MW: The Cottage Industry Assistance Act

[GAworth]

This bill will help stimulate business development of all those entrepreneurs who have an idea but no capital behind it. This bill will also help economic development and support to our most disadvantage communities where many cottage industry business (mainly in the informal sector) reside. I look forward to feedback.

[GAworth]

I like the idea and I support it. However, by listing certain types of cottage industry, are other types being excluded? Or are you just listing examples? I don't think it would be clever or fair to cut off others who don't fall into those categories.

I see the point, perhaps adding some new language "include but not limited to" may be a fine solution.

[GAworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the amendment in the proper format.

[GAworth]

BaconBacon96, your thoughts. After that if everyone is okay with it, I will call a vote on the amendment.

[GAworth]

Alright representatives you have 48 hours to vote on the Amendment AYE, NAY, or Abstain

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[GAworth]

Aye.


To answer the former MW Governor, now IDS Speaker's questions. I wanted this to be different from a small business as cottage industries mainly come from ones house, generally informal. I wanted to help formalize this sector. 3 employees is a good number for those who would fall under this law, as small businesses have there own definition and funding assistance programs. I understand your argument about the loan, however, I feel that the legislation is allowing the Midwest to get the money back.

[GAworth]

The amendment passes with 3 Ayes. Below is the final text. Any additional comments Representatives?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[GAworth]

Thank you for that answer, and I think this an interesting piece of legislation (though I don't think I'd pursue it in the IDS). The 3 number seems a bit constricting for what you're doing, especially families that have more children than that that want to get involved in the business, though maybe that's the point.

Oh, and the working for Section 2, Number 1 is problematic. Shouldn't it say up to $50,000?

I'm probably just meddling, but I honestly want to help.

No it is fine Speaker. I appreciate it and your comments are noted, it may need clarifying language.

[GAworth]

Representatives?

[GAworth]

All good, though I think having a loan of up to 50,000 as mentioned might be worth adding in.  Your call, however.

I think that is a good idea. Would you like to sponsor the amendment?

[GAworth]

Awesome, looking forward to the language soon.

[GAworth]

I am in favor. Mad?