Debate:The Rebalancing Finances Act
Law:The Rebalancing Finances Act
Date Introduced to the Hopper: Oct 25, 2015 at 8:32pm
Author: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN Oct 25, 2015 at 9:39pm
Did I just read right? The RUMP leader now wants to balance towards voluntary fundraising and away from a tax on electoral participation?
I endorse this 100%!
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu Oct 25, 2015 at 10:29pm
This was in our platform, Dama, so it can't be that much of a surprise. But I'm glad to have your support!
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN Oct 25, 2015 at 11:48pm
Quote:This was in our platform, Dama, so it can't be that much of a surprise. But I'm glad to have your support!
And cutting the electoral participation fee has been Free Democrat policy for ages as well; not forgetting that I think it was me who brought in the voluntary-donations legislation in the first place. Once again, it seems that the major political parties don't differ that much on the day-to-day administration of Talossa; it's only on constitutional and other meta-issues that things get heated.
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu Oct 26, 2015 at 9:13am
I'm glad to hear it!
C. Carlüs Xheraltescù Oct 26, 2015 at 9:14am
I can't believe I'm saying this, but perhaps it would be wise not to dramatically reduce the registration fee quite so much? Reducing it to $15 might be a more cautious move for now, and looking to assess again after the next election whether a further reduction would be a good idea.
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu Oct 26, 2015 at 9:16am
The shortfall would -- for this term, for example -- be only $40 USD, I think. Surely in seven months we could raise that much! What's the danger, here, after all?
C. Carlüs Xheraltescù Oct 26, 2015 at 9:21am
I don't like taking chances with finances.
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu Oct 26, 2015 at 9:26am
We're literally talking about a difference of $20 USD over the course of seven or eight months. That's the equivalent of a single Supporter of Talossa, a few sales of stamps, or a couple of donations. Maybe I'm just not understanding you... what, specifically, are you worried about?
C. Carlüs Xheraltescù Oct 26, 2015 at 9:33am
I'm struggling to see why you aren't understanding me: I'm not sure I can be any clearer than saying I reckon we should play it safe with a slow reduction. What am I worried about? The unknown - who knows what might happen! It's a minor point; I'm going to be backing this bill regardless, so there's no need to treat my concerns with hostility. We're on the same page, after all.
Sir Alexandreu Davinescu Oct 26, 2015 at 10:16am
No, I understood that you wanted a smaller reduction, and that the reason was that you didn't want to take any chances. I just wasn't sure what risk you saw. It's a very small amount of money, and if we did have a shortfall, we would not have lost any services, infrastructure, or anything else. I didn't mean to be hostile -- sometimes text sucks as communicating tone -- I was just unsure if I understood what your concerns were. I thought you might be under the impression we'd have to raise $40 per party, or something, instead.
I don't know what unknown might spring up, but any circumstance that requires $40 probably will find enough people in the country to step up as necessary. Heck, I'd pitch that in myself, if there was some crisis.
My only worry is that we're passing up the opportunity to raise even more money, and maybe actually cover the out-of-pocket costs that King John shoulders year after year. But there is a place for such a debate, at the next Budget process.
