what ministries have discussed. (Basically 23% of GDP will cover energy/justice/education/interior/health/welfare/defence.) These make up the bulk of total spend I'd imagine, but we still need to appropriate for the other ministries which haven't been discussed yet in detail.

[Arkolon]

If public spending will only represent 23% of GDP, I will be very disappointed if I see an income tax bracket with any rate over 35%. 23% is practically a libertarian paradise; a single VAT levy could cover most of these expenses.

This is so far based on what ministries have discussed. (Basically 23% of GDP will cover energy/justice/education/interior/health/welfare/defence.) These make up the bulk of total spend I'd imagine, but we still need to appropriate for the other ministries which haven't been discussed yet in detail.

If that's the bulk of it, I still can't imagine spending reaching too far above 30%. It's not a lot, and the tax system should reflect that. I'm worried you might spend like a small state but tax like a big one.

[Atlanticatia]

This is so far based on what ministries have discussed. (Basically 23% of GDP will cover energy/justice/education/interior/health/welfare/defence.) These make up the bulk of total spend I'd imagine, but we still need to appropriate for the other ministries which haven't been discussed yet in detail.

If that's the bulk of it, I still can't imagine spending reaching too far above 30%. It's not a lot, and the tax system should reflect that. I'm worried you might spend like a small state but tax like a big one.

Well, I mean it's only our first term so it's not like we're going to be doing all of the spending we'd ever plan on in one budget. Things build up and increase over time. Spending and taxes will reflect that. I'll tax whatever is necessary to balance the budget exclusive of capital expenditures.

[Arkolon]

If that's the bulk of it, I still can't imagine spending reaching too far above 30%. It's not a lot, and the tax system should reflect that. I'm worried you might spend like a small state but tax like a big one.

Well, I mean it's only our first term so it's not like we're going to be doing all of the spending we'd ever plan on in one budget. Things build up and increase over time. Spending and taxes will reflect that. I'll tax whatever is necessary to balance the budget exclusive of capital expenditures.

You're phasing in your expenditures, but you're not phasing in a respective tax plan? You'll slow down business, yet rake in huge surpluses.

[Atlanticatia]

Well, I mean it's only our first term so it's not like we're going to be doing all of the spending we'd ever plan on in one budget. Things build up and increase over time. Spending and taxes will reflect that. I'll tax whatever is necessary to balance the budget exclusive of capital expenditures.

You're phasing in your expenditures, but you're not phasing in a respective tax plan? You'll slow down business, yet rake in huge surpluses.

Erm, I just said that taxes build-up and increase over time. Sorry if that was unclear.

I also said I'd only tax what was necessary to balance the budget exclusive of capital expenditures..i.e. no "raking in huge surpluses".

[Arkolon]

You're phasing in your expenditures, but you're not phasing in a respective tax plan? You'll slow down business, yet rake in huge surpluses.

Erm, I just said that taxes build-up and increase over time. Sorry if that was unclear.

I also said I'd only tax what was necessary to balance the budget exclusive of capital expenditures..i.e. no "raking in huge surpluses".

Ah, I see. I didn't catch that taxes would also be gradually phased in-- only expenditures.

So I'm guessing you'd be taxing income at very low levels, then? I can run a tax plan simulation with the agreed-upon income distribution, if you want. What are we thinking for the bands?

[New Werpland]

Is there any legislation regarding public libraries?