The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Deldem]

Aye

[Deldem]

A couple of questions on the bill:
1. How strict are the SE regulations as compared to the federal ones?
2. What is the current corporate tax rate?
3. Why do taxes need to be stopped entirely for 6 months? Wouldn't it be better to reduce, rather than totally remove revenue?

I like clause 3, however.

[Deldem]

Here's where I stand:
1. I think that you guys are probably right on federal restrictions, so I guess I can take that one. I can't imagine the SE has much extra regulation anyways.
2. I do not, however, think, that suspending taxes entirely is a good idea. I don't believe that the growth that would occur would offset the total loss of taxation- we do have to think of our budget somewhat.
3. I'd rather go to some intermediate drop in taxation during that time, with the final rate being lowered either at 6 months or 1 year.
4. In addition to removing taxation on year 1 of businesses, I'd say we could also have a reduced rate in the second year.

[Deldem]

How's this look? Note the slight edit on dates to make it exactly 6 months and line it up with the year start, and the addition of lower taxation in year 2 of new businesses:

Put the "free" back in Free Enterprise Bill

1. All non-federal business regulations in the Southeast are hereby repealed.

2. From July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 all taxes on corporate income shall be set to 10%. Starting January 1, 2011, the rate at which corporations are taxed shall be set at 8.6%

3. All new businesses in the SE shall not have their income taxed within the first year of starting. In addition, all new businesses in the SE shall have an income tax rate of 5% in their second year of establishment.

[Deldem]

     I think we should go to a final vote now, if there are no objections.

I'm ready to vote as well.

[Deldem]

Aye.

[Deldem]

Do we really need to make this change?

While I recognize that a 16 year old is not much different from an 18 year old, I have strong reservations on whether they should be allowed to participate in commercial "ventures" such as this. They are, after all minors, and I really don't see who benefits from this bill.

[Deldem]

     Nobody benefits per se, though passing a more restrictive law than the federal one has put the Southeast in the position of having the most conservative child pornography statute. This change brings us in line with the rest of the nation.

     Also, since the pre-existing regional law is based on that of the state of Georgia, I think that means the age of consent in the region is 16, as is the case in Georgia. I think it would make sense that if someone is old enough to consent to having sex, then that person is also old enough to consent to appearing in a pornographic video.

The latter adds much increased long-term consequences and risk for exploitation by adults.

     I suppose the point I am trying to make is that these people are old enough that we entrust them to decide whether or not they wish to be sexually active.

     Besides, the point remains that I do not see why the standard that is good enough for the other four regions isn't good enough for the Southeast. The way I see it, the burden of proof is on the people who wish to place restrictions on individual interactions, & I am not convinced that this merits any restrictions additional to those laid out by federal statute.

Participating in an activity is not the same as selling a video of said activity.

The fact remains that they are minors. And while it is one thing to have a relationship with a friend, it is quite another to sell your body for the consumption of strangers. The problem for me isn't the video itself so much as the commercialization. I just see too much potential for abuse here to make it worth it.

[Deldem]

A much more reasonable standard I believe I can agree to.

[Deldem]

I think I can work with that.

[Deldem]

     In that case, I would like to offer it as a friendly amendment. I would also like to accept the amendment, being the sponsor of the bill.

FTR: I oppose extending this to 16 yr olds at all, but since this is just an online sim and the SE leg seems so intent on passing this (so if I ever run for office and an opponent uses this to claim I'm "soft on child pornography, you're a damned liar and you know it).

If I can offer one additional nitpick, maybe the term "or other valuable consideration" should be included along with "profit or money". This would so cover some old slimeball that gives pictures of a naked 16 year old for booze and/or drugs instead of cash.

I think that's a good point. And I don't really care about passing this one...

[Deldem]

The rest of the legislature should be able to vote to move up or down a bill's place in the schedule, provided a majority of legislators votes to do so.

[Deldem]

I like it, if there's no further amendments I think we can go ahead and adopt these.

[Deldem]

Aye.

[Deldem]

     Well I am interested in Deldem's thoughts on the matter, since I need someone else in the legislature to support the amendment.

I guess we have to wait for him

Sorry guys, I wasn't able to get on at all yesterday.
I'm fine with the tiered punishments, but I think a nominal fine should be attached to the first offense, since this really is basic information.

[Deldem]

     Well I am interested in Deldem's thoughts on the matter, since I need someone else in the legislature to support the amendment.

I guess we have to wait for him

Sorry guys, I wasn't able to get on at all yesterday.
I'm fine with the tiered punishments, but I think a nominal fine should be attached to the first offense, since this really is basic information.

     I edited the post with the amendment to include a $250 fine for a first-time offense. How does that sound?

Sounds good, let's vote if you guys are ready

I'm ready to vote as well.

[Deldem]

Aye.

[Deldem]

     I think the idea of creating an office of Southeastern Attorney General is pretty novel. Given the frequency with which our region is sued, having someone designated to argue cases on our behalf would be quite helpful. The only issue I can see is that it might be difficult to find someone willing to do the job given the region's low population.

I share these concerns. Perhaps we could have an existing office be in charge of what we would give to the AG instead, though that might be a bit overwhelming.

However, the rest of the bill is quite good.

[Deldem]

     I think the idea of creating an office of Southeastern Attorney General is pretty novel. Given the frequency with which our region is sued, having someone designated to argue cases on our behalf would be quite helpful. The only issue I can see is that it might be difficult to find someone willing to do the job given the region's low population.

I share these concerns. Perhaps we could have an existing office be in charge of what we would give to the AG instead, though that might be a bit overwhelming.

However, the rest of the bill is quite good.

     The appeal of having a separate office for it is that whoever takes on the job is fully interested in taking care of its duties. If we were to, say, place that responsibility on the Governor, we could lose out on capable persons who would like to be Governor but not want to have to represent the region whenever it is prosecuted.

That's true, but I think getting somebody to be AG would be tough. I just don't see there being any sort of contesting of an election for that, and it might be tough to find somebody at all.

Though I guess if we got sued a bit less it might be a bit easier to find someone

[Deldem]

Aye

[Deldem]

Where's the text of the bill we're voting on?  I haven't been able to locate it.  Until I do see it, I'll have to vote Nay, reserving the right to change.

We have a separate thread for the introduction of bills:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=112611.15
This one is Laws 'N Stuff.

[Deldem]

     I introduced this bill:

     Re-wrote it to try to address the concerns of my colleague Ernest. Credit still goes to Lt. Governor tb75 for thinking up the idea.
Pornography Leniency Bill

1. The Pornography Restrictions Initiative is hereby repealed.

2a. No person under the age of 18 years may distribute pornographic images or videos of oneself for profit or other valuable consideration, under penalty of four to six months incarceration and a fine of no more than $3000.

2b. No person may receive pornographic images or video of a person under the age of 18 years in exchange for money or other valuable consideration, under penalty of five to fifteen years incarceration and a fine of $100000.

3. No person may distribute pornographic images or video of a person under the age of 18 years other than oneself, under penalty of ten to twenty years incarceration and a fine of $150000.

4. No person may create pornographic images or video of a person under the age of 18 years other than oneself, under penalty of fifteen to twenty-five years incarceration and a fine of $200000.

5. No person may be charged with a crime under this law who may also be charged with a crime under the Anti-Opebo Act.

     It occurred to me recently that given the inclusion of the new section 5, we might want to revise down the punishments. That way we would have a two-tiered system, where creating or distributing pornographic images of a person who is 16 or 17 is a fairly serious crime while doing the same of a person under 16 is a very serious crime.

I think I can support this. I like the idea of tiers.

[Deldem]

I can support this as amended.

[Deldem]

Aye to both bill and amendment.

[Deldem]

Just so you guys know, my activity will be pretty sparse in the next 2 weeks. I will be on a family vacation for that time frame, and I don't know how often I'll be on. I should be returning late on the 13th of July.