Talbott Quadrant government and parliament...

MaxxQ wrote:

roseandheather wrote:Please. If I were his sockpuppet, I wouldn't be so interested in Dame Estelle's... attributes.

And if he were mine, he would be.

Ah... but that's what makes a good sock puppet - being different from the one with the hand up its ... rear.

No! No, absolutely not...this talk about fisting is getting way too kinky for my tastes!!!

hanuman wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:Ah... but that's what makes a good sock puppet - being different from the one with the hand up its ... rear.

No! No, absolutely not...this talk about fisting is getting way too kinky for my tastes!!!

...there's such a thing as 'too kinky' for your tastes??

TheMonster wrote:And that's what makes it the most irrelevant part of your post, because I said nothing of the sort. I do not presume to declare myself superior to anyone; I merely say that if someone should decide to declare himself not up to the job of telling me what to do and how to do it (which is what people do when they vote) I will respect his decision to recuse himself from his civic duty, because pointing a gun at someone and demanding he make laws to constrain my liberty is insane. I'm the guy saying that telling him that he has to vote is wrong, and somehow that's equated with the above embedded quote? Puh. Lease.

You're the one who brought up Nazi Germany and Hitler, so I'll give you a VERY DAMNED RELEVANT example from then.

It was a very small step for the Nazis to go from saying that Jews should not participate in German society and German politics to saying that they (the Nazis) had to take steps to ensure that the Jews didn't.

That is the sequence of events I am concerned about, and the one that is at the heart of a statement such as 'if they cannot be bothered to participate in the political process, then they should recuse themselves from that political process'.

It's the beginning of a justification, a rationalisation to make sure that they do recuse themselves. Otherwise, why make such a statement in the first place?

I mean, let's get real here, shall we? People who do not vote are ALREADY not participating in the political process - why bother to say that they shouldn't participate, hmm?

I know this started out as a discussion on the Australian system in particular, but that's not what I'm concerned about. I think I've explained my concern very clearly.

roseandheather wrote:...there's such a thing as 'too kinky' for your tastes??

And you just couldn't resist that one, could you? You wicked witch you...

I hesitate to say this, because I hate to rain on other people's parade. But the ribald commentary is getting a bit extreme. I would like to politely point out Rule 1 on the Forum Rules And Information. Could people please try to keep it to PG-13 as much as possible? I'm not saying it has to be G, but it's getting a bit much.

SWM wrote:I hesitate to say this, because I hate to rain on other people's parade. But the ribald commentary is getting a bit extreme. I would like to politely point out Rule 1 on the Forum Rules And Information. Could people please try to keep it to PG-13 as much as possible? I'm not saying it has to be G, but it's getting a bit much.

I would respectfully concur, folks. I'm happy people feel comfortable enough to let their hair down, but we do try to keep it within bounds.

Thanks.

SWM wrote:I hesitate to say this, because I hate to rain on other people's parade. But the ribald commentary is getting a bit extreme. I would like to politely point out Rule 1 on the Forum Rules And Information. Could people please try to keep it to PG-13 as much as possible? I'm not saying it has to be G, but it's getting a bit much.

Alas, I am in the midst of traveling for a cousin's wedding and missed this, but would like to add my concurrence.

Duckk wrote:

SWM wrote:I hesitate to say this, because I hate to rain on other people's parade. But the ribald commentary is getting a bit extreme. I would like to politely point out Rule 1 on the Forum Rules And Information. Could people please try to keep it to PG-13 as much as possible? I'm not saying it has to be G, but it's getting a bit much.

Alas, I am in the midst of traveling for a cousin's wedding and missed this, but would like to add my concurrence.

I apologize and shall comply with your instructions.

SWM wrote: The way I interpreted it is that there is an Imperial tax, which applies to anyone who wishes to vote in imperial elections. This is paid directly to the Imperial government. The Talbott Quadrant has no control over that, cannot limit who pays it, and does not even touch the money. Over and above that, the Talbott Quadrant government is responsible for contributing some amount of money to the Imperial government, as determined by the Imperial Parliament. How Talbott raises that is up to them, but they can't call it Imperial taxes because they have no authority to create, gather, or control Imperial taxes.

I dunno. This--

runsforcelery wrote: That is, if the Old Star Kingdom represents 75% of the total IGP (Imperial Gross Product), then the Old Star Kingdom will be responsible for funding 75% of the imperial budget. Precisely how the Old Star Kingdom goes about raising those revenues is an internal matter for the Old Star Kingdom to arrange as it chooses, with the understanding that any citizen who does not pay imperial taxes does not have the imperial franchise. [emph added]

seems to imply that there isn't an Imperial tax on people, just an Imperial levy on the OSK and TQ governments. The simplest thing would be for those governments to have one tax that raises enough for the imperial and provincial governments, but it seems like a provincial government could have, say, a sales tax earmarked for one and an income tax earmarked for the other.

Who owns the junction these days? It and its termini are entirely within the OSK, but as the major source of revenue in the SEM, maybe when the Mantie government was split into Kingdom and Empire, the title went with the latter?

Bill Woods wrote:

SWM wrote: The way I interpreted it is that there is an Imperial tax, which applies to anyone who wishes to vote in imperial elections. This is paid directly to the Imperial government. The Talbott Quadrant has no control over that, cannot limit who pays it, and does not even touch the money. Over and above that, the Talbott Quadrant government is responsible for contributing some amount of money to the Imperial government, as determined by the Imperial Parliament. How Talbott raises that is up to them, but they can't call it Imperial taxes because they have no authority to create, gather, or control Imperial taxes.

I dunno. This--

runsforcelery wrote: That is, if the Old Star Kingdom represents 75% of the total IGP (Imperial Gross Product), then the Old Star Kingdom will be responsible for funding 75% of the imperial budget. Precisely how the Old Star Kingdom goes about raising those revenues is an internal matter for the Old Star Kingdom to arrange as it chooses, with the understanding that any citizen who does not pay imperial taxes does not have the imperial franchise. [emph added]

seems to imply that there isn't an Imperial tax on people, just an Imperial levy on the OSK and TQ governments. The simplest thing would be for those governments to have one tax that raises enough for the imperial and provincial governments, but it seems like a provincial government could have, say, a sales tax earmarked for one and an income tax earmarked for the other.

Who owns the junction these days? It and its termini are entirely within the OSK, but as the major source of revenue in the SEM, maybe when the Mantie government was split into Kingdom and Empire, the title went with the latter?

Nope.