Global Financial Transaction Tax Resolution (Passed)

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Cranberry

[windjammer]

Well, well.

Don't we have already a financial transaction tax?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This relates to the issue in the Budget about not having a noncompetitive FTT, I assume. I admire the spirit, but I would be slightly concerned about trying to undertake such a scheme, namely since you're dealing with highly complex relationships, not the least of which, what's going on the Eurozone right now.

I have no issue with a resolution moving towards greater international harmony on this, but being too prescriptive and getting it entangled in domestic politics probably dooms this iteration.   

[Cranberry]

Well, well.

Don't we have already a financial transaction tax?

We do, but a FFT only makes sense if it's the same one globally. Otherwise, everyone can just do their financial business in Hong Kong or Frankfurt instead of New York City.

I understand your sentiment, Polnut, and you are probably right that this is narrowing it too much for the SoEA to operate. It's late already today, but I'll see for some changes tomorrow or some time this weekend.

[windjammer]

Well, well.

Don't we have already a financial transaction tax?

We do, but a FFT only makes sense if it's the same one globally. Otherwise, everyone can just do their financial business in Hong Kong or Frankfurt instead of New York City.

I understand your sentiment, Polnut, and you are probably right that this is narrowing it too much for the SoEA to operate. It's late already today, but I'll see for some changes tomorrow or some time this weekend.

I have to agree that it should have been made at international level...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am rather skeptical about this. How would you ensure that the other countires are following suit? Is there a fail safe mechanism?

[TNF]

I'm not sure I see the point of this, unless we can be assured that the other countries in question are willing to implement such a tax.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure how this will work after thirty minutes, but I am still a Senator until then.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Part of me feels like this comes very close to micromanaging the actions of the SoEA.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Part of me feels like this comes very close to micromanaging the actions of the SoEA.

This and while I agree there needs to be greater uniformity internationally, WE cannot dictate what that rate should be.

This is a process of complex negotiation, probably over a number of years.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also, global is misspelled in the text.

[windjammer]

No offense Cranberry, but I do believe this isn't a good idea to micromanage that. This is much more a SoEA's duty than anything else.
I can't support this resolution. The maximum I could support would be "The senate strongly encourages the SoEA to negociate a global financial tax blablabla". But it would literally change the nature of your bill...

[Senator Cris]

I echo the comments of my colleagues.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

And if all we're issuing is a statement of "strong encouragement," is it really worth going through with this?

[windjammer]

And if all we're issuing is a statement of "strong encouragement," is it really worth going through with this?

Well, I guess yes? I mean, we are the representatives of the Atlasian people. I don't think it would be "negative" to strongly encourage the executive to do something we would like them to do.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd rather strongly encourage the SoEA by walking into his office and saying it rather than adding a frivolous and toothless law to the wiki, but that's just me. The bill is so weak though that I really don't feel strongly one way or the other.

[windjammer]

I'd rather strongly encourage the SoEA by walking into his office and saying it rather than adding a frivolous and toothless law to the wiki, but that's just me. The bill is so weak though that I really don't feel strongly one way or the other.

I can understand you believe this law would be "toothless", but frivolous, really?

Personally, I would like the senate to do more senate resolutions, but that's just me .

[Cranberry]

Sorry for not coming to answer this earlier, I was too busy the last days.

I don't really understand your outrage over "micromanagement" - all this bill does is establishing a resolution for the SoEA to act upon, to harmonise a global FFT... Is not that common practice, that the legislative has the opportunity to tell its diplomats on what they should concentrate their efforts on?

Secondly, regarding 1b - of course we can not dictate the rate of that FFT in the end, but we can still state that we would like to see one special rate the end. It's of course obvious that the rate in the end can or will differ from our preferred one, still we can establish a position ourselves before heading into the negotiations?

Thirdly, I am friendly of (former) Senator Yankee's amendment.

Fourthly, yes, should my dear colleagues see themselves as not supporting more than a mere, toothless, empty phrase, then yes, this is contrary to this bill's nature, and I would rather see it tabled. I would then however petition the SoEA to act on the matter, without any legislation as background.

Finally, yes indeed I misspelled global in the title. "Oh no!" (I hope you get this one)

[Talleyrand]

Hagrid makes a good point. If the whole bill is toothless and is only going to encourage the State Department to negotiate with the nations mentioned on the financial transaction tax, we shouldn't pass it. A far better situation for us would be to have the President and SoEA negotiate this themselves, and then pass a bill in this body to ratify it.

In short, I don't have an issue with passing this resolution, but at the same time I don't think it's wholly necessary.

[Lief 🗽]

The Senate is a coequal branch of government, and we have a say in the foreign policy of our country, especially when it comes to economic matters like this one. There is nothing in this bill compelling the President or the SoEA to act one way or another, but it does make clear what the will of the Senate is.

[Cranberry]

The Senate is a coequal branch of government, and we have a say in the foreign policy of our country, especially when it comes to economic matters like this one. There is nothing in this bill compelling the President or the SoEA to act one way or another, but it does make clear what the will of the Senate is.

Exactly. It is my belief that the Senate should have a say in what they would want the Atlasian foreign policy to be, hence why I formulated it as "for the SoEA to act upon" - it does not say that he has to do it ultimately just now, but just that we craft this resolution, and the ball is now over at the SoEA to do with it as he pleases. Should the Senators think this "for the SoEA to act upon" is indeed seen as imperative for the SoEA, then I blame my difficuties with the English language and would kindly request any Native Speaker of the English Language to offer a more clearer, better version of this phrase (as with the bill as a whole, by the way)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So we're going to say it to be heard, but not put something realistic forward?

Surely, as a reasonable co-equal branch of government, we should be putting something forward that is more than just aspirational, but can be done.

[Cranberry]

So we're going to say it to be heard, but not put something realistic forward?

Surely, as a reasonable co-equal branch of government, we should be putting something forward that is more than just aspirational, but can be done.

I don't think a global harmonisation with a FFT can't be done, I would think it can at least be done to an extent. I'm realist enough to of course see that exactly those terms outlined in the bill will most certainly not be the basis of this harmonisation, yet, those are just positions the Senate would wish to see, if possible.

[TNF]

Is anyone going to sponsor that amendment for Yankee, or what? If not, I'm not going to bother with it, obviously.

[Talleyrand]

The sponsor should just declare that amendment friendly. If we do pass this bill, that's a common-sense provision to have in there.