NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[Atlanticatia]

Hahaha. 60%? No effing way José.

I'm not opposed to a top rate of 60% but it cuts taxes by quite a bit for the top 10% of income earners so I don't support this amendment. Also there's no reason to cut corporate tax to 15%.

[The Nihilistic view]

What did you do to the thread?

[Alyekra]

I think the "erotic materials" clause should be removed, or at the very least moved the Chapter 1. Furthermore, there is no III.11.A to go with the III.11.B anyway.

[New Werpland]

Please excuse my shitty understanding of these bills' code and whatnot. Don't reply to my original post, It will mess things up.

[Collatis]

Quote New Werpland
Although I do think that the rates in the original were a but too high, these are definitely too low.

[The Liberated Territories]

Hahaha. 60%? No effing way José.

I'm not opposed to a top rate of 60% but it cuts taxes by quite a bit for the top 10% of income earners so I don't support this amendment. Also there's no reason to cut corporate tax to 15%.

I am. The sheer amount of brackets would heavily disincentivize people to climb the latter, so to speak, if every small gain results in a net loss of 5-6% of their income. Loopholes may also be a problem. Also this means that the upper middle class will be paying the same as the rich in some cases. Fourthly, it is absurd that only a few other countries have these rates - it would be totally unrealistic even for a wealthier than average country in South America. Finally, there is no reason to HAVE a corporate tax rate in the first place, as it bites massively into profits as it does and is merely unused economic potential.

(I understand that this is before deductions and all the other crap but regardless)

[The Nihilistic view]

WHAT IS IT WITH PEOPLE AND MARGINAL RATES. IT'S NOT FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE!!

[New Werpland]

---

Amendment to the Primary revenue act

Author:Senator Balthazar Abaroa (libdem)
Sponsors:

§ 1 - Personal Income Tax

a) The personal income tax shall be levied on all 'taxable income' of individuals at the following marginal rates:

Taxable income between $0-$8,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 0%
Taxable income between $8,001-$15,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 10%
Taxable income between $15,001-$25,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 15%
Taxable income between $25,001-$40,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 20%
Taxable income between $40,001-$50,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 26%
Taxable income between $50,001-$60,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 30%
Taxable income between $60,001-$80,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 34%
Taxable income between $80,001-$100,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 40%
Taxable income between $100,000-$200,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 50%
Taxable income above $200,000 per annum shall be taxed at 60%

---

§ 3 - Corporate Tax
a) Corporate tax shall be levied on all worldwide corporate profits, the rate of taxation will be a flat 15%

This shouldn't mess up the thread as you reply to it.

[The Liberated Territories]

WHAT IS IT WITH PEOPLE AND MARGINAL RATES. IT'S NOT FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE!!

Ohhh they are marginal rates.

Still too high for my personal tastes, but marginally *cough* better than the last.

Also I support cutting the corporate tax.

[Alyekra]

WHAT IS IT WITH PEOPLE AND MARGINAL RATES. IT'S NOT FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE!!

I must admit I don't quite get it. Can you give me a formula or something?

[Heraklea-]

I'm not opposed to a top rate of 60% but it cuts taxes by quite a bit for the top 10% of income earners so I don't support this amendment. Also there's no reason to cut corporate tax to 15%.

I am. This means that wage earners in that tier are working more than half a day for the government (when they work). Not to mention the sheer amount of brackets would heavily disincentivize people to climb the latter, so to speak, if every small gain results in a net loss of 5-6% of their income. Loopholes may also be a problem. Also this means that the upper middle class will be paying the same as the rich in many other countries. Fourthly, it is absurd that only a few other countries have these steep rates - it would be totally unrealistic even for a wealthier than average country in South America. Finally, there is no reason to HAVE a corporate tax rate in the first place, as it bites massively into profits as it does and is merely unused economic potential.

First of all, realism was tossed a long time ago.

Secondly, those are marginal tax-rates, meaning your income doesn't go down when you move up a bracket. It's just any money made above that bracket point that you get taxed at a higher rate on. Of a hypothetical $200,010 income, only those last $10 would be taxed at a rate of 60%. Honestly, if you're going to try to be our resident Tea Party anti-tax psycho, at least try to understand the tax system.

EDIT: Disregard, someone already explained it to you. Why does F7 not show me when another post has been made while I was writing my own?

[The Nihilistic view]

I am. This means that wage earners in that tier are working more than half a day for the government (when they work). Not to mention the sheer amount of brackets would heavily disincentivize people to climb the latter, so to speak, if every small gain results in a net loss of 5-6% of their income. Loopholes may also be a problem. Also this means that the upper middle class will be paying the same as the rich in many other countries. Fourthly, it is absurd that only a few other countries have these steep rates - it would be totally unrealistic even for a wealthier than average country in South America. Finally, there is no reason to HAVE a corporate tax rate in the first place, as it bites massively into profits as it does and is merely unused economic potential.

First of all, realism was tossed a long time ago.

Secondly, those are marginal tax-rates, meaning your income doesn't go down when you move up a bracket. It's just any money made above that bracket point that you get taxed at a higher rate on. Of a hypothetical $200,010 income, only those last $10 would be taxed at a rate of 60%. Honestly, if you're going to try to be our resident Tea Party anti-tax psycho, at least try to understand the tax system.

The Tea Party would understand the system but pretend it's something else.

[Alyekra]

I am. This means that wage earners in that tier are working more than half a day for the government (when they work). Not to mention the sheer amount of brackets would heavily disincentivize people to climb the latter, so to speak, if every small gain results in a net loss of 5-6% of their income. Loopholes may also be a problem. Also this means that the upper middle class will be paying the same as the rich in many other countries. Fourthly, it is absurd that only a few other countries have these steep rates - it would be totally unrealistic even for a wealthier than average country in South America. Finally, there is no reason to HAVE a corporate tax rate in the first place, as it bites massively into profits as it does and is merely unused economic potential.

First of all, realism was tossed a long time ago.

Secondly, those are marginal tax-rates, meaning your income doesn't go down when you move up a bracket. It's just any money made above that bracket point that you get taxed at a higher rate on. Of a hypothetical $200,010 income, only those last $10 would be taxed at a rate of 60%. Honestly, if you're going to try to be our resident Tea Party anti-tax psycho, at least try to understand the tax system.

Oh, never mind. I understand now.

Don't get me wrong, it's still atrocious, but at least it's more reasonable now.

[Lykens]

First of all, realism was tossed a long time ago.

Secondly, those are marginal tax-rates, meaning your income doesn't go down when you move up a bracket. It's just any money made above that bracket point that you get taxed at a higher rate on. Of a hypothetical $200,010 income, only those last $10 would be taxed at a rate of 60%. Honestly, if you're going to try to be our resident Tea Party anti-tax psycho, at least try to understand the tax system.

The Tea Party would understand the system but pretend it's something else.

Heh.

[Atlanticatia]

The argument of having 0 corporate taxes is silly. Every tax distorts the market....but every dollar taxed by the state is once again invested into the economy. It's not "wasted potential". It just so happens that the state might do things that the private sector won't - for example, providing welfare, or investing in transport infrastructure. The corporate tax might take away some of the private sector's investment funds, but it'll just be reinvested by the state, which in many cases can invest it better, or at least neutrally, if it's going towards a national priority. And of course there are times when the state might invest it worse than the private sector too. But in general, corporate taxation isn't wasted potential -- it's just shifting investment from the private sector to investment in social goods. For example taxing an oil company might reduce the oil company's profits and ability to invest, but that dollar lost would be invested into a social good like infrastructure or health care, which would go back into the economy and provide a social benefit.

[The Liberated Territories]

I am. This means that wage earners in that tier are working more than half a day for the government (when they work). Not to mention the sheer amount of brackets would heavily disincentivize people to climb the latter, so to speak, if every small gain results in a net loss of 5-6% of their income. Loopholes may also be a problem. Also this means that the upper middle class will be paying the same as the rich in many other countries. Fourthly, it is absurd that only a few other countries have these steep rates - it would be totally unrealistic even for a wealthier than average country in South America. Finally, there is no reason to HAVE a corporate tax rate in the first place, as it bites massively into profits as it does and is merely unused economic potential.

First of all, realism was tossed a long time ago.

Secondly, those are marginal tax-rates, meaning your income doesn't go down when you move up a bracket. It's just any money made above that bracket point that you get taxed at a higher rate on. Of a hypothetical $200,010 income, only those last $10 would be taxed at a rate of 60%. Honestly, if you're going to try to be our resident Tea Party anti-tax psycho, at least try to understand the tax system.

EDIT: Disregard, someone already explained it to you. Why does F7 not show me when another post has been made while I was writing my own?

I know how marginal tax systems work you dolt kind person.

[Battlion]

Here is my Amendment to the Primary Revenue Act. The only things included are what I currently wish to change(income tax rates/corporate tax rates)

---

Amendment to the Primary Revenue Act

---

original Author: Sen. Sebastián Luc Morales (Atlanticatia | DemLeft)
amendment Author: Senator Balthazar Abaroa (LibDem)

§ 1 - Personal Income Tax

a) The personal income tax shall be levied on all 'taxable income' of individuals at the following marginal rates:

Taxable income between $0-$8,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 0%
Taxable income between $8,001-$15,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 10%
Taxable income between $15,001-$25,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 15%
Taxable income between $25,001-$40,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 20%
Taxable income between $40,001-$50,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 26%
Taxable income between $50,001-$60,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 30%
Taxable income between $60,001-$80,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 34%
Taxable income between $80,001-$100,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 40%
Taxable income between $100,000-$200,000 per annum shall be taxed at: 50%
Taxable income above $200,000 per annum shall be taxed at 60%

---

§ 3 - Corporate Tax
a) Corporate tax shall be levied on all worldwide corporate profits, the rate of taxation will be a flat 15%

Hahaha. 60%? No effing way José.

Tax brackets mean 60% on anything ABOVE $200,000...

[Alyekra]

The argument of having 0 corporate taxes is silly. Every tax distorts the market....but every dollar taxed by the state is once again invested into the economy. It's not "wasted potential". It just so happens that the state might do things that the private sector won't - for example, providing welfare, or investing in transport infrastructure. The corporate tax might take away some of the private sector's investment funds, but it'll just be reinvested by the state, which in many cases can invest it better, or at least neutrally, if it's going towards a national priority. And of course there are times when the state might invest it worse than the private sector too. But in general, corporate taxation isn't wasted potential -- it's just shifting investment from the private sector to investment in social goods.

National investments are absolutely not neutral.

Corporate tax is just a way for the state to levy higher taxes without the voters noticing. Why should we tax individuals one way and groups of individuals another? There's no reason for it.

[New Werpland]

I just thought that since Calaverde isn't the investment magnet of south america, it would be a good idea to have a lower corporate tax.

[Stomalia]

On Sexual Exploitation of Children
| Author: Senator Kyle Estévez (FDP) |
| Sponsors: Simón Parrino (FDP) |

An act to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse of children.

---

Chapter I - Definitions

• An "internet session" means a period of time during which an internet user, using a specific internet protocol address, visits or is logged into an internet site for an uninterrupted period of time.
• To "photograph" means to make a print, negative, slide, digital image, motion picture, or videotape. A "photograph" means anything tangible or intangible produced by photographing.
• "Sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated:
i) Sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex or between humans and animals;
ii) Penetration of the vagina or rectum by any object;
iii) Masturbation;
iv) Sadomasochistic abuse;
v) Defecation or urination for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer;
vi) Depiction of the genitals or unclothed pubic or rectal areas of any minor, or the unclothed breast of a female minor, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer. For these purposes, it is not necessary that the minor know that he or she is participating in the described conduct, or any aspect of it;
vii) Touching of a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or breast area for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer.
• "Minor" means any person under eighteen years of age.
• "Live performance" means any play, show, skit, dance, or other exhibition performed or presented to or before an audience of one or more, with or without consideration.

---

Chapter II - Legal Intent

The legislature finds that the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children constitutes a government objective of surpassing importance. The care of children is a sacred trust and should not be abused by those who seek commercial gain or personal gratification based on the exploitation of children.

The legislature further finds that the protection of children from sexual exploitation can be accomplished without infringing on a constitutionally protected activity. The definition of "sexually explicit conduct" and other operative definitions demarcate a line between protected and prohibited conduct and should not inhibit legitimate scientific, medical, or educational activities. The legislature also further finds that children engaged in sexual conduct for financial compensation are frequently the victims of sexual abuse. It is the intent of the legislature to encourage these children to engage in prevention and intervention services and to hold those who pay to engage in the sexual abuse of children accountable for the trauma they inflict on children.

The legislature further finds that due to the changing nature of technology, offenders are now able to access child pornography in different ways and in increasing quantities. It is the intent of the legislature to ensure that the intentional viewing of and dealing in child pornography over the internet is subject to a criminal penalty without limiting the scope of existing prohibitions on the possession of or dealing in child pornography, including the possession of electronic depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. It is the intent of the legislature to set a different unit of prosecution for the new offense of viewing of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct such that each separate session of intentionally viewing over the internet of visual depictions or images of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct constitutes an offense. The importance of protecting children from repeat exploitation in child pornography is based upon the following findings:

(1) Child pornography is not entitled to protection and thus may be prohibited;

(2) The state has a compelling interest in protecting children from those who sexually exploit them, and this interest extends to stamping out the vice of child pornography at all levels in the distribution chain;

(3) Every instance of viewing images of child pornography represents a renewed violation of the privacy of the victims and a repetition of their abuse.

Chapter III - Elements of crime - Penalties

(1) A person is guilty of sexual exploitation of a minor if the person:

(a) Compels a minor by threat or force to engage in sexually explicit conduct, knowing that such conduct will be photographed or part of a live performance;

(b) Aids, invites, employs, authorizes, or causes a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, knowing that such conduct will be photographed or part of a live performance; or

(c) Being a parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a minor, permits the minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, knowing that the conduct will be photographed or part of a live performance.

(d) Sexual exploitation of a minor is a class B felony punishable under Chapter IV.

2)(a) A person commits the crime of sending or bringing into the state depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in the first degree when he or she knowingly sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, a visual or printed matter that depicts a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

(b) For the purposes of determining the unit of prosecution under this subsection, each depiction or image of visual or printed matter constitutes a separate offense.

(c) For the purposes of determining the unit of prosecution under this subsection, each incident of sending or bringing into the state one or more depictions or images of visual or printed matter constitutes a separate offense.

(d) Sending or bringing into the state depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in the second degree is a class C felony punishable under Chapter IV.

(3) A person who intentionally views over the internet visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct is guilty of viewing depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, a class C felony punishable under Chapter IV.

(4) For the purposes of determining whether a person intentionally viewed over the internet a visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, the trier of fact shall consider the title, text, and content of the visual or printed matter, as well as the internet history, search terms, thumbnail images, downloading activity, expert computer forensic testimony, number of visual or printed matter depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, defendant's access to and control over the electronic device and its contents upon which the visual or printed matter was found, or any other relevant evidence. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the viewing was initiated by the user of the computer where the viewing occurred.

(5) For the purposes of this section, each separate internet session of intentionally viewing over the internet visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct constitutes a separate offense.

(6) A person is guilty of commercial sexual abuse of a minor if:

(a) He or she pays a fee to a minor or a third person as compensation for a minor having engaged in sexual conduct with him or her;

(b) He or she pays or agrees to pay a fee to a minor or a third person pursuant to an understanding that in return therefore such minor will engage in sexual conduct with him or her; or

(c) He or she solicits, offers, or requests to engage in sexual conduct with a minor in return for a fee.

(d) Commercial sexual abuse of a minor is a class B felony punishable under Chapter IV.

(7) In addition to any other penalty, a person guilty of commercial sexual abuse of a minor is subject to any pertinent provisions.

(8) Consent of a minor to the sexual conduct does not constitute a defense to any offense listed in this section.

(9) No person may knowingly allow a minor to be on the premises of a commercial establishment open to the public if there is a live performance containing matter which is erotic material.

(10) Any person who is convicted of violating this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

(11) For the purposes of this section:

(a) "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation, or other legal entity.

Chapter IV - Designations and Penalites of Crimes

(1) For purposes of sentencing, crimes are designated as one of three classes, as follows:

(i) Class A felony; or

(ii) Class B felony; or

(iii) Class C felony.

(2) Misdemeanors and Gross Misdemeanors. (a) Any crime punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars (USD), or by imprisonment in a jail for not more than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment is a misdemeanor. Whenever the performance of any act is prohibited by any statute, and no penalty for the violation of such statute is imposed, the committing of such act shall be a misdemeanor.

(b) All crimes other than felonies and misdemeanors are gross misdemeanors.

(3) Felony. Unless a different maximum sentence for a classified felony is specifically established by a statute of this state, no person convicted of a classified felony shall be punished by confinement or fine exceeding the following:

(a) For a class A felony, by confinement in a correctional institution for a term of life imprisonment, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of fifty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine;

(b) For a class B felony, by confinement in a correctional institution for a term of ten years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of twenty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine;

(c) For a class C felony, by confinement in a correctional institution for five years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of ten thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine.

(4) Gross misdemeanor. Every person convicted of a gross misdemeanor shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of up to three hundred sixty-three days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.

(5) Misdemeanor. Every person convicted of a misdemeanor shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more than ninety days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.

[Battlion]

I don't think we could support any changes to the PRA unless they were revenue neutral

[The Liberated Territories]

The argument of having 0 corporate taxes is silly. Every tax distorts the market....but every dollar taxed by the state is once again invested into the economy. It's not "wasted potential". It just so happens that the state might do things that the private sector won't - for example, providing welfare, or investing in transport infrastructure. The corporate tax might take away some of the private sector's investment funds, but it'll just be reinvested by the state, which in many cases can invest it better, or at least neutrally, if it's going towards a national priority. And of course there are times when the state might invest it worse than the private sector too. But in general, corporate taxation isn't wasted potential -- it's just shifting investment from the private sector to investment in social goods. For example taxing an oil company might reduce the oil company's profits and ability to invest, but that dollar lost would be invested into a social good like infrastructure or health care, which would go back into the economy and provide a social benefit.

The corporate tax is undesirable for many reasons, it is arguably the worst out of all the taxes on a consequentialist basis, as it taxes productive activity. It's effects are many but in short employers will have less money to invest in the company, so they'll start cutting costs and doing this first by lowering wages and raising prices. It taxes shareholders, which in many cases tend to be the middle class. And it encourages corporations to take risks by incentivizing them to take debt finance instead of debt equity.

Having healthcare and infrastructure is a nice benefit, but not at the cost of lowering wages, damaging the economy, and therefore lowering other tax rates to boot to fund these programs.

[Great Nepal]

Have any of these amendments received presidential asset based on advice of MoF?

[Lykens]

Have any of these amendments received presidential asset based on advice of MoF?

No.

Which makes me wonder why they're debating it.

[Battlion]

Have any of these amendments received presidential asset based on advice of MoF?

No.

Which makes me wonder why they're debating it.

*Admin Hat on*

The GEA set out the following;

d. The president shall upon advice of the finance minister (or equivalent) provide assent to any bills solely concerned with taxation or spending, and no such bills shall be introduced to the legislature without gaining such assent.

Yes, the President has not granted assent to the proposals as it stands however this is not the legislature by definition thus it is fully reasonable and within the definition of the law for New Werpland to propose his amendment here. However, it cannot be voted upon until it is given assent by the President.

So, New Werpland I advise you ask Malgrave about whether he will give assent or not to the proposal. Whether you do this before or after you get sponsors doesn't matter as long as it isn't submitted to the Speaker before assent is granted.

*Admin Hat off*