NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

by **Bleckonia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:16 pm

Amendments to the Primary Revenue Act

Author: Sen. Franz Haas (Bleckonia | FCP), certain text borrowed from Sen. Sebastián Luc Morales (Atlanticatia | DemLeft)
Sponsors: Sen. Chaz Carrera (Vedastia | FCP)

The definition of 'taxable income' shall be amended to read "Taxable income - income from employment, wages, salaries, commissions, self-employment earnings, trusts, rents, dividends, interest, annuities, and royalties."

The definition of 'unearned income' shall be eliminated.

Paragraph a of section 1 shall be amended to read
"a) The personal income tax shall be levied on all 'taxable income' of households at the following marginal rates:
Households with total taxable income between $0 and the poverty line per annum shall be eligible for a transfer payment equal to one-half the difference between the amount of taxable income and the poverty line.
Taxable income above the poverty line per annum shall be taxed at 14%.
All households with total income above the poverty line are eligible to receive a standard tax deduction of $100 for every individual in the household less one; the total standard deduction for a household may not exceed $500, and the standard tax deduction may not result in a negative tax payment, regardless of how many individuals reside in a household."

The following paragraphs shall be added to section 2:
"b) Any individual is eligible to opt out of the Universal Social Contribution and not receive social security benefits; employers, however, are required to offer all employees the option of contributing to Universal Social Contribution and may not incentivize opting out.
c) If an individual opts out of the Universal Social Contribution, neither the employee nor the employer shall be required to pay the Universal Social Contribution."

Paragraph a of section 3 shall be amended to read
"a) Corporate tax shall be levied on all worldwide corporate profits, at the following marginal rates:
Corporate profits shall be taxed at a rate of 10%"

In paragraph b of section 4, "$0.50" shall be amended to read "$0.12"; "$1.89" shall be amended to read "$0.4536."

Paragraphs a, c, and d of section 4 shall be eliminated.

The heading of section 5 shall be amended to read "§ 5 - Capital Gains Tax".

Paragraph a of section 5 shall be amended to read
"a) The Capital Gains tax shall be levied on all capital gains of individuals at a marginal rate of 5%."

Paragraph b of section 5 shall be eliminated.

The words "Unearned Income Tax" shall be replaced with "Capital Gains Tax."

Now legal. Some of the rates have been adjusted, and a worker earning the median income would pay the same amount as under the Government's proposal. However, the other parts of the bill ensure simplicity and that the overall tax burden on the average citizen will be reduced.

Sponsors?

by **The New World Oceania** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:24 pm

Thoughts/sponsors?

Elections Act

Sponsor: Aldbelwamasy Njil – SNP (NWO)
Signatories: Michael Giuliani – DL (Collatis) |

In the case of a vacancy in Office of the President, defined as the inability of the President to serve due to illness, death, or resignation, they shall be replaced as Head of State. Should their replacement be unable to fulfill the duties, they shall be replaced similarly, and so on, in the following line:
President
Vice President
Speaker of the ~~RIGHT GODDAMN SEIMA YOU HEAR ME RIGHT~~ Parliament
Prime Minister
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Minister of Finance
Minister of Defense
Procurator-General or whatever the hell they're called
Minister of Justice
Minister of Agriculture
Minister of Labor
Minister of Health
Minister of Transport
Minister of Environment
Minister of Education
Prime Minister
The Prime Minister (or the individual statutorily responsible for appointing a given position) will appoint the replacement for the former position of the new President, but the line of succession will continue until the Prime Minister must be appointed President and the line must restart. If a position is vacant it will be skipped for succession.
The Electoral Committee shall be the founded to administer all Calaverdean executive elections. This Committee shall conduct business neutrally.
The office of the Ministry of Elections shall be enstated like unto other members of the Cabinet, however the Minister of Elections shall serve for terms of six months, though may be dismissed by at any time by the consensus of both the President and the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Elections shall not vote unless circumstantially demanded.
Presidential elections shall be spaced two months apart from each other.
The Electoral Committee may register presidential candidates two weeks before the elections begin. Candidates may run as independent or represent a party or a coalition.
If a candidate is representing their party, the party must have agreed for that candidate to represent them.
To be officially represented on the ballot, a party must be officially recognized.
An exception exists where a party has existed on the ballot in the past: if this is the case, then they secure a position on the ballot for the following four elections.
A District system shall be used to organize voting.
A District is defined as a collection of constitutencies.
210 constituencies shall be recognized by the Electoral Committee.
14 Districts shall exist.
Each District shall have 15 constituencies.
The Electoral Committee may add districts to the country in multiples of 15, OR they may revise the number of constituencies in each District.
An MP must represent a constituencies in order to vote.
The Electoral Committee will redraw Districts every four months.
At least 4 of the districts within a given District must be separated from each other.
At least 8 of the districts within a given District must be removed from their former District.
Each District counts for one vote.
How a District votes is determined by the majority of votes from constituencies within said District.
If no one in a District votes, the District is presumed to abstain.
If a District ties internally, the majority party in that District will vote on behalf of the District.
•If there is no clear majority party in a District, and only in this circumstance, the Electoral Committee shall enter a blank vote on behalf of the District.
There shall exist one round of voting, wherein all senators may vote for candidates in numerical order of preference, the first their top preference, the second their second preference, and so on, whom registered between two weeks prior to voting and one day prior to voting. Voters need not rank every candidate. Voting shall last for 96 hours.
At the close of the vote, the votes shall be counted by at least two individuals. The primary vote of each voter shall be considered first. The candidate with the fewest primary votes shall have the primary votes for them transferred to their voters' secondary votes. The candidate, then, with the fewest votes, shall have their primary and secondary votes transferred to their voters' tertiary votes. This shall be in order until one candidate holds 50% of the active votes plus one. Voters who decline to include another vote should their selected candidate fail are considered to abstain, as are voters who decline to vote. Abstentions shall not be counted in the final tally. The candidate winning the greatest number of votes shall be declared the winner of the election. The Minister of Elections shall break any ties.
Voting shall be open for at least 120 hours.
The format of a vote must confirm the voter's intention and District beyond reasonable doubt.
Voters may change their vote any time before the close of the round.
If abstentions have the vote, the momentary Administration will continue control of the government for the next two months. If blanks have the vote, recount because you did it wrong.
After the end of voting, the Electoral Committee shall count all votes. The Ministry of Elections can then proclaim the winner of the election.

by **Lykens** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:26 pm

The New World Oceania wrote:Thoughts/sponsors?
Elections Act

Sponsor: Aldbelwamasy Njil (SNP)
Signatories:

In the case of a vacancy in Office of the President, defined as the inability of the President to serve due to illness, death, or resignation, they shall be replaced as Head of State. Should their replacement be unable to fulfill the duties, they shall be replaced similarly, and so on, in the following line:
President
Vice President
Speaker of the Seima
Prime Minister
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Minister of Finance
Minister of Defense
Procurator-General or whatever the hell they're called
Minister of Justice
Minister of Agriculture
Minister of Labor
Minister of Health
Minister of Transport
Minister of Environment
Minister of Education
Prime Minister
The Prime Minister (or the individual statutorily responsible for appointing a given position) will appoint the replacement for the former position of the new President, but the line of succession will continue until the Prime Minister must be appointed President and the line must restart. If a position is vacant it will be skipped for succession.
The Electoral Committee shall be the founded to administer all Calaverdean executive elections. This Committee shall conduct business neutrally.
The office of the Ministry of Elections shall be enstated like unto other members of the Cabinet, however the Minister of Elections shall serve for terms of six months, though may be dismissed by at any time by the consensus of both the President and the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Elections shall not vote unless circumstantially demanded.
Presidential elections shall be spaced two months apart from each other.
The Electoral Committee may register presidential candidates two weeks before the elections begin. Candidates may run as independent or represent a party or a coalition.
If a candidate is representing their party, the party must have agreed for that candidate to represent them.
To be officially represented on the ballot, a party must be officially recognized.
An exception exists where a party has existed on the ballot in the past: if this is the case, then they secure a position on the ballot for the following four elections.
A District system shall be used to organize voting.
A District is defined as a collection of constitutencies.
210 constituencies shall be recognized by the Electoral Committee.
14 Districts shall exist.
Each District shall have 15 constituencies.
The Electoral Committee may add districts to the country in multiples of 15, OR they may revise the number of constituencies in each District.
An MP must represent a constituencies in order to vote.
The Electoral Committee will redraw Districts every four months.
At least 4 of the districts within a given District must be separated from each other.
At least 8 of the districts within a given District must be removed from their former District.
Each District counts for one vote.
How a District votes is determined by the majority of votes from constituencies within said District.
If no one in a District votes, the District is presumed to abstain.
If a District ties internally, the majority party in that District will vote on behalf of the District.
•If there is no clear majority party in a District, and only in this circumstance, the Electoral Committee shall enter a blank vote on behalf of the District.
There shall exist one round of voting, wherein all senators may vote for candidates in numerical order of preference, the first their top preference, the second their second preference, and so on, whom registered between two weeks prior to voting and one day prior to voting. Voters need not rank every candidate. Voting shall last for 96 hours.
At the close of the vote, the votes shall be counted by at least two individuals. The primary vote of each voter shall be considered first. The candidate with the fewest primary votes shall have the primary votes for them transferred to their voters' secondary votes. The candidate, then, with the fewest votes, shall have their primary and secondary votes transferred to their voters' tertiary votes. This shall be in order until one candidate holds 50% of the active votes plus one. Voters who decline to include another vote should their selected candidate fail are considered to abstain, as are voters who decline to vote. Abstentions shall not be counted in the final tally. The candidate winning the greatest number of votes shall be declared the winner of the election. The Minister of Elections shall break any ties.
Voting shall be open for at least 120 hours.
The format of a vote must confirm the voter's intention and District beyond reasonable doubt.
Voters may change their vote any time before the close of the round.
If abstentions have the vote, the momentary Administration will continue control of the government for the next two months. If blanks have the vote, recount because you did it wrong.
After the end of voting, the Electoral Committee shall count all votes. The Ministry of Elections can then proclaim the winner of the election.

We still don't have a Seima, so I don't see how the Speaker of that non existant body can ascend to the Presidency.

by **The New World Oceania** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:28 pm

Lykens wrote:
The New World Oceania wrote:Thoughts/sponsors?
Elections Act

Sponsor: Aldbelwamasy Njil (SNP)
Signatories:

In the case of a vacancy in Office of the President, defined as the inability of the President to serve due to illness, death, or resignation, they shall be replaced as Head of State. Should their replacement be unable to fulfill the duties, they shall be replaced similarly, and so on, in the following line:
President
Vice President
Speaker of the Seima
Prime Minister
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Minister of Finance
Minister of Defense
Procurator-General or whatever the hell they're called
Minister of Justice
Minister of Agriculture
Minister of Labor
Minister of Health
Minister of Transport
Minister of Environment
Minister of Education
Prime Minister
The Prime Minister (or the individual statutorily responsible for appointing a given position) will appoint the replacement for the former position of the new President, but the line of succession will continue until the Prime Minister must be appointed President and the line must restart. If a position is vacant it will be skipped for succession.
The Electoral Committee shall be the founded to administer all Calaverdean executive elections. This Committee shall conduct business neutrally.
The office of the Ministry of Elections shall be enstated like unto other members of the Cabinet, however the Minister of Elections shall serve for terms of six months, though may be dismissed by at any time by the consensus of both the President and the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Elections shall not vote unless circumstantially demanded.
Presidential elections shall be spaced two months apart from each other.
The Electoral Committee may register presidential candidates two weeks before the elections begin. Candidates may run as independent or represent a party or a coalition.
If a candidate is representing their party, the party must have agreed for that candidate to represent them.
To be officially represented on the ballot, a party must be officially recognized.
An exception exists where a party has existed on the ballot in the past: if this is the case, then they secure a position on the ballot for the following four elections.
A District system shall be used to organize voting.
A District is defined as a collection of constitutencies.
210 constituencies shall be recognized by the Electoral Committee.
14 Districts shall exist.
Each District shall have 15 constituencies.
The Electoral Committee may add districts to the country in multiples of 15, OR they may revise the number of constituencies in each District.
An MP must represent a constituencies in order to vote.
The Electoral Committee will redraw Districts every four months.
At least 4 of the districts within a given District must be separated from each other.
At least 8 of the districts within a given District must be removed from their former District.
Each District counts for one vote.
How a District votes is determined by the majority of votes from constituencies within said District.
If no one in a District votes, the District is presumed to abstain.
If a District ties internally, the majority party in that District will vote on behalf of the District.
•If there is no clear majority party in a District, and only in this circumstance, the Electoral Committee shall enter a blank vote on behalf of the District.
There shall exist one round of voting, wherein all senators may vote for candidates in numerical order of preference, the first their top preference, the second their second preference, and so on, whom registered between two weeks prior to voting and one day prior to voting. Voters need not rank every candidate. Voting shall last for 96 hours.
At the close of the vote, the votes shall be counted by at least two individuals. The primary vote of each voter shall be considered first. The candidate with the fewest primary votes shall have the primary votes for them transferred to their voters' secondary votes. The candidate, then, with the fewest votes, shall have their primary and secondary votes transferred to their voters' tertiary votes. This shall be in order until one candidate holds 50% of the active votes plus one. Voters who decline to include another vote should their selected candidate fail are considered to abstain, as are voters who decline to vote. Abstentions shall not be counted in the final tally. The candidate winning the greatest number of votes shall be declared the winner of the election. The Minister of Elections shall break any ties.
Voting shall be open for at least 120 hours.
The format of a vote must confirm the voter's intention and District beyond reasonable doubt.
Voters may change their vote any time before the close of the round.
If abstentions have the vote, the momentary Administration will continue control of the government for the next two months. If blanks have the vote, recount because you did it wrong.
After the end of voting, the Electoral Committee shall count all votes. The Ministry of Elections can then proclaim the winner of the election.

We still don't have a Seima, so I don't see how the Speaker of that non existant body can ascend to the Presidency.

Fixed. Any substantial commentary?

by **Bleckonia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:29 pm

Atlanticatia wrote:
Bleckonia wrote:
Then I will change the rates.

There's no point since it won't get pres. approval.

What are your specific qualms with the proposed budget? I thought it was relatively centrist.

I made it an amendment to sidestep the GEA requirement.

Also, in what universe is a 60% top marginal tax rate centrist?

Why are we taxing "unearned" income differently than "earned" income? I don't see why income from interest or rent should be taxed differently than that from work.

Taxing capital gains at the rates you want will stifle investment, yet the Government believes that there is an aggregate demand problem in Calaverde and your Government wants to use stimulus to stimulate aggregate demand. This bill will REDUCE aggregate demand by stifling investment and consumption.

Why should you be required to pay a Universal Social Contribution if you don't want to? What if you would rather save in a private plan?

by **Heraklea-** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:39 pm

Bleckonia wrote:-snip-

This will in no way provide the tax funds necessary to fund the government and its programs. I realize you don't like the programs the government wants to implement, but that is not the issue in play. What is at play is the distribution of the burden. You have done nothing to ensure adequate taxes are taken in to pay for the budget.

by **Battlion** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:45 pm

How you can amend an act that hasn't been passed yet? :/

by **The New World Oceania** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:46 pm

Bleckonia wrote:
Atlanticatia wrote:
There's no point since it won't get pres. approval.

What are your specific qualms with the proposed budget? I thought it was relatively centrist.

I made it an amendment to sidestep the GEA requirement.

Also, in what universe is a 60% top marginal tax rate centrist?

Currently, the Speaker has jurisdiction over the order of voting, so the amendment might not be voted on first.

Also, in the Democrats' defense, it's not as if Blues weren't allowed in their coalition thread and the Cabinet thread. In theory we had a chance to put in our say.

by **Bleckonia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:59 pm

Heraklea- wrote:
Bleckonia wrote:-snip-

This will in no way provide the tax funds necessary to fund the government and its programs. I realize you don't like the programs the government wants to implement, but that is not the issue in play. What is at play is the distribution of the burden. You have done nothing to ensure adequate taxes are taken in to pay for the budget.

So don't implement all the programs, or run a deficit. After all, this Government is full of Keynesians (who ironically don't know anything about what Keynes actually said) who want to implement a stimulus.

Keynes said that when the economy is stagnant, you CUT taxes, increase government purchases, and run a deficit, so a deficit shouldn't be a problem for you, right?

The point of this bill is to soak the rich.

by **Bleckonia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:02 pm

The New World Oceania wrote:
Bleckonia wrote:
I made it an amendment to sidestep the GEA requirement.

Also, in what universe is a 60% top marginal tax rate centrist?

Currently, the Speaker has jurisdiction over the order of voting, so the amendment might not be voted on first.

Also, in the Democrats' defense, it's not as if Blues weren't allowed in their coalition thread and the Cabinet thread. In theory we had a chance to put in our say.

Even if it's voted on second, it doesn't matter. The revenue bill will pass regardless, unfortunately.

by **Lykens** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:03 pm

Bleckonia wrote:
The New World Oceania wrote:
Currently, the Speaker has jurisdiction over the order of voting, so the amendment might not be voted on first.

Also, in the Democrats' defense, it's not as if Blues weren't allowed in their coalition thread and the Cabinet thread. In theory we had a chance to put in our say.

Even if it's voted on second, it doesn't matter. The revenue bill will pass regardless, unfortunately.

Your amendment to the GEA won't pass, Drago Dragomere might as well be the author.

by **Bleckonia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:06 pm

The New World Oceania wrote:
Bleckonia wrote:
I made it an amendment to sidestep the GEA requirement.

Also, in what universe is a 60% top marginal tax rate centrist?

Currently, the Speaker has jurisdiction over the order of voting, so the amendment might not be voted on first.

Also, in the Democrats' defense, it's not as if Blues weren't allowed in their coalition thread and the Cabinet thread. In theory we had a chance to put in our say.

To my knowledge, they never announced anything to anyone outside their coalition, so it's obvious they didn't want our input. If they wanted our input, they would have announced that they're putting something together.

by **Heraklea-** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:07 pm

Bleckonia wrote:
Heraklea- wrote:This will in no way provide the tax funds necessary to fund the government and its programs. I realize you don't like the programs the government wants to implement, but that is not the issue in play. What is at play is the distribution of the burden. You have done nothing to ensure adequate taxes are taken in to pay for the budget.

So don't implement all the programs, or run a deficit. After all, this Government is full of Keynesians (who ironically don't know anything about what Keynes actually said) who want to implement a stimulus.

Keynes said that when the economy is stagnant, you CUT taxes, increase government purchases, and run a deficit, so a deficit shouldn't be a problem for you, right?

The point of this bill is to soak the rich.

I don't have a problem with a deficit, but running a deficit just so we can entertain the anarcho-capitalistic masturbatory fantasy of trickle down economics is dumb.

by **Bleckonia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:07 pm

Lykens wrote:
Bleckonia wrote:
Even if it's voted on second, it doesn't matter. The revenue bill will pass regardless, unfortunately.

Your amendment to the GEA won't pass, Drago Dragomere might as well be the author.

I don't care about the stupid GEA thing anymore because my bill is in the form of an amendment now.

by **Bleckonia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:10 pm

Heraklea- wrote:
Bleckonia wrote:
So don't implement all the programs, or run a deficit. After all, this Government is full of Keynesians (who ironically don't know anything about what Keynes actually said) who want to implement a stimulus.

Keynes said that when the economy is stagnant, you CUT taxes, increase government purchases, and run a deficit, so a deficit shouldn't be a problem for you, right?

The point of this bill is to soak the rich.

I don't have a problem with a deficit, but running a deficit just so we can entertain the anarcho-capitalistic masturbatory fantasy of trickle down economics is dumb.

First of all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, and second of all, it's a fact that if we soak the rich, it's going to stifle investment (even Keynesians, not just libertarians, believe that we should cut taxes during a recession). If the Government wants to boost aggregate demand, it should not be taxing people this high. Even Keynes was smart enough to know that.

by **Battlion** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:20 pm

Bleckonia wrote:
The New World Oceania wrote:
Currently, the Speaker has jurisdiction over the order of voting, so the amendment might not be voted on first.

Also, in the Democrats' defense, it's not as if Blues weren't allowed in their coalition thread and the Cabinet thread. In theory we had a chance to put in our say.

To my knowledge, they never announced anything to anyone outside their coalition, so it's obvious they didn't want our input. If they wanted our input, they would have announced that they're putting something together.

Nobody said the Opposition couldn't contribute and offer suggestions, if they failed to do so it cannot complain that they weren't consulted.

by **Bleckonia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:26 pm

Battlion wrote:
Bleckonia wrote:
To my knowledge, they never announced anything to anyone outside their coalition, so it's obvious they didn't want our input. If they wanted our input, they would have announced that they're putting something together.

Nobody said the Opposition couldn't contribute and offer suggestions, if they failed to do so it cannot complain that they weren't consulted.

Do you honestly expect us to check your dumb Coalition thread every day? Do you honestly expect me to believe that no opposition members wanted to be a part of the budget process?

No, you intentionally did not make us aware of what was going on in order to avoid our criticism. Don't bullshit me.

by **Heraklea-** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:27 pm

Bleckonia wrote:
Heraklea- wrote:I don't have a problem with a deficit, but running a deficit just so we can entertain the anarcho-capitalistic masturbatory fantasy of trickle down economics is dumb.

First of all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, and second of all, it's a fact that if we soak the rich, it's going to stifle investment (even Keynesians, not just libertarians, believe that we should cut taxes during a recession). If the Government wants to boost aggregate demand, it should not be taxing people this high. Even Keynes was smart enough to know that.

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.

by **Atlanticatia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:28 pm

"The proposal from the Opposition is an attack on those with the least resources. It's an attack on the working class and middle class, to give tax cuts to the richest individuals in society."

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.
Including the universal social contribution.

Income of $8,000:
- Ministry of Finance tax proposal: $56 tax owed (0.7%)
- Opposition tax proposal: $320 tax owed (6.4%)
Increase of 571%.

Income of $15,000
- Ministry of Finance tax proposal: $1,449 tax owed (9.66%)
- Opposition tax proposal: $1,505 tax owed (10.03%)
Increase of 3.9%.

Income of $60,000
- Ministry of Finance tax proposal: $19,820 (33.03%)
- Opposition tax proposal: $8,120 (13.53%)
Tax cut of 59%.

Income of $120,000
- Ministry of Finance tax proposal: $50,240 (41.87%)
- Opposition tax proposal: $16,940 (14.12%)
Tax cut of 66.3%.

"My tax plan, the official Government revenue bill, will provide a fair deal for all hardworking Calaverdeans on low to middle incomes, while asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear the broadest burden, and pay a bit more in tax. The opposition's tax proposal will provide huge tax cuts to the richest Calaverdeans, while sharply increasing taxes on the vulnerable and the middle class. I don't believe it's fair to propose a 66% tax cut for the richest few, while increasing taxes by 571% for the poorest."

It is rich that someone who is proposing a tax increase on the poor, who spend the most of their money, is lecturing me about taxing the wealthy. Increasing taxes on those with the highest marginal propensity to consume will harm the economy, and is unfair.

by **Battlion** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:28 pm

Bleckonia wrote:
Battlion wrote:
Nobody said the Opposition couldn't contribute and offer suggestions, if they failed to do so it cannot complain that they weren't consulted.

Do you honestly expect us to check your dumb Coalition thread every day? Do you honestly expect me to believe that no opposition members wanted to be a part of the budget process?

No, you intentionally did not make us aware of what was going on in order to avoid our criticism. Don't bullshit me.

a) Budget discussions have been going on across all threads as far as I'm aware
b) No I believe Opposition Members wanted to be involved, but if they didn't do it whilst there has been time then they can't scream "we weren't told"
c) I intentionally did nothing of the sort, and I trust that the government has not done so.

by **Lykens** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:29 pm

Bleckonia wrote:
Battlion wrote:
Nobody said the Opposition couldn't contribute and offer suggestions, if they failed to do so it cannot complain that they weren't consulted.

Do you honestly expect us to check your dumb Coalition thread every day? Do you honestly expect me to believe that no opposition members wanted to be a part of the budget process?

No, you intentionally did not make us aware of what was going on in order to avoid our criticism. Don't bullshit me.

You need to cool your horses, firstly.

Second, if you guys were a proper opposition coalition, you'd keep tabs on the government, so that you could offer alternatives to our policies.

Don't get angry and bitchy because you guys aren't doing your jobs.

by **Vedastia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:34 pm

Bleckonia wrote:
Amendments to the Primary Revenue Act

Author: Sen. Franz Haas (Bleckonia | FCP), certain text borrowed from Sen. Sebastián Luc Morales (Atlanticatia | DemLeft)

The definition of 'taxable income' shall be amended to read "Taxable income - income from employment, wages, salaries, commissions, self-employment earnings, trusts, rents, dividends, interest, annuities, and royalties."

The definition of 'unearned income' shall be eliminated.

Paragraph a of section 1 shall be amended to read
"a) The personal income tax shall be levied on all 'taxable income' of households at the following marginal rates:
Households with total taxable income between $0 and the poverty line per annum shall be eligible for a transfer payment equal to one-half the difference between the amount of taxable income and the poverty line.
Taxable income above the poverty line per annum shall be taxed at 14%.
All households with total income above the poverty line are eligible to receive a standard tax deduction of $100 for every individual in the household less one; the total standard deduction for a household may not exceed $500, and the standard tax deduction may not result in a negative tax payment, regardless of how many individuals reside in a household."

The following paragraphs shall be added to section 2:
"b) Any individual is eligible to opt out of the Universal Social Contribution and not receive social security benefits; employers, however, are required to offer all employees the option of contributing to Universal Social Contribution and may not incentivize opting out.
c) If an individual opts out of the Universal Social Contribution, neither the employee nor the employer shall be required to pay the Universal Social Contribution."

Paragraph a of section 3 shall be amended to read
"a) Corporate tax shall be levied on all worldwide corporate profits, at the following marginal rates:
Corporate profits shall be taxed at a rate of 10%"

In paragraph b of section 4, "$0.50" shall be amended to read "$0.12"; "$1.89" shall be amended to read "$0.4536."

Paragraphs a, c, and d of section 4 shall be eliminated.

The heading of section 5 shall be amended to read "§ 5 - Capital Gains Tax".

Paragraph a of section 5 shall be amended to read
"a) The Capital Gains tax shall be levied on all capital gains of individuals at a marginal rate of 5%."

Paragraph b of section 5 shall be eliminated.

The words "Unearned Income Tax" shall be replaced with "Capital Gains Tax."

Now legal. Some of the rates have been adjusted, and a worker earning the median income would pay the same amount as under the Government's proposal. However, the other parts of the bill ensure simplicity and that the overall tax burden on the average citizen will be reduced.

Sponsors?

I would like to sponsor.

by **Bleckonia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:43 pm

Heraklea- wrote:
Bleckonia wrote:
First of all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, and second of all, it's a fact that if we soak the rich, it's going to stifle investment (even Keynesians, not just libertarians, believe that we should cut taxes during a recession). If the Government wants to boost aggregate demand, it should not be taxing people this high. Even Keynes was smart enough to know that.

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.

by **Atlanticatia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:46 pm

Bleckonia wrote:
Heraklea- wrote: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.

As I demonstrated in my previous post, you want to impose huge tax increases on the poor (who have a high marginal propensity to consume), while imposing huge tax cuts on the rich (who have a lower marginal propensity to consume); the net effect of your proposal to cut taxes for the rich while increasing taxes on the poor will have a net negative effect on economic growth.

The wealth isn't going to trickle down. That has been tried for the past 3 decades all over the world and has not worked.

by **Bleckonia** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:48 pm

Lykens wrote:
Bleckonia wrote:
Do you honestly expect us to check your dumb Coalition thread every day? Do you honestly expect me to believe that no opposition members wanted to be a part of the budget process?

No, you intentionally did not make us aware of what was going on in order to avoid our criticism. Don't bullshit me.

You need to cool your horses, firstly.

Second, if you guys were a proper opposition coalition, you'd keep tabs on the government, so that you could offer alternatives to our policies.

Don't get angry and bitchy because you guys aren't doing your jobs.

You should have notified some opposition members in some way (to be frank, we do need work organizing into a coalition). When I was working with Osea 767, I reached out to him to tell him what was going on because I was actually interested in what he had to say. I didn't just leave him in the dark and expect him to keep up with every little thing I was doing.

NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

Who is online