The Registration Fee Reduction Act

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Nov 6, 2013 16:47:03 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I agree that the registration fee could probably be lowered, but we still need some kind of revenue. Currently I think the King is paying for most Talossa related websites. It would be good to see the Kingdom take this over. Another thing is that its strange that MCs have to pay, but Senators, who have just as much power, dont. Maybe reducing the fee to 5$ and at the same time creating a small fee for Senators as well (maybe 5$ as well, but just for accepting a seat, to prevent lose-lose situations). This would make sure at least part of our income is stable and not dependent on the number of parties. Anyway, what I think is the biggest problem of this act is that it doesnt actually solve the problem it intends to solve. Namely, according to the OrgLaw the fee is meant to cover the election costs, but 5$ is still way more than the actual election costs. Maybe the OrgLaw should be amended to be less restrictive on the purpose of the money, but instead create an upper limit, so it doesnt get out of hand. Reducing the fee in combination with an amendment to make the fee more legitimate would definitely something I could support.

Voluntary contributions would take care of all our financial woes.

[ián txáglh]

Nov 6, 2013 16:47:03 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I agree that the registration fee could probably be lowered, but we still need some kind of revenue. Currently I think the King is paying for most Talossa related websites. It would be good to see the Kingdom take this over. Another thing is that its strange that MCs have to pay, but Senators, who have just as much power, dont. Maybe reducing the fee to 5$ and at the same time creating a small fee for Senators as well (maybe 5$ as well, but just for accepting a seat, to prevent lose-lose situations). This would make sure at least part of our income is stable and not dependent on the number of parties. Anyway, what I think is the biggest problem of this act is that it doesnt actually solve the problem it intends to solve. Namely, according to the OrgLaw the fee is meant to cover the election costs, but 5$ is still way more than the actual election costs. Maybe the OrgLaw should be amended to be less restrictive on the purpose of the money, but instead create an upper limit, so it doesnt get out of hand. Reducing the fee in combination with an amendment to make the fee more legitimate would definitely something I could support.

Nov 6, 2013 1:26:37 GMT -6 ián txáglh said:

and wouldn't it be better to drop the party registration fee and just finance the royal web-hosts more openly, in a transparent way, let say by means of non-mandatory tax? i am very open to such solutions and as a responsible citizen, i am ready to participate directly, cos i benefit from it.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Does anyone here know how many donations the government has received last year?

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Nov 7, 2013 14:22:27 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Does anyone here know how many donations the government has received last year?

I haven't even seen them asking for them. When did they do that? What is the recommended donation? What will the money be used for?

[Istefan Perþonest]

We haven't been asking for them, but in the past some people have given them. Running off the top of my head, we had a small don't-send-stamps donation in the Kickstarter earlier this year (on the order of $20, I can look it up if anyone's really interested in the exact amount), and the year before that we had somewhere between $500 and $600 in donations two-or-more Burgermeisters ago (with the consequence that the exact breakdown is a bit poorly documented).

De facto, of course, the people who have been financing our web presence have been donating, but it doesn't show up on my books the way we're currently set up.

I certainly won't object to people sending in donations, but I'd almost recommend you buy stamps instead, since we've got the rolls of them sitting here anyway.

(Obviously, I've been deficient about getting the coins actually made. The anti-anxiety medication that was so promising back in February stopped working in April, and combined with secondary stresses there has been a lot of me staring at walls unable to get myself showered or dressed instead of getting things done.)

(And yes, I'm overdue to put up this month's Burgermeister report. All that's happened is the monthly interest gain.)

[Owen Edwards]

Though I broadly sympathise with the criticism offered, I am broadly in agreement with Sir Cresti. I'd be happy to co-sponsor.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

I'm very interested in this.

I think a combined solution is the best one:
$ 20,00 For a new Party
$ 5,00 For a Party seeking reelection
$ 5,00 For a Senator

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Why should a new party be charged more? What additional expenses does the Chancery incur in registering a new party?

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jan 6, 2014 17:49:07 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Why should a new party be charged more? What additional expenses does the Chancery incur in registering a new party?

I'll quote you Dame Cjantsheir:

Nov 6, 2013 13:38:24 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

I find myself caught in the middle agreeing with both Sir Cresti and S:reu Iustì in regards to what they have said about the Registration Fee.

My suggestion is that we meet somewhere in the middle, in that in the first election a party registers for they pay a once off fee of $20 and for every election thereafter the party only pays $5. Thus, for example, every party in the current Cosa will only have to pay $5 when they register for the next election, however any party which forms, breaks away from a current party to form a new one etc... and decides to register for the first time, will pay have to pay $20 and then $5 thereafter. Thus we solve the problems on both sides of the fence.

Btw, the organic provision "to cover for expenses" should be stripped... It's just ridicoulous, we don't have real expenses for the election at the moment. We may have them in the future, surely, but not now. Also, if this provision is kept, someone may say that those dollars in our treasury should be organically used only, and ONLY FOR electoral expenses.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 6, 2014 17:57:00 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

I'll quote you Dame Cjantsheir:

I see that she made a similar suggestion, but I still don't see a reason for it. Well, I guess sort of a reason in that she's trying to find a compromise between $20 and $5, so the proffered solution is to have some parties pay $20 and other parties pay $5. But I still don't understand what the basis is for making the amount of the fee dependent on whether the party is an incumbent or not. What makes that a better line to draw than one based on party size, or parties starting with A-L pay $20 while parties starting with M-Z pay $5, or each party spins the Wheel o' Registration Fees with values from $5 to $20 and pays whatever number comes up?

The only rationale I can think of on my own is simply that of discouraging anyone from challenging existing parties, but I don't think that's a good one.

Then there's the small matter of organicity. You seem to realize that your proposal is inorganic, but assert that the organic restriction on the purpose of registration fees should be eliminated. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Seems like you should propose an amendment to remove the prohibition before creating a bill that violates it.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Well, when the Gov proposes a budget and the Ziu approves it, they're also allocating money collected, by OrgLaw, to "cover the cost off the election". Is organic to allocate those funds to other uses? Was organic to use that money to buy a medallion? It can be inorganic even collect registration fees without any real electoral expense to cover.

This is a judicial sleepin dragon under the mountain :-)

On the fee amount.
I think that the fee also has a function of "keeping those who seek band hold power devoted to the fact that Talossa is a serious business band bot just anni online simulation where you need to press the "sign in" button" and making those who exercise the power more accountable and more careful.

What about 5$ for everyone (Parties new and old and Senators) + a variable part proportional to the seats held in the previous Cosa for those who seek re election (with a max limit, like 20$)? This will do the trick: keeping a more or less stable flow, allowing new parties and people who wants to get involved, more contributions by those who have more duties towards the country.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I definitely do not think that electoral success should come with a monetary penalty. The existence of the non-incidental registration fee has long sufficed to keep our parties fairly serious.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Personally, I think a cut to $10 US (or €10?) would keep the "effective threshold" that the citizen above recommends. Why get more complicated than that? Nevertheless, I await the incoming government's budget to see exactly how much revenue we need, and whether they have a strategy for bringing in donations.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 6, 2014 18:39:15 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

Well, when the Gov proposes a budget and the Ziu approves it, they're also allocating money collected, by OrgLaw, to "cover the cost off the election". Is organic to allocate those funds to other uses? Was organic to use that money to buy a medallion? It can be inorganic even collect registration fees without any real electoral expense to cover.

You're right that there is a question about how registration funds previously collected can be spent organically. I question whether it's accurate to state that "that money" was used for the Seneschal's chain of office, because funds have been received from sources other than registration fees, including stamp sales, donations, and TalossaWare. We'd have to check with the Burgermeister and MinFin to see whether an audit can reveal the source of all funds in the treasury, and how much came from registration fees versus other sources. If records are inadequate to un-mingle the funds, then even if someone were to file suit over the use of registration fees for non-election expenses, I think it likely that the courts would decide to grant only prospective relief rather than imposing the burden of throwing the treasury's baby out with the bath water.

On whether it's inorganic to even collect registration fees without any real electoral expense to cover, I say yes and no. On the one hand, that's the point of this bill. $20 seems so much in excess of any foreseeable expenses as to be unreasonable. On the other hand, a smaller fee could be justifiable on the basis that some minor expenses may crop up, and it's impractical to impose retroactive fees after the specific nature of the expenses has been identified.

Another option is to start having election expenses. I think we could justify paying something towards web hosting as an election expense, especially if a web-based voting system is implemented. I also used to like receiving snail-mail ballots, though probably even the $20 fee is inadequate to resume that practice with our current population size.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jan 7, 2014 4:22:45 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 6, 2014 18:39:15 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

Well, when the Gov proposes a budget and the Ziu approves it, they're also allocating money collected, by OrgLaw, to "cover the cost off the election". Is organic to allocate those funds to other uses? Was organic to use that money to buy a medallion? It can be inorganic even collect registration fees without any real electoral expense to cover.

You're right that there is a question about how registration funds previously collected can be spent organically. I question whether it's accurate to state that "that money" was used for the Seneschal's chain of office, because funds have been received from sources other than registration fees, including stamp sales, donations, and TalossaWare. We'd have to check with the Burgermeister and MinFin to see whether an audit can reveal the source of all funds in the treasury, and how much came from registration fees versus other sources.

Of course the Seneschal's chain of office it's only an example to raise a question, not a statment "that money was used to buy that".

That was precisly the original aim ("availability of the funds") of the Government Financial Report (38RZ15 Section 3), perhaps it should be amended to be more precise. "keep record of the incomes etc". The aim of the financial report should be to offer a simple and immediate understaning of our treasury: a better rewording of that section is probably needed.

BTW: As far as I know the Government Financial Report wasn't delivered at the end of the 45 Cosa. Am I right? It's needed to approve the Budget.

If records are inadequate to un-mingle the funds, then even if someone were to file suit over the use of registration fees for non-election expenses, I think it likely that the courts would decide to grant only prospective relief rather than imposing the burden of throwing the treasury's baby out with the bath water.

On whether it's inorganic to even collect registration fees without any real electoral expense to cover, I say yes and no. On the one hand, that's the point of this bill. $20 seems so much in excess of any foreseeable expenses as to be unreasonable. On the other hand, a smaller fee could be justifiable on the basis that some minor expenses may crop up, and it's impractical to impose retroactive fees after the specific nature of the expenses has been identified.

Another option is to start having election expenses. I think we could justify paying something towards web hosting as an election expense, especially if a web-based voting system is implemented. I also used to like receiving snail-mail ballots, though probably even the $20 fee is inadequate to resume that practice with our current population size.

But is the webhosting limited to the web-based voting system?
And if we need in the future to pay, for example, webhosting for domains not related to the electoral procedures?
And, as we know now the problem of the source of income and it's organically possibile usage, should we continue to ignore this "green elephant" in the room?
And, is it not preferable to avoid entirely the problem now and in the future of the organically possible usage of our 800$ budget, if needed?

The point is, if we amend the OrgLaw we will avoid just simply avoid this nightmare. Something like "Third, the Secretary of State may request from all parties a fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties."