Oil Spill Protection Act [FAIL'D]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bill Slot: 1
Sponsor: Bacon King

[Bacon King]

Let's see here, I've got a few problems with this bill.

First off, Section 1-1 is poorly written. Is this profit oil companies accrue within Atlasia, or in the entire world? Are we attempting to tax the business that Atlasian oil companies do abroad? Are we attempting to tax foreign business a fifth of their entire international profits even if they only own a single-room office in New York City for? Both of those are rather silly but seem to be admissible by this bill.

Also, that section is poorly worded in that it doesn't specify how the tax would operate at all. What does a tax "on all profits" mean, exactly? By the wording, one could easily interpret that a company could make more than a billion dollars in a single quarter only once yet face a twenty percent tax for all eternity. I know that isn't the point of the bill, but the wording suggests it.

Also, this tax should probably be structured like the income tax is in the US: a 20% tax on all funds made in profit over X amount of dollars, or something like that. As it stands, a company that makes $800 million dollars in profit and a company that makes $1 billion dollars in profit would have the exact same after-tax revenue under this bill. Doesn't make sense.

I also don't like how Section 1 "punishes" all oil companies equally. One company could spend ten times as much as another on good safety procedures, proper maintenance, and the development of safer technologies, yet still face exactly the same tax. How is that fair?

Also, a geniuine question here; does Section 2-1 comply with all international treaties Atlasia is currently a party to? I don't see why it wouldn't, but I'd just like to make sure.

2-2 is poorly worded; how does someone install an evacuation drill?

3-1 is a bit silly, too. So you're saying that if enough money has already been placed into the Oil Spill Fund, the guilty oil company doesn't have to pay a dime to clean it up? That's a blatant incentive for irresponsibility. It allows the oil companies with less safety protocols basically leach off the taxes of the responsible companies.

3-2 is actually the only section of this bill I don't have a problem with!

But yeah, I won't be voting for this unless it is majorly revised. Ideas, anyone?

[k-onmmunist]

Though oil nationalization would be preferable, the DoI supports this bill  as a step towards making the oil companies more responsible.

[Rowan]

Though oil nationalization would be preferable, the DoI supports this bill  as a step towards making the oil companies more responsible.
[/quote

Jesus Christ, that is scary.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Let's see here, I've got a few problems with this bill.

First off, Section 1-1 is poorly written. Is this profit oil companies accrue within Atlasia, or in the entire world? Are we attempting to tax the business that Atlasian oil companies do abroad? Are we attempting to tax foreign business a fifth of their entire international profits even if they only own a single-room office in New York City for? Both of those are rather silly but seem to be admissible by this bill.

If they do business in Atlasia that can be determined to be more than one billion dollars then they're eligible. It doesn't tax even foreign businesses. The proposal of a windfall profits tax is commonly discussed in the real world and never have I heard anyone have this issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Profits, dude. It's not terrible hard to imagine what "profits" means. Money made after all business expenditures. Left-overs. The wording suggests nothing mysterious of the sort, it's all based on quarter by quarter. Propose something that specifies that if this worries you so much, I guess.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you'd like to stagger the tax rates like marginal income tax brackets I have no problem with that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said above, the rate of the tax is open to negotiation, but how exactly can you objectively determine what company is "safer" than any other? Or what "safer technologies" even means? Are we taking their word for it? If not, what are safer technologies we should be on the lookout for?

Also, to be entirely honest, all oil companies rely on a dirty, destructive, fundamentally unsafe regardless of any procedures taken, business that is directly harming the environment. Oil is a harmful business that we should look past and we should not be taking this hands off approach toward oil drilling nor acting like we should give them any special consideration even for the jobs they provide. Yes, considering that, I think it's perfectly "fair."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see absolutely no reason why it would contradict any treaties we have. If they're doing business in our land or our waters or our markets then it's under our control.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you ever have fire drills in school? Did you actually think they were a physical drill?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is what I consider to be a decent concern. You're right that if a smaller oil company had a major spill, then the responsibility to clean that up would end up coming from other oil companies that pay a larger percentage of their profits in tax. You have a good point! Perhaps the nature of the 'oil protection fund' should be changed to just go toward R&D and we specify oil companies are directly responsible for every last dime of cleanup themselves?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm definitely in favor of inspections and the like on oil rigs, but I'm still s bit wary of windfalls taxes on profits. Perhaps if it were worded more clearly I'd be more open to the idea. As of now, Its a bit vague for me to give it s thumbs up...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I oppose this but if it does pass, it should be made to work congruently with my legislation that is currently on the floor, at the very least.

[Purple State]

This legislation obviously has quite a bit of tinkering yet to be done. This is why the executive branch doesn't pass legislation, but only proposes rough guidelines and policies to be hashed out more fully by this esteemed body.

I look forward to seeing this bill improved over the course of this debate.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

A 'windfall profits' tax?

Are we going to subsidize companies when they experience 'windfall losses' too?

If not, this is clearly an unfair assault upon business. A windfall profits tax is pure economic tomfoolery.

[Marokai Backbeat]

A 'windfall profits' tax?

Are we going to subsidize companies when they experience 'windfall losses' too?

If not, this is clearly an unfair assault upon business. A windfall profits tax is pure economic tomfoolery.

I'm not really sure I get the logic you're following there.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

A 'windfall profits' tax?

Are we going to subsidize companies when they experience 'windfall losses' too?

If not, this is clearly an unfair assault upon business. A windfall profits tax is pure economic tomfoolery.

I'm not really sure I get the logic you're following there.

If we're going to socialize profits, how is it fair to not socialize losses as well?

[Bacon King]

Amendment, offered and accepted as friendly; Senators have 24 hours to object.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, changes in bold.

[Bacon King]

This bill has now been friendlily amended. If there are no objections and no Senators have anything to add, this bill will proceed to a final vote shortly.

[Bacon King]

Alright Senators, the bill quoted below is now at a final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bacon King]

Aye

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Nay due to my reservations with section I. I do hope, if this does fail, that a new bill can be introduced without the unsavory parts.

[Franzl]

Abstain for now.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Abstain for now.

Without practically gutting the bill, I don't know what you're waiting for at this point.

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Nay

[Bacon King]

Vote still ongoing, this is just an update...

Senators voting aye: Bacon King, Hans-im-Glück (2)
Senators voting nay: AHDuke, Libertas (2)
Senators abstaining: Franzl (1)

Senators yet to vote: Badger, Bgwah, Bullmoose88, Dallasfan65, NCYankee (5)

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Abstain for now.

Without practically gutting the bill, I don't know what you're waiting for at this point.

Mr. Vice President,

Would you consider cutting section I from the bill "gutting it?"

This is actually a serious question, mind you.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Nay.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Abstain for now.

Without practically gutting the bill, I don't know what you're waiting for at this point.

Mr. Vice President,

Would you consider cutting section I from the bill "gutting it?"

This is actually a serious question, mind you.

Of course I would. It's by far the most serious portion of the bill and without it, the only thing that remains are little regulations only ensuring that drilling rigs have emergency preventers and that oil companies are responsible for oil spills. There's practically nothing else.

[bullmoose88]

Nay