ESRP public meeting (communication thread)

[Dunderdon]

Calm down, people.

The only reason why we want the state to be in charche of such things is to prevent them to get out of control. And we want the profits to go to the state to make sure something senseful happens with them.

I'm sorry to say that, but the socialism won't allow single persons to live in excessive wealth as long as we have other problems in eutopia.

Of course we distance ourselves from methods of stalinism. We could simply buy your racetrack. Or decide that gambling enterprises will be taxed very high.

sincerely,
Weyoun.

 

[Josephus I]

Originally posted by weyoun
the ideas discussed about the welfare program meanhigher expenses in our budget. to finance them, we will have to raise the taxes. i suggest we raise them particulary for the higher incomes.

for example, we could raise the marginal tax rate to something like 87%, so that people who have more money than they need are allowed to hand it to other people who do need it (the whole lower income scale, their taxes can be reduced.)

I agree with a highly progressive tax rate; 87 per cent may get us into trouble, but definately something worth looking into

 

[Josephus I]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
Good to know. Just to avoid misunderstandings, my take on "state pensions" is that they would supplement the existing pensions plan rather than completely replace it; I don't feel there is a need to let employers off the hook (the current pensions plan is co-financed by employers and employees).

[OOC] Mel, you're canadian right?? If so, then yes, what you're talking about is similar to the OAS that Canada currently uses. I'm not against the employer/employee pension plans; just that for some people, that might not be enough. One other option, using the canadian system again, is the mandatory government plans, that we see taken off our paycheque each week

 

[Dunderdon]

Phalanx, to some extend i do understand your point of view. Nevertheless, our politics of taxation / state influence will provide the people who pay the money to you with a better life. The programs that will be financed with the money from your racetrack taxes will raise the purchase power of all eutopians. It is a honor to you to participate in the effort of making eutopia a better place to live in .

However, for owning a racetrack and so on you will be written on the Red List.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I can live with your red list. But I will not accept your control over my enterprise. How many people will support a party that confiscates anything that doesnt agree with them? Who are you trying to make a better life for? Certaintly not the businessmen.

Why not put it to a vote in parliament? That would be agreeable to me, and if your own government assoiciates dont agree, then will you stop this and let me be in peace?

 

[unmerged(6657)]

I am very disturbed by the discussions over the racetrack. I for one have spent a large portion of my life saving enough money to purchase my racehorses. Does the party seek to take the racehorses and use them on a collective farm?? Will the party seize my horses because it is in the best interests of the state??

Your taxes will be counterproductive to the economy. You will tax the track to the extent that Phalanx will have to charge excessive admissions. This will result in decreased admissions, and as a result, the revenue stream that you seek to tap will dry up.

I forsee that the ESRP will find that the racetrack has broad support, and that you will see more than a few opposing views pop up in the coming days.

 

[Josephus I]

Originally posted by Phalanx


Why not put it to a vote in parliament? That would be agreeable to me, and if your own government assoiciates dont agree, then will you stop this and let me be in peace?

Currently, our laws insist that a vote in parliament is pretty much the only way of going about doing things. So have no fear, IF anything comes of this, it will go through parliament (see we're not radicals, after all). Regarding the "you stop this, let me be" stuff; look we're just carrying on a discussion--are you suggesting we stop discussing policy issues?

 

[Josephus I]

Originally posted by UberYuber
I forsee that the ESRP will find that the racetrack has broad support, and that you will see more than a few opposing views pop up in the coming days.

You may be entirely correct. But this is the ESRP Communications Room and all we're doing is discussing an issue that the ESRP is strongly against. The ESRP is just one of many parties and opinions that dot the landscape.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

If you discuss issues that would hurt the community, yes, i suggest you stop discussing them.

 

[Archeolooginspe]

I agree on you, about the race track dear sir it shouldn't be closed, but none of my fellow party-mates say so. And I believe it's only fair that you pay taxes like everyone in compensation for being able to legally gamble. But I don't see any reason to worry! This is nothing but talk, there's not been any actions yet. If any law would be passed not only you but also you're competitors would suffer. Furthermore how would discussing this hurt the community? It's not the moment to be all jumpy and start screaming in panick you make the public all jumpy and screaming while nothing has happened!

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I am not against paying taxes. I plan to file my accounts and pay taxes as any good citizen should. And about my rousing the public, would you like me to play dead while your party members roused them first? And I'd like to put this up for vote as soon as possible. If your going to waste parliaments time, we might as well get it over with now.

And this is not a personal crussade, I'm just defending what is right. I imagine most of you are perfectly decent people.

 

[unmerged(10239)]

Yuber, I cant help but get the feeling that you're trying to compare to Stalinesque communists again. Please don't, because we are not.

Put it this way. Let's use an example.

There is a proposal to open a nuclear power plant next door to your house, and lets just say for the sake of argument that you are very anti nuclear(im not trying to represent your own views). Surely, you would have a bit of a bitch about it and try and get laws passed against it, or the project stopped? This, in principle is no different to the ESRP and gambling. The party is against gambling, and a race track has just opened, what are we going to do about it? Complain and try and stop it.

I strongly suggest that no members of the ESRP further discuss this subject in this context, in this communications area, this is a matter for parliament, when it opens.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Another point, Dr Valminck, a member of your party, gambles in my track and owns a horse. Do you intend to take his horse, and that of the other hardworking eutopian citizens? These are instruments of gambling just as my track are. If you don't punish everyone for participating why should you punish anyone at all? Your ideas have a few holes I'd like to see you close.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Nationalizing the racetrack is a non-issue. Most ESRP-members don't seem to support the idea, and the RD certainly doesn't. I hope that puts that issue to rest, and we can focus our attention on real matters again.

Originally posted by Josephus I
[OOC]I'm not against the employer/employee pension plans; just that for some people, that might not be enough.

Hence my suggestion that state pensions be "aimed especially at those retirees who had relatively low lifetime earnings." I hasten to add that "especially" doesn't mean "exclusively."

One other option, using the canadian system again, is the mandatory government plans, that we see taken off our paycheque each week

I'm a bit unclear what you mean. Do you mean that there should be a minimum amount/percentage that employers and employees have to pay into the pensions fund each pay day? If so, I agree.

 

[Josephus I]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
I'm a bit unclear what you mean. Do you mean that there should be a minimum amount/percentage that employers and employees have to pay into the pensions fund each pay day? If so, I agree.

Yes, more or less. Since Eutopia has a system in place where it is mandatory for employers/employees contribute to a pension plan that will suffice. In my canadian example, the government also has its own mandatory pension plan called the CPP (Canada Pension Plan), where a percentage of each employee's paycheque is deducted. Upon reaching 65, that person can then collect weekly. This is in addition to a voluntary Company pension plan and individual retirement plan. But this might get complicated so, I think a mandatory company plan + an Old Age Security plan for those who because of low earnings contributed little, should be enough.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Josephus I
so, I think a mandatory company plan + an Old Age Security plan for those who because of low earnings contributed little, should be enough.

Agreed. The Eutopian Pensions Plan (EPP), financed through mandatory payments by employers/employees, plus a state-financed Supplementary Pensions Programme (SPP) for those whose income from the EPP is too low should suffice. Of course, people would be free to sign up for additional old age insurance with Omnicare.

 

[Archeolooginspe]

Because of the French reaction shouldn't we start a boycott on French products? Like higher importrates and support a buycott by the customers themselves.

 

[unmerged(9119)]

I don't think that an embargo is a good ideia!!!

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Originally posted by Shiiuga
Yuber, I cant help but get the feeling that you're trying to compare to Stalinesque communists again. Please don't, because we are not.

Put it this way. Let's use an example.

Dare say, but Socialism, in practice and theory, should aim for the betterment of it's workers, and for at least some controls on the economy, the party should be in favor of the race track. The track is a revenue stream, as even without taxes, the track has to buy concessions from EUtopian vendors, has to hire out labor to fulfill certain duties at the track, and the stable owners have to purchase supplies for their horses. The track creates a lot of jobs, and makes a lot of businesses wealthier. Finally, the track doesn't expressly support gambling, as there is no racing form published to induce people to gamble on the outcome of the races. Also, there the owners of the track do not require race fans to gamble, so the track itself is simply a place to enjoy a spectator sport. Anyone who gambles while they are at the track does so at their own desire. I believe that the ESRP should decide if they are against gambling, or if they are against the idea of having a racetrack in the country.

 

[Murmurandus]

The new Government has been appointed - have a look at the Government thread.