NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[Skappola]

Why do we have to do all this district stuff when we can just have a popular vote? It makes much more sense.

The district system allows for more local representatives and minimizes vote count errors through better organization.

[Heraklea-]

Why do we have to do all this district stuff when we can just have a popular vote? It makes much more sense.

The district system allows for more local representatives and minimizes vote count errors through better organization.

No it doesn't. It sets up the same problems that the Electoral College in the US has. It is likely only a handful of those districts would actually be competitive and thus the entire direction of the country will be based on the wants of a small portion of the population as candidates for president tailor their messages to those districts. It would be better to simply have a national vote. If you are so worried about vote count errors, ensure there are plenty of counters and we won't have that problem.

[The New World Oceania]

Why do we have to do all this district stuff when we can just have a popular vote? It makes much more sense.

ICly, it equalizes votes and would theoretically make them more manageable. OOCly, it gives room for campaigning and lobbying.

On ranked voting, we have ranked voting presently — this act calls for ranked voting also, just wish a different method of counting.

[Skappola]

The district system allows for more local representatives and minimizes vote count errors through better organization.

No it doesn't. It sets up the same problems that the Electoral College in the US has. It is likely only a handful of those districts would actually be competitive and thus the entire direction of the country will be based on the wants of a small portion of the population as candidates for president tailor their messages to those districts. It would be better to simply have a national vote. If you are so worried about vote count errors, ensure there are plenty of counters and we won't have that problem.

Setting up competitive voting districts in entirely possible, especially once you eliminate the issue of gerrymandering. This bill likely will prevent gerrymandering through the creation of a nonpartisan committee which revises the borders periodically. Personally, I would have preferred the use of the shortest split-line method, which would be significantly cheaper and more efficient, but this solution is equally valid.

And the districts do allow for very local representatives which citizens can go to and work with to address local problems. This allows citizens to get truly involved in politics simply by emailing or visiting their representative. Otherwise, you just get a number of national representatives with no one to go to for more local issues that have to be solved at a higher level of governence.

Additionally, the creation of districts allows for votes to be efficientally divided up and processed, which goes beyond simply having more counters.

[New Werpland]

Is there any legislation regarding Tariffs?

[Bleckonia]

But back to "trickle-down": when there is less government interference in the market, ther eis less potential for inefficiency, so the poor are actually better off.

You've literally proposed raising taxes on low-income workers. How would that make them better off?

Not to mention, I imagine the FCP would destroy the proposed welfare state, taking benefits off people who rely on them. Taking money away from people will not make them 'better off' -- it'll just make them more poor.

My plan decreases taxes on low-income workers and guarantees automatic transfer payments, even to those not covered under your plan (such as discouraged workers); it does NOT increase their taxes. The poor would be better off under my tax proposal.

[Bleckonia]

-snip-

You need to more carefully study economic history. The Soviet economy was plagued with plenty of problems, but their cause was not the "inefficiency of government." The Soviets were forced to import grain from the West because farmers who used to effectively produce cereals fled Russia due to the forced atheism policies of the Soviet Union. Governmental corruption from unelected officials further undermined the Soviet ability to provide for their people, a similar problem that China faces even today despite "almost eradicating absolute poverty." The problem with the Soviet Union, China and other states with no political freedom is just that: no political freedom. No check on the actions of government officials. Corruption is the enemy of a strong economy, not government interference.

A private firm is of course more effective at making a profit because of their profit driven motives. That's also why private firms shouldn't be trusted with management of the economy. They pour the money into their own coffers and fuck everyone else. Economic efficiency shouldn't be the goal, it should be the assurance of a basic standard of living. But that obviously doesn't fit in with you rugged individualism ideals, as though that actually works for the majority of people.

Corruption and inefficiency were both problems in the Soviet Union. However, inefficiency was also a cause of their problems, since the free market more efficiently allocates resources than does government. For example, the chronic lack of spare parts and certain necessities was due to poor central planning that is inherent in any government-controlled economy.

A private firm does NOT "pour money into their coffers and fuck everyone else." How do you think the firms make money? By satisfying consumers' demands, which ultimately makes them better off. The consumer knows what he needs better than does government.

[Bleckonia]

"Let's look at the average change in income tax owed for an AVERAGE household, not for the Government's cherry-picked numbers."

How Calaverdean income tax bills for a single person would change under the Opposition's plan, compared to the Ministry of Finance's plan:
Assuming $5000 is the poverty line.
Assuming the average household size is 4 (about the average size in most of Latin America and the Caribbean).
Including the universal social contribution.

Income of $8,000:
- Ministry of Finance tax proposal: $56 tax owed (0.7%)
- Opposition tax proposal: $20 tax owed (0.25%)
Decrease of 64%.

Income of $15,000
- Ministry of Finance tax proposal: $1,449 tax owed (9.66%)
- Opposition tax proposal: $1,100 tax owed (7.33%)
Decrease of 24%.

My plan, unlike the opposition, actually takes into account the fact that larger households need to pay less in taxes. Also, keep in mind that my plan allows for transfer payments to the poorest Calaverdeans.

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

There is a difference between reducing taxes to moderately stimulate growth and slashing taxes. Government spending increases economic growth at a greater rate than the cutting of taxes. Ensuring the government has the base needed to spend in that manner is way more important than ensuring the rich have even more money to save, and that is exactly what the vast majority of that money would be used for - savings.

Trickle down is bullshit that gets spoon fed to the poor to make them think they're winning when the government cuts taxes. It's a fantasy designed by the same pack of hustlers that want to destroy all government regulations pertaining to safety, collective bargaining rights and pollution in order to further pad their bottom line. These same people would want to abolish the military and the police in favor of PMCs and private security firms if those same groups didn't provide such huge sources of sales. It is at the very core of anarcho-capitalist thought.

Where Keynes went wrong, however, was demeaning savings. While it is true that direct government spending has a larger multiplier effect in the short run, every dollar of savings eventually translates into a dollar of investment, which has an even higher multiplier effect than does government spending (because there is more "leakage" in government). Really, the only difference is that government spending may work more quickly than savings, but even then, government spending lags.

Furthermore, taxing capital gains and income at a high rate will reduce direct investment, which also reduces aggregate demand. So if you're so concerned with improving the economy, do your stimulus thing but also keep taxes low in order to ensure that the private sector can contribute to healthy growth.

And your entire argument in the second paragraph is a strawman and an ad hominem attack. Not every person who wants low taxation wants to abolish the military and all regulation. You're right that pretty much all anarcho-capitalists believe in low (or nonexistent) taxes, but not all people who believe in low taxes are anarcho-capitalists. Likewise, all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles.

"Trickle-down" economics may be pushed by some people who want to pad their bottom line, but the reason I and some of the opposition are pushing it is that it is the healthiest way to grow our economy, which will benefit all Calaverdeans, not just the rich.

Trickle-down economics have already proven to be a destruction of the middle class, just look at the US.

The economy grows the most when the rich are taxed more, and it stagnates and declines during periods where the taxes on the rich are slashed.

[Argentarino]

---

An Act to Ratify the Rome Statute

Author: Senator Cristobal Araullo (Argentarino | LibDem)
Sponsors: Sen. Vera Cruz (Heraklea | WA); Sen. Suero (Estva | LibDem); Sen. Giuliani (Collatis | DL); Sen. Diaz (Lykens | LibDem); Sen. Njil (NWO | SNP)
An act to ratify the Rome Statute of 1998 and to enter into the membership of the International Criminal Court

---

The Republic of Calaverde, in an effort to improve its standing in the international community and to further dedicate itself to rule of law, hereby mandates the following:
1. The Rome Statute of 1998 shall be wholly signed and ratified by the Republic of Calaverde;
2. The Republic of Calaverde shall, upon ratification, submit to the process of acceptance as a full member of the International Criminal Court (ICC);

HEREBY ratifies the Rome Statute of 1998 and joins the ICC.

Obviously an extremely rough draft, but I thought I might as well get this started. Comments and thoughts are welcome.

[The New World Oceania]

---

An Act to Ratify the Rome Statute

Author: Senator Cristobal Araullo (Argentarino | LibDem)
Sponsors:
An act to ratify the Rome Statute of 1998 and to enter into the membership of the International Criminal Court

---

The Republic of Calaverde, in an effort to improve its standing in the international community and to further dedicate itself to rule of law, hereby mandates the following:
1. The Rome Statute of 1998 shall be wholly signed and ratified by the Republic of Calaverde;
2. The Republic of Calaverde shall, upon ratification, submit to the process of acceptance as a full member of the International Criminal Court (ICC);

HEREBY ratifies the Rome Statute of 1998 and joins the ICC.

Obviously an extremely rough draft, but I thought I might as well get this started. Comments and thoughts are welcome.

I think it's actually better to keep it so succinct. It'll be interesting if we ever somehow RP an ICC case, especially if we get people out of the NSG Senate to be a part of it. Nothing mila out at me that seems like it would have negative consequences, except perhaps that it will inherently allow the UN Security Council to grant the ICC over certain cases in Calaverde.

[Heraklea-]

---

An Act to Ratify the Rome Statute

Author: Senator Cristobal Araullo (Argentarino | LibDem)
Sponsors:
An act to ratify the Rome Statute of 1998 and to enter into the membership of the International Criminal Court

---

The Republic of Calaverde, in an effort to improve its standing in the international community and to further dedicate itself to rule of law, hereby mandates the following:
1. The Rome Statute of 1998 shall be wholly signed and ratified by the Republic of Calaverde;
2. The Republic of Calaverde shall, upon ratification, submit to the process of acceptance as a full member of the International Criminal Court (ICC);

HEREBY ratifies the Rome Statute of 1998 and joins the ICC.

Obviously an extremely rough draft, but I thought I might as well get this started. Comments and thoughts are welcome.

I'm supportive.

[Argentarino]

Awesome, then in that case, do I have any sponsors?

[Estva]

I'll sponsor.

[Heraklea-]

Awesome, then in that case, do I have any sponsors?

Sí

[Lykens]

Sponsor as well.

[Argentarino]

Sponsor as well.

Who is your Senator?

[Collatis]

Awesome, then in that case, do I have any sponsors?

I'll sponsor - Michael Giuliani - DL

[The New World Oceania]

I've always preferred the term signatory, but I'll sponsor.

[Lykens]

Sponsor as well.

Who is your Senator?

Kenneth Diaz.

[Casearius]

I'll sponsor (Liam Giuliani DL)

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

Awesome, then in that case, do I have any sponsors?

I'll sponsor, Senator Alan Upchurch of the LibDems.

[Of the Quendi]

I will obviously sponsor. Though tiny nitpick; instead of writing "HEREBY ratifies the Rome Statute of 1998 and joins the ICC." I would write "HEREBY ratifies the Rome Statute of 1998 with its subsequent amendments, becoming a state party to the statute." which I think is a bit more ICC'ish a way of putting it.

[Battlion]

I will additionally sponsor

[Argentarino]

I've submitted to the Speaker's Office, but I'll add you all as sponsors. Thank you!