Law proposal for the safety of the Union
Mercury
Dragonmaster352
Elmer
Chriz
Gerben
Stuiter
Open in chat • 12 posts (analysis)
• Page 1 of 1
Law proposal for the safety of the Union
Former Senator Bolv'ar of the Confederacy of Excaria » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:32 pm
"Fellow Senators,
I come to you with a proposal for a new law for the greater protection of the Union, which I hope can be debated here before it will be put to a vote. We are especially looking to hear opinions and proposals for modifications or addenda to the new law.
Additionally, we propose the following addendum to the Offer of Aid laws:
Now I understand article 7 may raise some questions, but I assure you this is the best way of financing the cost of this law and I can provide, if requested, a detailed financial analysis of the cost and benefit of this law.
For now though, I would be most honoured to hear your opinions."
I come to you with a proposal for a new law for the greater protection of the Union, which I hope can be debated here before it will be put to a vote. We are especially looking to hear opinions and proposals for modifications or addenda to the new law.
- Code: Select all
Safety of the Union act
1. In order to promote worlds to construct their own defence forces, each member world of the Union will be granted a one time 500 (:tax) subsidy to construct one Defence Force, to be paid out when their Defence Force is being constructed.
2. To promote member worlds to build their own fleets, the Union will pay 10 (:tax) upkeep for a single fleet for each member world, if such a fleet is present.
3. To further promote member worlds to build their own fleets, the Union will pay a 1000 (:tax) subsidy to member worlds who construct a fleet.
4. Article 3 applies only if the Capital Ships for this fleet are produced by the member world themselves or if they are acquired from another member world who produced them through trade.
5. When researching a technology relevant to Defence under the Tax Deductible Technological Research Law, a subsidy of 500 (:tax) will be made available for each such technology developed.
6. Funds acquired through Article 5 may be distributed amongst the researching nations by their mutual agreement. In case an agreement cannot be reached, no subsidy will be paid out.
7. To finance these subsidies, Tax Brackets 1 will be increased to 15%, for a total additional tax per turn of up to 50 (:tax) per member world.
Additionally, we propose the following addendum to the Offer of Aid laws:
- Code: Select all
Offer of Aid Addendum
A) To promote new worlds defending themselves, Defence Forces may now be purchased with the 'Offer of Aid' funds granted to new members.
Now I understand article 7 may raise some questions, but I assure you this is the best way of financing the cost of this law and I can provide, if requested, a detailed financial analysis of the cost and benefit of this law.
For now though, I would be most honoured to hear your opinions."
Maria Latharion » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:45 pm
"Chancellor, senators.
I have to disagree that article 7 is the best solution. It puts the smaller member worlds at a disadvantage, the factions that only pay tax bracket 1 don't have that much. This tax increase would leave them with less, slowing their economic growth. Essentially the smaller worlds would have a greater disadvantage then larger worlds.
I believe a better option would be a steady increase in the higher Tax Brackets, specifically 2 to 5. My proposal is as followed: bracket 2: 22%, bracket 3: 34%, bracket 4: 46% and bracket 5: 58%
The larger economies are better able to handle these higher taxes."
I have to disagree that article 7 is the best solution. It puts the smaller member worlds at a disadvantage, the factions that only pay tax bracket 1 don't have that much. This tax increase would leave them with less, slowing their economic growth. Essentially the smaller worlds would have a greater disadvantage then larger worlds.
I believe a better option would be a steady increase in the higher Tax Brackets, specifically 2 to 5. My proposal is as followed: bracket 2: 22%, bracket 3: 34%, bracket 4: 46% and bracket 5: 58%
The larger economies are better able to handle these higher taxes."
Senator Acehtoo of the Miomanian Colonists » Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:43 pm
"I am afraid I must disagree with you on that Senator. Larger member worlds already maintain the majority of the current Union fleets through high taxes in the higher brackets. As a percentage of their income, larger worlds make a far greater contribution to the Union in general. In times of need, the small member worlds cannot place the burden of their security on their larger partners - they have to step up and contribute.
Mioman could not support this law if all members did not contribute equally, with the only possible exception for really small members that don't fill up the first tax bracket."
Mioman could not support this law if all members did not contribute equally, with the only possible exception for really small members that don't fill up the first tax bracket."
Senator Danar Tassar » Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:43 am
-
Senator Danar Tassar - PC
- Location: Unity
"This law is to support smaller factions to create their own defences, and yet you propose to increase the taxes which will hit especially the smaller factions. We of the Consensus are interested in these calculations, as our current believe is that this increase of taxes can better be put in one or more of the higher tax brackets."
The senator thought for a short moment, and then he added: "We also like a more readable format for the next time, as the format of this proposal is difficult to read, but lets not discuss the literature here and now."
The senator thought for a short moment, and then he added: "We also like a more readable format for the next time, as the format of this proposal is difficult to read, but lets not discuss the literature here and now."
Former Senator Bolv'ar of the Confederacy of Excaria » Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:34 pm
The budget was drawn up with the consideration for time of one year (50 
). The expected growth for the Union in this period is at least two new member worlds for a total of 25 worlds. Finally, an estimated total of 10 new technologies will be developed that qualify for the listed subsidies during this period, or one technology every five turns.
Under this assumption the eventual set costs per turn will be 25 * 10
for fleet maintenance plus 500 / 5 for technology subsidies or 350 per turn. Expected eventual income from article 8 will be 1.250 per turn, leaving a total of 900 per turn. In the fifty turn period, this is a total of 45.000 .
Non-continuous cost estimates are article 1 with 25 * 500(:tax) and article 4 & 5 with 25 * 1000, or a total of 37.500 .
This leaves 7.500 in room in the budget to compensate for uneven cost distribution and unexpected costs and benefits.
Not all member worlds will wait in turn to take advantage of their subsidies. Instead, some turns will not feature any subsidy requests while others will see multiple subsidy requests. This will require the ministry of finance issue loans to the ministry of defence to compensate these uneven distributions, on which interest must be paid. By contrast, money cannot be saved to gain interest.
An additional post of potential unexpected cost will be unexpected new members beyond two. New members will not pay the full 50 additional each turn as their economies are not of the proper scale yet, but they do qualify for the fleet and defence force subsidies.
Finally there is the risk of member worlds taking the benefit of this subsidy and then leaving the Union or becoming Fringe Worlds, which would limit income from them to pay for these benefits.
Unexpected lowered cost may occur if members choose not to benefit from these subsidies.
All in all, it would be prudent to have some sort of buffer. The 7.500 is there to insure this does not cause budgetary problems.
It is my belief that this buffer is reasonable. I would furthermore propose that after a time of one year, the issue can be raised by any senator that the primary cost has now been completed and that taxes be once again lowered.
Senator Tassar, I do not agree with your assertion that smaller factions take the big hit for this. All reasonably sized factions pay the same amount to reap the same benefits. Furthermore, the smallest factions will pay less than the bigger factions as they will not fill the first tax bracket.
If the smaller worlds are unwilling or unable to accept paying the same for defences, would you cut access to subsidies for those worlds? For example, by adding restrictions to the use of articles 1, 2 and 3 to be available only to members who have been paying taxes in the third bracket for the past ten turns?
I think that would be wholly undesirable as all worlds should be defended properly. But if all benefit, this in turn means that all should pay the cost associated with that. This is only fair.
). The expected growth for the Union in this period is at least two new member worlds for a total of 25 worlds. Finally, an estimated total of 10 new technologies will be developed that qualify for the listed subsidies during this period, or one technology every five turns.Under this assumption the eventual set costs per turn will be 25 * 10
for fleet maintenance plus 500 / 5 for technology subsidies or 350 per turn. Expected eventual income from article 8 will be 1.250 per turn, leaving a total of 900 per turn. In the fifty turn period, this is a total of 45.000 .Non-continuous cost estimates are article 1 with 25 * 500(:tax) and article 4 & 5 with 25 * 1000
, or a total of 37.500 .This leaves 7.500
in room in the budget to compensate for uneven cost distribution and unexpected costs and benefits.Not all member worlds will wait in turn to take advantage of their subsidies. Instead, some turns will not feature any subsidy requests while others will see multiple subsidy requests. This will require the ministry of finance issue loans to the ministry of defence to compensate these uneven distributions, on which interest must be paid. By contrast, money cannot be saved to gain interest.
An additional post of potential unexpected cost will be unexpected new members beyond two. New members will not pay the full 50 additional
each turn as their economies are not of the proper scale yet, but they do qualify for the fleet and defence force subsidies.Finally there is the risk of member worlds taking the benefit of this subsidy and then leaving the Union or becoming Fringe Worlds, which would limit income from them to pay for these benefits.
Unexpected lowered cost may occur if members choose not to benefit from these subsidies.
All in all, it would be prudent to have some sort of buffer. The 7.500
is there to insure this does not cause budgetary problems.It is my belief that this buffer is reasonable. I would furthermore propose that after a time of one year, the issue can be raised by any senator that the primary cost has now been completed and that taxes be once again lowered.
Senator Tassar, I do not agree with your assertion that smaller factions take the big hit for this. All reasonably sized factions pay the same amount to reap the same benefits. Furthermore, the smallest factions will pay less than the bigger factions as they will not fill the first tax bracket.
If the smaller worlds are unwilling or unable to accept paying the same for defences, would you cut access to subsidies for those worlds? For example, by adding restrictions to the use of articles 1, 2 and 3 to be available only to members who have been paying taxes in the third bracket for the past ten turns?
I think that would be wholly undesirable as all worlds should be defended properly. But if all benefit, this in turn means that all should pay the cost associated with that. This is only fair.
Maria Latharion » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:35 pm
"Chancellor, I would like to point out that, while the actual amount for members only in tax bracket 1 is lower, the proportional amount they pay is much higher.
for example: two worlds, one has a taxable income of 800 and the other a taxable income of 2000 . With the current tax rate they pay 80 and 300 respectively. If article 7 stays unchanged they will have to pay 120 and 350 . The smaller member pays 50% more while the larger one only 16,7%.
Would you be so kind to tell me how that is fair?"
Maria paused a moment.
"If you truly want this to be fair wouldn't it be better to make the increase income dependant? A small increase in all tax brackets instead of only in one?"
for example: two worlds, one has a taxable income of 800
and the other a taxable income of 2000 . With the current tax rate they pay 80 and 300 respectively. If article 7 stays unchanged they will have to pay 120 and 350 . The smaller member pays 50% more while the larger one only 16,7%. Would you be so kind to tell me how that is fair?"
Maria paused a moment.
"If you truly want this to be fair wouldn't it be better to make the increase income dependant? A small increase in all tax brackets instead of only in one?"
Senator Ardios Eldrilith » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:46 pm
"We believe that this law was created to boost the defenses of the large factions. The current rules enable large worlds to construct multiple fleets, research multiple small defence technologies and claim subsidy for each fleet and each technology.
Furthermore the subsidy law is a step in the right direction but the technology should be shared for a maximum of 1/4 of the original price since it is paid for with Union money it should be available to all members.
Furthermore we are missing the most important part. Why is there no subsidy on
capital ships just like there is for 
MTCF? If you want to increase the fleet capacity of all members you should increase the production of capital ships. If we subsidize the production, the smaller members can make some profit selling them, and everybody can buy them far under the open market price."
Furthermore the subsidy law is a step in the right direction but the technology should be shared for a maximum of 1/4 of the original price since it is paid for with Union money it should be available to all members.
Furthermore we are missing the most important part. Why is there no subsidy on
capital ships just like there is for MTCF? If you want to increase the fleet capacity of all members you should increase the production of capital ships. If we subsidize the production, the smaller members can make some profit selling them, and everybody can buy them far under the open market price."
Senator Acehtoo of the Miomanian Colonists » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:09 pm
"Lady-Senator Latharion, your percentage calculations are most accurate, but allow me to calculate them differently, as statistics always allow multiple ways to look at them.
In your own example, the world that has 800 in taxable income, paying 80 is taxed 10% of their budget. By contrast, the 2000 in taxable income world pays 15% of their budget in taxes to the Union. Even after this adjustment, the first world would be paying 15% of their budget in tax, while the larger would be paying 17.5% of their budget. Thus, the larger world is still paying more than the smaller world.
The benefits of this law in contrast are distributed evenly amongst member worlds. All members benefit equally from these subsidies. Why should the cost not be evenly distributed as well? How can it be unfair that two worlds must pay the same cost for the same benefit?"
In your own example, the world that has 800
in taxable income, paying 80 is taxed 10% of their budget. By contrast, the 2000 in taxable income world pays 15% of their budget in taxes to the Union. Even after this adjustment, the first world would be paying 15% of their budget in tax, while the larger would be paying 17.5% of their budget. Thus, the larger world is still paying more than the smaller world.The benefits of this law in contrast are distributed evenly amongst member worlds. All members benefit equally from these subsidies. Why should the cost not be evenly distributed as well? How can it be unfair that two worlds must pay the same cost for the same benefit?"
Lady Peinaili de Montrève » Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:34 pm
"Fellow senators, Chancellor," the Lady de Montrève started as she took a moment to address the senate, "Let me first say that the Sundarian Federation supports the intend of this proposal, providing an incentive for member worlds to provide in their own security and protection is a wise decision given the current developments with our neighbouring superpowers. While each member can rely on the protection and support of the Union when it comes to their defences, being able to withstand an assault in the first place is paramount to survival.
However, just like Senator Eldrilith, I would place a few remarks concerning art. 3 of the proposal. Though the intend direction this article is a good one, we believe that a restriction should be imposed. Under the current proposal, members are able to construct multiple fleets and apply for subsidies for each one without limit. While this would provide a considerable boost to Unions defensive capabilities, I believe that this article surpasses its intend and is made to spend more Union money on warmongering instead of actual development of our smaller members and strengthening mutual co-operation and trade, between both individual member worlds and with our neighbouring superpowers.
The larger worlds that are looking into developing multiple fleets are perfectly capable of doing so, even without the Union subsidy. I therefore propose we do the following:
Firstly, add a restriction to art. 3, so that members can benefit from the granted subsidy only once.
Secondly, if it is the opinion of the Senate that the Union should expand its military capabilities, then why don't we look into expanding the Union military forces as well , instead of focussing everything on individual members? Part of the money gained from this law, following from art. 7, could be used in such a manner.
Lastly I believe that the point of subsidies, as raised by Senator Eldrilith, has merit and should be looked into. Providing an additional incentive toward production would benefit our military development greatly."
However, just like Senator Eldrilith, I would place a few remarks concerning art. 3 of the proposal. Though the intend direction this article is a good one, we believe that a restriction should be imposed. Under the current proposal, members are able to construct multiple fleets and apply for subsidies for each one without limit. While this would provide a considerable boost to Unions defensive capabilities, I believe that this article surpasses its intend and is made to spend more Union money on warmongering instead of actual development of our smaller members and strengthening mutual co-operation and trade, between both individual member worlds and with our neighbouring superpowers.
The larger worlds that are looking into developing multiple fleets are perfectly capable of doing so, even without the Union subsidy. I therefore propose we do the following:
Firstly, add a restriction to art. 3, so that members can benefit from the granted subsidy only once.
Secondly, if it is the opinion of the Senate that the Union should expand its military capabilities, then why don't we look into expanding the Union military forces as well , instead of focussing everything on individual members? Part of the money gained from this law, following from art. 7, could be used in such a manner.
Lastly I believe that the point of
subsidies, as raised by Senator Eldrilith, has merit and should be looked into. Providing an additional incentive toward production would benefit our military development greatly."
Senator Ardios Eldrilith » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:03 pm
"We agree with Lady de Montrève that it is better to invest in more Union fleets and believe that all the military tech that is researched with the subsidies should be made available for Unity and the Union fleets to make sure that they are and will be the most advanced army. Since the Union fleets have to defend us from other superpowers we should make sure they have everything they need."
Senator Harek » Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:16 pm
“Dear Senator Achetoo,
Like Lady de Montrève pointed out equal distribution is good if everybody would make the same use and no world gets preference. A larger could indeed use this subsidy multiple times as they have more tax to spend and a smaller world could only use it once as their funds are limited. If larger worlds make multiple fleets and research various technologies the subsidy funds might not suffice and where does the money then come from? Who will then make the choice who gets the subsidy and who does not? The minister of defense or finance? The responsibility who will execute this proposal should be included.”
Like Lady de Montrève pointed out equal distribution is good if everybody would make the same use and no world gets preference. A larger could indeed use this subsidy multiple times as they have more tax to spend and a smaller world could only use it once as their funds are limited. If larger worlds make multiple fleets and research various technologies the subsidy funds might not suffice and where does the money then come from? Who will then make the choice who gets the subsidy and who does not? The minister of defense or finance? The responsibility who will execute this proposal should be included.”
Senator Danar Tassar » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:29 pm
-
Senator Danar Tassar - PC
- Location: Unity
"As this law is for increasing the defences, we of the consensus think it is a good idea to encourage defence zones. According to this proposal, a new member is allowed to use the 'offer of aid' for a defence zone, but at this moment only one faction is able to make use of this regulation, the Teprogrenaian Consensus, and that is if this regulation is put in place in time.
Therefore we have the following proposal: Article 3 will be changed to a subsidy on capital ships,
there will be a subsidy of 1 per 1 for every economy with a taxable income less then or equal to 1000
This is under the assumption that bigger economies can pay the construction of a fleet themselves if they feel the need to do so.
Add article 8 : Every Union member will get a subsidy of 400 for the construction of a defence zone, granted when constructed.
Article 7: The tax increase will be shifted from the first bracket to the second bracket. This to give small economies the chance to increase their economy more quickly. In short terms might it be a little harder to fill the financial gap, but in the long term will this create a faster growth of small economies compared to the original proposal, letting smaller economies pay more taxes faster in the long run."
Therefore we have the following proposal: Article 3 will be changed to a subsidy on capital ships
,there will be a subsidy of 1
per 1 for every economy with a taxable income less then or equal to 1000 This is under the assumption that bigger economies can pay the construction of a fleet themselves if they feel the need to do so.
Add article 8 : Every Union member will get a subsidy of 400
for the construction of a defence zone, granted when constructed.Article 7: The tax increase will be shifted from the first bracket to the second bracket. This to give small economies the chance to increase their economy more quickly. In short terms might it be a little harder to fill the financial gap, but in the long term will this create a faster growth of small economies compared to the original proposal, letting smaller economies pay more taxes faster in the long run."
12 posts (analysis)
• Page 1 of 1