Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ In Lovia, Congress is the national legislative body and the most powerful branch of government. The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of Congress, in which the Members of the Congress propose bills and debate them. The Second Chamber is where they are eventually voted. Paradoxically, Lovia does not have a bicameral parliament: there is only one group of MOTCs that both debates and votes the proposals. For the current composition of Congress, see this.

As prescribed by Article 6 of the Constitution, all Lovian citizens "may write and propose motions to the Federal Law", that "are presented to the Members of the Congress in the First Chamber." The MOTCs' duty is to "read the motion and form a personal opinion about it. In order to obtain the support of a majority of Members of the Congress, changes may be proposed in the First Chamber." If a majority is likely to be found, the proposer will move the bill to the Second Chamber for a vote.

The First Chamber is not a popular assembly where all citizens can express their personal interests. Polling the population ought to happen outside of Congress.

042. Bringing back the local police.
I think we should bring back the local police. This would give people who don't want to do politics or do politics as well another opportunity to contribute to Lovia. Only states, cities and Train Village will have their own police service. What do you think.  Happy65   Talk CNP   16:34, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Not really necessary, as we are a small nation and the police aren't very active once their page has been written. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:44, November 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Police Reform that happened a while ago basically brought them back in the form of Local Bureaus. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 22:46, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Haappy you're new but in the past (2010) we had three levels, Federal, State and Local. We eliminated local (though i think we should bring it back as a puppet just because no nation has no local government) government because wereas state governors and federal congressmen were elected and have power written out local mayors (opposing parties and those on the same side) would act like dictators and stop real reform. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:44, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently the only city that has any local government is Hurbanova, but the government is unofficial, so it doesn't really count. On top of this, the "local government" is just a ceremonial mayor I.E. Oos Wes Llava, and he doesn't do much as mayor. I'm with Marcus though, because as he said, "What country doesn't have local government?" I think the local government should just be a mayor, police force, and firefighters though (a council would be a little excessive as we don't have enough members.) --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:49, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm against them having any power though xD completely cerimonial because what happened is that edit wars happened and nothing could get done. I'm Pro state and federal powers Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:34, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I wasn't here when they were abolished, so now that I know that, it would make more sense for them to be simply ceremonial. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:47, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Marcus, we did have a local government, but no local police. I agree that we should bring them back as fake positions, though. Also, Newhaven has an unofficial government of Yuri Medvedev as mayor in addition to Hurb's government. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:24, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

We had a local police for most places, Train Village Police, Noble City Police, but I have to agree we should have a local government that has hardly any power so bigger and local parties expand instead of having to close them all down.  Happy65   Talk CNP   07:42, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

043. Settlement Act Revision
Hi, now that we have a "realistic" population and census style, I think we should make some revisions to the Settlement Act:


 * Lovian settlements are classified into one of these five groups: hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
 * Congress must recognize a settlements by a simple majority before the settlement can become an official hamlet, village, neighborhood, town, or city of Lovia.
 * A hamlet is a very small settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement.
 * A hamlet must:
 * Have a population of at least ten and at most five hundred.
 * If a hamlet's population drops below ten, it is no longer classified as a settlement.
 * If a hamlet's population rises above five hundred, it is classified as a village.
 * A hamlet may officially affiliate itself with a larger town or city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A hamlet may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the hamlet if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * If a hamlet borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the hamlet if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A village is a small settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement.
 * A village must:
 * Have a population of at least five hundred and at most five thousand.
 * If a village's population drops below five hundred, it is classified as a hamlet.
 * If a village's population rises above five thousand, it is classified as a town.
 * A village may officially affiliate itself with a larger town or city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A village may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the village if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * If a village borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the village if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A town is a mid-sized settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement.
 * A town must:
 * Have a population of at least five thousand and at most twenty thousand.
 * If a town's population drops below five thousand, it is classified as a village.
 * If a town's population rises above twenty thousand, it is classified as a city.
 * A town may have a village or hamlet affiliate with the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A town may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * If a town borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A city is a large settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement.
 * A city must:
 * Have a population of at least twenty thousand.
 * If a town's population drops below twenty thousand, it is classified as a town.
 * A city may have a village or hamlet affiliate with the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A city may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * If a city borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A neighborhood is a subdivision of a town or city.
 * A neighborhood must be a distinct urban area of another, larger settlement.
 * In the case that a larger urban area grows and borders a smaller urban area, the smaller settlement may become one or multiple neighborhoods of the larger settlement if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * All settlements in Lovia are managed and built by the state that they are part of.
 * Per the Constitution, Congress may override a decision of the state government by a simple majority.

This would result in many of the current hamlets to become villages or even towns. However, the missing ranks of hamlets and villages would be replaced by those without a page, such as those at User:Kunarian/List of settlements in Sylvania. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:56, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Your Statement: Why is the village taking the big jump to a city instead of the small jump to a town?  Happy65   Talk CNP   07:27, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * If a village's population rises above five thousand, it is classified as a city.
 * It was a copy error. I fixed it. In general pro. Question: what does "A hamlet may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the hamlet if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority." mean? The way I read it, it sounds like hamlets can have neighborhoods if there is an urban area, but that would be impossible, as hamlets per definition are rural... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:17, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I did see that earlier. It might seem unrealistic, but in the case that a smaller urban area borders a hamlet that is more populous the area would become a neighborhood, just because it's only logical. Hamlets are also no longer defined as rural anymore, also (they're just supposed to be). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:02, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I find this very vague... What is this smaller urban area then? Are you saying that if a neighborhood of f.e. Hurb is next to a hamlet which has more inhabitants than that neighborhood, the neighborhood is moved to the hamlet? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:08, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by this, but: say two hamlets grow into each other. If they border, the less populous would become a neighborhood of the more populous. If Hurbanova grew to border a small hamlet, the hamlet would become a neighborhood of Hurbanova. But not until they border. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:10, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I still find it vague, actually I'd say it's the other-way round, but as it says "may", I'm no longer going to complain :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:16, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I changed the shoulds to mays. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:06, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * i'm more pro than contra for this because with the Realistic Census reform this would be sorta the domino effect afterwards. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:13, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

044. Illegalization of drugs

 * 1) This act makes provision for the regulation of all substances described as 'controlled substances' by Section 1308 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which was created by the US Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
 * 2) Responsible prescription of of all listed substances by a medical practitioner licensed to do so by the Blackburn University School of Medicine is legalized.
 * 3) Possession of listed substances by unlicensed individuals is a criminal offence and may result in prosecution and punishment in accordance with Article 9.7.13.2. of the Constitution, after the Supreme Court Judges have taken advice from two medical practitioners licensed as described in Section 1.1. of this Act.
 * 4) If it can reasonably be established in court that the individual was in possession of listed substances with intent to distribute, the Judges shall take this into account when sentencing.
 * 5) Import, export, distribution, possession, and production of all listed substances shall be exclusive to agencies of the Federal Government or organizations licensed by the Government.
 * 6) In the latter case, Government officials shall supervise at all times import, export, distribution, possession and production by the organization. Failure by the organization to make every accomodation for said government officials shall result in a fine and withdrawal of its license.
 * 7) Any import, export, distribution, possession and production of all listed substances, under conditions other than those described by this Act, is a criminal offence.
 * 8) Any action taken that results in contralegislation under this Act by any party, where a party is defined as the whole or part of an organization, the whole or part of the Government, or a private individual, whether or not the action is undertaken by the contralegislative party, is illegal.
 * 9) Any action taken which is described as illegal under the terms of this Act may result in prosecution and punishment in accordance with Article 9.7.13.2. of the Constitution, after the Supreme Court Judges have taken advice from two medical practitioners licensed as described in Section 1.1. of this Act.
 * 10) Congress, after taking advice from the Blackburn University School of Medicine, retains the right to exempt any listed substance from some or all of the restrictions described in this Act, or to apply the same restrictions, at its discretion, to a non-listed substance.

I apologize for the reference to a US law, but I'm not going to list every possible illegal drug. --Semyon 16:39, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

is this the final version? I find, saying "We based our law off other laws predescribed in other laws not listed here" would get a contra vote from me no matter what situation. List them out. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:02, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you list them out, if you've got so much spare time on your hands. :P --Semyon 19:05, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

. You know why. ;) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:15, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't have a clue: the same reason as Marcus, or because you're pro legalization? --Semyon 19:05, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * To continue GAPP's purposeless, and also because I believe that many of these substances don't have a negative effect on society (and all the rest will just be made illegally). I also don't support referencing of US laws. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:17, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

@Marcus: simply state that there is an official separate Lovian list, create an article about it with the same contents as the US law, except maybe cannabis and we're done. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:29, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

No xD it's just that he wants to illegalize drugs but doesn't give a list. I just wanna know which ones ^_^ Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:44, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. That's the problem. I guess it's in the "US Controlled Substances Act of 1970" somewhere. . . —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:49, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

@Marcus: If we said in this law that there is a "Lovian list of illegal drugs" and create an article with that name. In this article, we state that the list is identical to the US list, but we add a separate paragraph indicating that all the drugs like marijuana are excluded from the Lovian list. I'd say: problem fixed. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:10, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

No, not exactly. I want it in writing, in the law. Not on a page later to be changed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:44, November 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:34, November 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Have mercy on the person who has to write the list. I may have mentioned that I study chemistry. Well, there are literally (and I'm using the dictionary definition of 'literally') thousands of chemicals that you can put into your body that will damage you in horrific ways, and possibly give you a high at the same time. What is your problem with referencing the US list? It makes everything so much easier. --Semyon 15:50, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me, I think that...  1)The drugs should be listed as illegal or controlled e.g. Illegal (some slang here): Cannabis, Heroine, Cocaine, Meth, LSD, Bath Salts, and Ecstacy. Controlled: Alcohol, Tobacco, Nicotine.   2)Cannabis should be illegal 3)Tobacco, nicotine, and alcohol should be listed in the controlled drugs (If possible, make nicotine and tobacco illegal)  4)We should add over-dosage laws to prevent over-dosing --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:33, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

User:Ooswesthoesbes/For those unwilling to coorporate --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:19, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see why we need the government to outlaw drugs. Smart people will not do them, and since healthcare is out of pocket here, dumb people will have to pay for their rehabilitation. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:28, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that's rather egoïstic. People can get addicted for a variety of reasons, not all because of their stupidness. You are saying: pay for the consequences or die... As a government, it is our task to protect society - that's the entire society. We should prevent the free distribution of harddrugs (they can be used to overdose people = making murder easier), think about traffic accidents and violence if harddrugs are freely accessible etc... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:38, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is. But people use them anything. All that will happen is the trade will go underground. Outlawing doesn't help, see Prohibition in the US. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:51, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with arguments 'ad prohibition.' Alcohol is now, and was in the 1920s, well-integrated into society, so it's not surprising that a ban simply drove the trade underground. With drugs such as cannibis and heroin, that's not the case, because they don't play a major role in society. By banning them, government still has the power to stop them becoming as integrated as alcohol and nicotine, and in my opinion, should, regardless of the fact that cannabis isn't as harmful or addictive as either. You could still play the libertarian 'what right does the government have to interfere with my life' card, but I'm not a libertarian and I think the government has a duty to protect its citizens, even if it involves taking some freedoms away. Who wants the freedom to damage their bodies with strange chemicals anyway? --Semyon 15:50, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * What right does the government have to interfere with my life? Sorry, couldn't resist. In my opinion, banning cannabis but not alcohol and tobacco is hypocrisy. If the government has a duty to protect its citizens, why should it only "protect" them against some substances and not others? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:54, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, my argument is that a governmental ban would be successful in protecting citizens in the case of cannabis, but a ban on alcohol and tobacco would not protect citizens but actually worsen the situation. --Semyon 18:18, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * (I'll give in to using colons. This time.) I'd advise you to take a look at the Drug War in the US right now. It's a moderate failure. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:21, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

(Counter-concession :P) The US has a notoriously harsh drug policy (and criminal justice policy in general.) What you've said doesn't convince me that drug illegalization would fail, just that drug illegalization implemented in a excessively harsh way will fail. :P I support a lenient approach for 'soft drugs' at least. --Semyon 18:49, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

This should be an example of a typical politcial argument for new users :P  Happy65   Talk CNP   19:17, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

It should! Anyway, I still don't see why illegalization is needed. Why not just tax and regulate? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:20, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to argue in this argument because it is too much of an argument for me to argue with.  Happy65   Talk CNP   19:28, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, arguably. :P --Semyon 22:39, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Still, I'm sorry to say so, but this is the law we need :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:05, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak Limburgish in the slightist and can't find an online translator to get a basic meaning, so could you translate it? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:16, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:28, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * The drug law in its entirety. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:41, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ow :P I'll do a translation either today, tomorrow, or the day-after-tomorrow (the last being most likely :P) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:49, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

6c. Regulated concerning drugs

 * 1) With drugs substances are meant which have an addictive working and by the user are taken in for "enlightening" (don't know the English word :P) reasons.
 * 2) For safety and health reasons there are several restrictions in place for drugs, which differ by kind.
 * 3) Tobacco (no sell/use below 15, no use on public areas)
 * 4) Booze (no sell below 15, unless municipality gives it free under circumstances, such as national holidays/until 5%: 15+, until 15%: 16+: 15% or more: 18+)
 * 5) Weed/marijuana (use: 16+, buy: 18+, 16+ may have up to three plants for own production)
 * 6) Harddrugs are substances with an empacifying or spirit-enlarging/refreshing working which have an addictive side-effect.
 * 7) Possession, use or selling of harddrugs is not allowed.
 * 8) Some products with the same working have been excepted for cultural reasons. These products are:
 * 9) Drinks such as tea and coffee and other products containing cafeïne.
 * 10) Freely available medicins such as acetylcysteïne (=aspirine).
 * 11) Things containing alcohol, nicotine or tetrahydrocannabinol.
 * 12) Calming or sleep-bringing things with benzodiapine.
 * 13) For ritual purposes is the use of the mushroom Psilocybe semilanceata allowed.
 * 14) Medical personel and other licensed people are an exception to the harddrug section and may use forbidding substances responsibly.

Quick translation with bad English, you'll get the point. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:13, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'd say: Change 15 to 16 (16 is square and a multiple of 4), and keep regulation against second hand smoke for tobacco. Also, change "booze" to alcohol, as booze is slang. What about soft drugs? Tobacco and Alcohol are not regulated enough, and Marijuana could be reduced a bit. Up to three plants? So we're going to allow an industry for tobacco but only three plants per person for marijuana. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:52, November 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the alcohol and tobacco legislation is already done in Lovia (that's why I only summarized it in the translation, "booze" being a quick translation for "alcoholic beverage" :P). In Mäöres, the Christians decided to trade in strict drug laws for strict marriage laws, so sometimes it might be edgy :P
 * The main idea for the translation was the last part. If Lovia would take this over, there's no need for a long list from the US law. Simply disregard Mäöres's loose alcohol-, tobacco-, and marijuana law :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:08, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think that the word you are looking to use in place of 'enlightenment' is 'high'. I disagree with this law though because it is too vague as of now. There are plenty, and I mean plenty of other drugs besides alcohol, herbs and over the counter medicines. Plus I don't like how you're trying to ban basically all addictive drugs, it seems kind of lazy. Aside from that, I think that this can be developed into something much more complete but it will probably take some time. Good work though so far, — Christopher Costello  (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 02:15, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * "high" indeed :P It would help us a lot if you could name a few drugs that shouldn't be illegal, but are illegal now, because of this law. Anyway, in Mäöres, we've been thinking of adding a line which involves prescriptions, so that if a medical guy gives you a prescription, you may take in drugs that are generally forbidden. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:39, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:41, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

045. Federal Law: Criminal Law Book: Article 3 - Firearms Act, revision
I felt that the law on firearms has some flaws and am proposing a revision to be added to the law and certain sections to be repealed. My main reasoning in this is for some loop holes and over-looked hunting regulation. The biggest thing I saw was that hunters had to be 21; however, many who are under this age love to hunt, e.g. me. Also, only being able to hunt 24 times spread out over the year isn't much of a window. Certain times are much better for hunting than others, and thus hunters must hunt during these times rather than others, and hunt many more than 2 times in a month (I hunt many more than 2 times in November). The loop holes were mostly in some over-looked firearms, e.g. knives and bows.

1. Concealed weapons licenses must be obtained in order to own sheathed knives over 6 inches in length and ballistic knives.
 * 1. All owners must be 24 years of age.
 * 2. Stated weapons are not considered fire arms.

2. Licenses can only be granted to hunters who are of 12 years of age, but all firearms used by anyone under the age of 18 must be legally registered to their legal parents and/or guardians.
 * 1. Licenses can only be granted to hunters whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns, non-automatic rifles of 50-caliber or fewer, non-automatic shotguns of 10-gauge and greater, non-automatic cross bows, non-automatic hunting bows, and spears are allowed.

3. Switchblade knives are illegal to manufacture and own.

4. Bayonets are illegal to manufacture and own.

5. Bullets containing poison, napalm, and explosives are illegal to manufacture and own.

6. Hunters are legally bound to register with the Ministry of Defense annually to renew their hunting license. Once licenses are renewed, said hunters are legally aloud to hunt for the year.

7. The following sections of Article 3 of the Criminal Law Book are repealed:
 * 1. Section 1.2.2.2 "Licenses can only be granted to hunters who have reached the age of twenty-one on the day the license is to be granted."
 * 2. Section 1.2.2.6 "Licenses can only be granted to hunters whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns, rifles and shotguns are allowed."
 * 3. Section 1.2.6 "Hunters are legally bound to register with the Minister of Defense, at least one week in advance, if and when they are willing to hunt in group, that is three or more hunters, all of which must have a license to carry a firearm, and no more than twice a month."

--Quarantine Zone (talk) 04:02, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ten years of age? I don't believe it's responsible to give a gun to a ten-year old kid... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:13, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Most firearm injuries aren't among he younger hunters. In America it's 10 years of age and there haven't been any troubles. I could raise to something like 14, but there's no reason a 10 year old couldn't. They'd have to pass the test still, so it would be safe. 21 was just way to high seeing as the hunting community largely made up of those under that age. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:59, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not speaking about accidental injuries. I'm more concerned about the fact that teen-agers who know how the handle weapons and who have ready-access to them, use them for massacres, as is very common in the USA. We don't have these situations in the Benelux and I believe that's all because of a more restricted fire arms law. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:53, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * America also doesn't require any licenses to own fire arms, and the teenagers would have the same access whether they had the license or not, because it requires their parents to own the gun either way, so this revision wouldn't add Ny problems as such. The license for them would simply allow them to hunt --Quarantine Zone (talk) 20:11, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of switchblades and bayonets being made illegal to own, nor do I think that it should be necessary to request a hunting license from the Minister of Defense directly. Aside from those things, its certainly an improvement. — Beer.png Christopher Costello (Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 00:40, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points however I have too many problems with this and the Ministry of Defense should disperse licenses not the Minister I agree however the points on bayonets and switchblades need to be expanded upon where you want to go with this and manufacture of weapons needs to be dealt with too. This needs to be written up properly before it can be moved anywhere too. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 00:57, November 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * The minister/ministry thing was a typo... I'll fix that. It should say ministry. The reason for switchblades and bayonets being illegal was for safety reasons. Switchblades are only good for offensive killing, so there's really no reason to have one. People can still buy spring assisted knives for quick drawing. Bayonets are generally thought of as cruel in modern warfare currently, because they usually lead to slow painful deaths. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:11, November 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, but I'd consider taking a different approach. How about it would be illegal to buy, sell or transport them instead of to own them in general? It would be upsetting to have to get rid of a bayonet that is an old collectible or a family heirloom. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 03:40, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that switchblades and bayonets are unfavorable, but one can argue: guns also lead to slow painful deaths and have safety hazards. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:59, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I see we've got the fire arms loving side of the world in Lovia. I'm going to have to oppose this :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:06, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

If you really wish to allow "children" to go hunting, would it make sense to have each juvenile, prior to receiving a hunting permit, undergo a obligatory test to "screen" on their behavorial in stress situations? Als I would love to find out how many of these "children" are playing war-games, are there any statistics on that? Aesopos (talk) 10:39, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

There are some statistics on children playing war games, but I don't think there are any on children playing war games and hunting. Besides they wouldn't even be able to take the test without their parents permission... Most hunting accidents are due to people not wearing reflective gear, fluorescent orange, or lights at night or shooting at people that look like animals. Safety courses cover the above, but people are still stupid enough to do it. The hunter safety courses cover a lot more than you think. We could make exceptions to relic bayonets. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 13:24, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I don't support allowing "children" to go hunting. At least where I live, there are far too many hunting accidents already, even in situations where you'd think it'd be extremely implausible. 77topaz (talk) 03:09, November 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I edited the ages to 12 years of age and 24. 12 is the high end of when boys hit puberty (for girls it is 11). This should make the hunters more responsible, and 24 is the high end of when men become mature. This should make the gun owners more responsible. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:52, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

046. Ministry of Intelligence
Sorry, but as a small and neutral nation, I think that the Ministry of Defense will be sufficient for covering matters of national security, including intelligence. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:03, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Ministry of Defense is fine also; although, I simply don't want more government expansion. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:05, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a Minister of Intelligence because there aren't terrorist and dangerous people in Lovia and I don't think state secrets too. We can have private investitators. Granero (talk) 03:17, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for lessening government, but if the government is to advance or be taken seriously at all in a modern world, I think that we'll need little changes like this. Plus, its just plain awesome. Something that some of you politicians wouldn't recognize if it pulled down your black suit trousers and ran off with them. Besides Time, whats the point of an alliance if we can't ever compromise and support the other party? — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello  (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 03:45, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it does say that it would be a government agency, so it'd be okay to have an intelligence section of the Federal Police. The coalition is mainly for economics, also. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:49, November 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you are only seeing half of my above proposal. The foremost job of the service would be to inform Lovian policymakers, a responsibility completely unrelated to policing or war. I'm sure that we could make it a little more clear that the MoI is not bent on warfare by making its primary responsibility overtly and internally maintaining national censuses and performing surveys of the Lovia community. This would be very beneficial in instances where we are looking to draw accurate numbers and statistics to base general studies and graphs on. We currently don't have any agency purposed with this responsibility, and it would be nice to have one. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 20:52, November 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * I already don't like the huge amount of ministers we have at the moment however they each serve a vital role and so unless I can work out a nice and comfortable way of combining them then I won't be changing them, so at the moment another ministry is out of the question at the moment. Also statistics are almost always collected by the Ministry/Department concerned, in real life and in Lovia, I see no need for a secret service/intelligence gathering/statistics Ministry however I understand what you are trying to do. Besides the Federal Investigations Bureau covers this area in the manners of a less secret secret service and as a way to gather intelligence. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 21:11, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Who say's youre in charge of the ministries? Not trying to start another argument here, but congress is charge of them. Getting back on topic, I agree with both Granero and Kunarian, We don't have signinficant threats to marit having an intelligence agency and the police is more than capable of carrying out such duties if necessary. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 21:25, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * @Horton: I'm not, personally I was talking about legislating for less Ministries so don't get your knickers in a twist about it. Also I'm glad we agree on this matter of the proposed MoI. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 21:45, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * You made it very clear that it was you who would be changing them. I personally have no problem with adding a new ministry, but it would have to be purely statistics as opposed to intelligence. But what about a sub-department or institute in charge of this? No need to expand the ministries and it would give a very lucky minister more work to do! HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 21:54, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I made it clear that I might lead an initiative to reduce the amount of Ministries through legislation. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 22:08, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * And what about my idea of making sub-departmental offices in charge of things like statistics? HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 22:10, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really know, I like the idea of indpendent statistic comapnies and on top of that, it's just more bureaucracy adding in an official office for something we do fine now anyways. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 22:25, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well this would be the Ministry concerned with statistical analysis and social studies, except the name 'Ministry of Intelligence' seems a little more suitable than 'Ministry of Statistical Analysis and Social Studies'. We do not necessarily have to use it for covert purposes, and I am proposing that we make the MoI's purpose making graphs and handeling the census and surveys and generally "maintaining national information." In times of war, if we ever have a civil war again, I'm just saying that it would be key to separate national intelligence from the Ministry of Defense in order to provide a balance of powers, but that would hardly be the ministry's primary purpose. Also, Kunarian, you are not in charge of the ministries so I do not believe that your decision will be the deciding one on wether or not you will be "changing them." I'm with Horton here. :P — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 21:27, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * From your original post, I get that the MoI is concerned with intelligence and not surveying. If you want to collect census data and statistics, then Ministry of Statistics might be a better name. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 21:34, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but its responsibilities would still generally be considered 'intelligence gathering'. I plan on getting around to re-formulating my original post before formally presenting it in the Second Chamber, so you can expect a much more professional and less-militaristic product. I really wouldn't get hung up over a name, so please don't insist that I rename this the Ministry of Statistics. :P — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 22:06, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Intelligence-gathering and statistics are two different things. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 22:10, November 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh... yes, but it would gather intelligence in a non-harmful way and use this knowledge to base statistics. It might also be responsible for withholding some knowledge from the public (hence the need for some covertness, horrible to consider I know, but something that even the smallest and most transparent of governments consider necessary, and if this responsibility is separated from the mainline government, we'd only be making things fairer and more balanced). How is this?

— <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 22:38, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'll just voice again that statistics should be gathered by the individual ministries, governors and independent statistics companies. It's a better way to go, it's how it's done everywhere else and is simple. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 22:43, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

It seems much better now but I'd agree that the statistic gathering would most likely be done by states or other ministries, such as Commerce or Labour. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:32, November 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Its like the moment I share my dreams with you people you take aim at them. :P — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 23:36, November 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * On a more serious note, Lovia does have its own terrorist organization, the Protect Yourselves, courtesy of Masterire. The MoI is capable of counter-terrorism, you know. — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 23:39, November 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Can be handled by the police, very easily in fact. Also @Time: statistic gathering in my opinion should be done not by any specific ministry, there's no need for it, in fact it makes more sense to have it left to be done freely. I as the minister of defence if I wanted can easily create realistic weapon ownership statistics or crime statistics, etc. if I want and so can anyone else really, making an official statistics ministry kind of pointless. I personally feel that producing this data should be left officially (as in statistics are declared official only when made) to the Ministries that specialise in the area they are producing data for, not only will this mean that it is more realistic (this is how it works all around the world) but also it will mean that Ministers have an extra bit of responsibility (just like the governors do) which is good and healthy for government. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 23:55, November 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need for a whole ministry to do this. I'm with the idea for having it be part of the police. Less government! --Quarantine Zone (talk) 00:02, November 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also against the Mol. <font color="Teal"> Happy65  <font color="Aqua"> Talk CNP LogoCNP.png 08:25, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against it in the generalities but I think it would be better broken up and under other ministries. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:28, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Article 1 - Settlement Act

 * Article 1 - Settlement Act
 * All territory over which the Lovian Government and King has authority is classified as either rural or urban.
 * A district is defined as the smallest legally recognized subdivision of rural territory.
 * Districts may not contain territory under the jurisdiction of two or more separate states.
 * District boundaries are set by the Governor of the relevant state.
 * Boundaries, where possible, should have a basis in the historical and geographical features of the territory, but this is not mandatory.
 * Boundaries should, in general, be subject only to infrequent and minor change.
 * A settlement is defined as a continuous area with a significantly higher population density than the surrounding area, and having a population of over ten.
 * The population of a settlement is considered to be the number of people who have a primary residence within the built-up areas.
 * In the case that the settlement has a population of less than five hundred, it is classified as a hamlet.
 * Hamlets are classified as a rural area and hence form part of a district.
 * If a hamlet's population drops below ten, it is no longer classified as a settlement.
 * If a hamlet's population rises above five hundred, it is classified as a village.
 * A hamlet may officially affiliate itself with a larger town or city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * In the case that a settlement has a population of over five hundred, it is classified as a major settlement.
 * Major settlements are classified into one of these four groups: villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
 * Congress must recognize a major settlement by a simple majority before the settlement can become an official hamlet, village, neighborhood, town, or city of Lovia.
 * A village is a small settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement.
 * A village must:
 * Have a population of at least five hundred and at most five thousand.
 * If a village's population drops below five hundred, it is classified as a hamlet.
 * If a village's population rises above five thousand, it is classified as a town.
 * A village may officially affiliate itself with a larger town or city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A village may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the village if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * If a village borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the village if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A town is a mid-sized settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement.
 * A town must:
 * Have a population of at least five thousand.
 * If a town's population drops below five thousand, it is classified as a village.
 * A town may have a village or hamlet affiliate with the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A town may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * If a town borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the town if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A city is a settlement that does not border the urban areas of a more populous settlement.
 * A city must:
 * Have a population of at least five hundred.
 * If a town's population drops below twenty thousand, it is classified as a hamlet.
 * Possess a city charter, authorised by:
 * Congress, with a simple majority.
 * The ruling monarch, in the case that city rights were obtained before 2003.
 * A city may have a village or hamlet affiliate with the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A city may have a new, bordering, distinct urban area become a neighborhood of the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * If a city borders a less populous settlement, the smaller settlement may become a neighborhood of the city if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * A neighborhood is a subdivision of a major settlement.
 * A neighborhood must be a distinct urban area of the settlement.
 * In the case that a larger urban area grows and borders a smaller urban area, the smaller settlement may become one or multiple neighborhoods of the larger settlement if Congress recognizes this affiliation by a simple majority.
 * All settlements in Lovia are managed and built by the state that they are part of.
 * Each major settlement recognized by Congress must be added to the National Settlement Order.
 * Each hamlet recognized by the Governor must be added to the relevent State Settlement Order.
 * Per the Constitution, Congress may override a decision of the state government to build new settlements by a simple majority.

Comments
Here's some proposed revisions to the settlement act. Some key features are: I don't know if the law should be renamed, perhaps to 'Settlement and Territory Act' or 'Settlement and District Act.' There are a few minor things which perhaps I've forgotten or should be changed, but in general I hope this is acceptable. :) --Semyon 11:11, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Recognition of districts officially.
 * Districts are explicitly classified as rural, so urban areas, except for hamlets, are not part of a district.
 * City rights are decoupled from population, as we (mostly) agreed earlier. From now on, Beaverwick could become a city, with the agreement of congress.
 * Hamlets now refers to settlements such as Dien in Oceana, Severnybana in Sylvania, or Malwick in Seven. I can't very well say this in the law. :P
 * On a quick review --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:14, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

. I prefer coupling city rights with population. Otherwise. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:03, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

TM, I thought you supported the change to city rights thing? (obviously you're allowed to change your mind, I'm just wondering.) I'm wondering if it might be worth coming to some sort of compromise, because I find it rather absurd that a settlement might have 19000 people one year, then up to 21000 the next, and then back down again, changing back and forth from town to city. --Semyon 13:24, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't want Congress to be able to name any old settlement a city. Maybe a significantly lower (but still rather high) requirement and a charter? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:11, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Taxation Act 2012
Here's the proposal we've all been waiting for:

048. Article 9 - Taxation Act

 * Article 9.1 - Income and National Insurance Tax Act
 * Every individual of 16 years of age or older must pay Income Tax and National Insurance Tax should they be eligible as defined by law to do so:
 * to be eligible to pay Income Tax and National Insurance Tax an individual must:
 * be earning income as defined below and must have resided within Lovia's national borders during the tax year; or
 * be a Lovian citizen earning income as defined below and must be earning income from an individual or corporation which resides within Lovia's national borders:
 * in this case only the income gained from the individual or corporation that resides within Lovia's national borders is eligible for tax.
 * Income is the sum total of:
 * wage and salaries:
 * wages, salaries and tips recieved by an individual for performing a service for another individual or entity or from another individual or corporation they are employee of; and
 * minus any wages or salaries that an individual has given to another individual for being an employee of the concerned individual.
 * pensions:
 * pensions or annuity payments recieved by an individual from another individual or corporation;
 * minus any pensions or annuity payments that an individual has given to another individual; and
 * to avoid confusion pensions and annuity payments are fixed payments over a specified or unspecified period of time.
 * capital gains:
 * capital gains received by an individual from another individual or corporation; and
 * to avoid confusion capital gains are the profits gained by buying and then selling property, shares or bonds.
 * lump sums:
 * lump sums received by an individual from another individual or corporation; and
 * to avoid confusion lump sums are single payments of money:
 * an individual who has given another individual a lump sum may be allowed to minus the amount they have given away from their income to be taxed if the reason can be deemed legitimate by the Ministry of Finance.
 * rental income:
 * rental income recieved by an individual from another individual or corporation;
 * minus any rent that an individual has given to another individual; and
 * to avoid confusion rental income is when a payment is made for the temporary use of a good, service or property owned by another individual.
 * dividends:
 * dividends recieved by an individual from a corporation; and
 * to avoid confusion dividends are payments made by a corporation to its shareholder members.
 * Income Tax required to be paid is calculated by taking the concerned individuals income and levying a set percentage which goes to the Ministry of Finance:
 * the first thirty thousand Lovian dollars of income are exempt from this levy; and
 * all other income has twenty five percent of the total levied.
 * National Insurance Tax required to be paid is calculated by taking the concerned individuals income and levying a set percentage which goes to the Social Security Fund and is managed by the Ministry of Health:
 * the first thirty thousand lovian dollars of income are exempt from this levy;
 * the next twenty thousand lovian dollars of income has two point five percent levied;
 * the next fifty thousand lovian dollars of income has five percent levied; and
 * all other income has ten percent of the total levied.
 * Income Tax and National Insurance Tax can be payed in two ways and must be paid every year on the 1st of March:
 * unless otherwise requested, the Ministry of Finance will manage the payment of Income and National Insurance Tax for individuals;
 * however individuals have the right to request that they be allowed to manage the payment of their Income Tax or National Insurance Tax;
 * the Ministry of Finance may not refuse this request and must supply the individual with the documentation to file their own taxes.
 * Evading or otherwise failing to pay Income Tax and National Insurance Tax is illegal:
 * evasion of said taxes can be punished by imprisonment for any length of time, by a fine set at a reasonably equivalent amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit.
 * Article 9.2 - Property Tax Act
 * Every individual or corporation who owns property or land as defined by law within Lovia must pay Property Tax should they be eligible as defined by law to do so:
 * to be eligible to pay Property Tax an individual or corporation must:
 * own property or land within Lovia's national borders.
 * Property is:
 * the combination of land and an improvement that has been built upon said land; and
 * to avoid confusion property is measured in square metres by taking the length between the furthest points along the width of the improvement and multiplying them by the length between the furthest points along the length of the improvement.
 * Land is:
 * land that has not had an improvement built upon it; and
 * to avoid confusion land is measured in square metres.
 * Property Tax on property required to be paid is calculated by taking the concerned individual or corporations measured property and levying a set amount which goes to the Ministry of Finance depending on the amount of measured property owned:
 * the first two hundred and fifty square metres are exempt from this levy; and
 * all other property has a levy of seventy five Lovian cents per square metre
 * Property Tax on land require to be paid is calculated by taking the concerned individual or corporations measured land and levying a set amount which goes to the Ministry of Finance depending on the amount of measured property owned:
 * the first four thousand square metres are exempt from this levy; and
 * all other land has a levy of ten cents per square metre:
 * unless the land is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service or is being used for agricultural purposes, in which case all other land has a levy of one cent per square metre.
 * Property Tax can be payed in two ways and must be paid every year on the 1st of March:
 * unless otherwise requested, the Ministry of Finance will manage the payment of Property Tax for individuals and corporations;
 * however individuals and corporations based in Lovia have the right to request that they be allowed to manage the payment of their Property Tax;
 * the Ministry of Finance may not refuse this request and must supply the individual or corporation with the documentation to file their own taxes.
 * Evading or otherwise failing to pay Property Tax is illegal:
 * evasion of said taxes can be punished by imprisonment for any length of time, by a fine set at a reasonably equivalent amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit.
 * Article 9.3 - Import Tariff Act
 * Every individual or corporation who brings goods from outside Lovia's national borders into Lovia's national borders must pay Import Tariffs should they be defined by law as eligible to do so:
 * to be eligible to pay Import Tariffs an individual or corporation must:
 * have brought goods from outside Lovia's national borders into Lovia's national borders with the intention of selling those goods within Lovia's national borders:
 * only the goods that are being intended to be sold within the national borders of Lovia are eligible for tariffs.
 * Individuals or corporations who have brought goods brought from outside Lovia's national borders into Lovia's national borders must register the goods with customs officers:
 * failure to register all the goods that have been imported due to either intent or by negligence is illegal:
 * failure to register all the goods that have been imported can be punished by imprisonment for any length of time, by a fine set at a reasonably equivalent amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit.
 * Import Tariffs are required to be paid on all the following described imported goods when they are first sold within Lovia's national borders:
 * agricultural goods:
 * crops, plants, animals, woods, fish and aquacultures.
 * mining goods:
 * coals, lignites, crude petroleum, natural gas's, metal ores, stones, sands, clays, chemicals, minerals, peats and salts.
 * manufactured goods:
 * processed meats, processed fish, processed aquaculture, processed crops, oils, fats, dairy products, beverages, tobacco products, textiles, apparel, leather products, wood products, paper products, printed media products, recorded media products, coke, petroleum products, chemical products, pharmaceutical products, rubber products, plastic products, mineral products, processed metals, metal products, electronic products and optical products.
 * Worth is:
 * the amount of Lovian Dollars the good is sold for.
 * Import Tariffs required to be paid is calculated by taking the worth of the imported goods when sold and levying a set percentage which goes to the Ministry of Finance:
 * all worth has an exclusive levy of ten percent.
 * Import Tariffs can be payed in two ways and must be paid every year on the 1st of March:
 * unless otherwise requested, the Ministry of Finance will manage the payment of Import Tariffs for individuals;
 * however individuals have the right to request that they be allowed to manage the payment of their Import Tariffs;
 * the Ministry of Finance may not refuse this request and must supply the individual with the documentation to file their own tariffs.
 * Evading or otherwise failing to pay Import Tax is illegal:
 * evasion of said taxes can be punished by imprisonment for any length of time, by a fine set at a reasonably equivalent amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit.

Comments
We've already had input from all around the table and it's essential that we get at least these basic laws passed now. Also may I just say at rough estimates this act is expected to bring in around 4 billion in taxes revenue (thanks mainly to the large amount of land to tax and the large amount of wealth this nation produces) so that'd be around 330 million per month in spending (not minusing having to pay people and supply government ministries and operations such as the police) in the end I think, despite deductions, we'll have plenty to reinvest into executive actions. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 01:35, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

It's really long, so I'll read it over the next few hours. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:38, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, I'd say: Make the lists a bit simpler and use fewer semi colons. Use more capital letters. And add some protections for farmers in property tax. I'd also leave out National Insurance for now. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:55, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'll add in that tax on land used for agricultural purposes is lowered and I'm not going to leave out NI because it's essential to funding whatever health system we choose to operate under. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 10:40, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you could leave the punishment for failing to pay taxes up to the judge to decide. — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 02:28, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just how Lovian law works take a look at other parts of it, besides unreasonable sentences and judgements can be appealed. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 10:40, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

On quick review: looks good! :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:06, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

^ <font color="Teal"> Happy65  <font color="Aqua"> Talk CNP  09:15, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

If no one majorly objects I'll move this to the second chamber. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 10:40, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Semyon's comments
--Semyon 14:07, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall, not bad. :)
 * 2) Some minor spelling errors though which I shall fix.
 * 3) First off, I'm a bit wary about subtracting monies given to others from income tax. Take 9.1.2.1.2. - does it mean you don't have to pay tax on the money you use to pay for your haircut? Definitely 9.1.4.1.2. is controversial, because it makes "I'll just give you this present of $30000 which you don't have to pay tax on, dear, and you can give it back on March 2nd, savvy?" tax avoidance very easy.
 * 4) Property tax - I've done some research/calculations (with wheat, for simplicity) and they scare me a bit. At five cents per square metre, 4047 square metres per acre, 45 bushels of wheat per acre, 42 pounds of white flour per bushel and 2.2 pounds per kilogram, farmers will pay 23 cents of tax on every kilogram of flour they produce. Obviously farmers won't just bear the cost themselves, they'll sell for more, and the rise in price will work its way through to the bread on the shelf, so I really don't see why it's not just another form of VAT.
 * 5) Property tax again - will there be exemptions for the NPS?
 * 6) Import tax - I can agree with this part, but I don't understand 9.3.5.1.

1. good

2. righto

3. not really because a) that would require the other person to agree and actually give you your money back b) if you're going to give someone a lump sum like that for a legitimate reason then it shouldn't really be considered part of your income, especially in the case of giving wages or salaries. Also I just realised no, paying for your haircut like that wouldn't count as a wage or salary but a tip, as a tip is a sum of money for a service performed an that isn't exempt.

4. because it's for all land and property, any taxes can increase the price of goods but that doesn't mean we see them as  VAT. besides the tax is meant to ensure that land isn't just horded and to incentivise farming. It's also useful at filling up the coffers an extra bit more.

5. Maybe, didn't think it to be necessary but I'll put one in.

6. I think I just made a little error there that's all. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 14:45, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

@3: of course it would be difficult to do, but it's still very plausible. Imagine a man earns $60000 and his wife stays at home and looks after the kids. There's nothing to stop him giving $30000 to her as a 'lump sum,' seeing as he already pays for her board and lodging anyway. This would be counted as part of her income according to the proposal, and therefore neither would have to pay income tax as they both have an income of $30000. About the legitimate reason: I agree, but the law doesn't specify that a legitimate reason is needed. Payment for a haircut would never be counted as a tip in everyday use, and although legally 'tip' might potentially have a different definition, it's not stated in the law. @4: I see your point, but as one of the effects of this law would be identical to that of VAT I don't see that my criticism is unjust, particularly as you criticised VAT so strongly earlier for being regressive. --Semyon 16:02, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * @3 what do you suggest we do, add in a 'if this is done with the intention of avoiding tax then...' clause to that part of the law? I would be for that if you think it is necessary. @4 it's a valid criticism, however the effects would not be identical and we could simply lower the tax again if need be. Also there is a difference in effect with VAT and this tax is that this tax has a purpose greater than simply to raise income and we can increase exclusion or lower tax to affect how much the price falls to the poor, VAT however is largely just to raise income (except for with drug products) and is rather indiscriminate in who the tax falls upon. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 16:26, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not voting pro until National Insurance Tax is removed. There's nothing that it's used for now, so just remove it. Then we can add it, if we agree to it, later. Some of us want a Beveridge or Bismarck model of healthcare, not an NI, also. Just leave it out! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:38, December 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Labour were the ones who proposed adding it in and in the nature of compromise I added it. Also it was generally agreed to and an NI tax would be used to fund a beveridge model too btw. And if it comes into action now it would fund Hortons nationalised hospitals in Clymene. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 15:44, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * We do need to be able to pay for Lovia's healthcare, but one thing to consider is we already have an National Health Serrvice in the law, but i'm not sure who much its specifies. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 16:43, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * We do but it's only specified to run government owned hospitals and clinics and advise the government, it's run by the Ministry of Health, which is why this tax goes directly to the ministry of health for them to distribute. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 16:46, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * See I LOVE THIS LAw, and the action taken. But If you could propose it without the tax rates i'd vote 100% pro. First pass the frame and how to collect taxes, and then we can have the debat eover tax rates and such. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:21, December 23, 2012 (UTC)