Pirate Congress 2023/Minutes/Log

Meeting Minutes This document is a record of a meeting. Do not edit this document without contacting the relevant group first.

Meeting Log This page contains a transcript or log of a meeting that occurred on the 22nd and 23rd of July 2023. It should be used for reference only and does not need to be edited.

This is Alex Jago's log of the IRC chat for Congress 2023. Please note that all log times are in UTC+10:00.

This log may be referred to in conjunction with recordings of the live stream:

• Saturday livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JR6auYEpjM
• Sunday livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or4qJLmXcz0

10:04 < andrewdpirate/D> Greetiungs
10:04 < Simon/D> 👋
10:05 <~alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2023/Agenda
10:05 < mandrke/D> This Stream is mixed in Kaurna Country (Adelaide)
10:07 <~alexjago> and, of course, all the big motions will go to member vote for ratification
10:09 <~alexjago> please flag QUESTIONs and COMMENTs to be read out :)
10:10 < Miles/D> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/National_Congress_Standing_Orders
10:18 < johna8860/D> QUESTION: why do you think Owen's campaign was so successful?
10:21 < Miles/D> Pirate identity survey anonymised results https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10ij4VMAc0sI60EHQ4Jiw5_sjLIQSdCa2i-XJ2UcmkFs/edit#gid=0
10:27 < johna8860/D> Yes, a lot of behavior is context dependent, speaking generally / psychologically.
10:30 < alexjago/D> @owenfm
10:31 < owenfm/D> thanks mate 🙂
10:34 < johna8860/D> The world is run by those that turn up.
10:35 < mandrke/D> The tyranny of the willing!
10:36 <~alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/File:Financial_Report_FY2023.pdf
10:37 < mandrke/D> ~8 seconds delay
10:38 < mandrke/D> between mixing the stream and receiving the same stream from Youtube on the same computer
10:39 < gimmeadrink/D> John, are you able to speak about how or where Fusion and Pirate funding intersects?
10:39 < satchdotnet/D> Thanks John!
10:40 < mandrke/D> from YT: Wade Johnson says:
10:40 < mandrke/D> ​why would there be any contention?
10:40 < owenfm/D> we had contention for the Aston by-election fyi, there were 3 ppl (including me) up for selection
10:41 < owenfm/D> yeah the exec debated
10:46 < gimmeadrink/D> Cheers @johna8860 and @sorokyne
10:49 <~alexjago> need a motion to accept reports
10:49 < Miles/D> MOTION: ACcept Treasurer, President and Secretary's outgoing reports
10:50 < Miles/D> MOTION: Accept outgoing President, Secretary and Treasurer's reports (edited)
10:50 < Miles/D> start voting
10:50 < Miles/D> i vote aye
10:50 <~alexjago> Aye
10:50 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
10:50 < zach__1234/D> aye
10:50 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
10:50 < johna8860/D> aye
10:50 < Simon/D> aye
10:50 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
10:50 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Aye
10:51 < Miles/D> close voting, motion passes
10:53 < andrewdpirate/D> We have break music ... Woohoo!
10:57 < mandrke/D> https://musopen.org/radio/
11:03 < mandrke/D> sSlightly updated info: This Stream is mixed in the Kirra Ung Dinga (Modbury) area of Kaurna Country (Adelaide Plains)
11:03 < Miles/D> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2023/Motions
11:04 < Miles/D> MOTION: Accept CAP1
11:04 < mandrke/D> Slightly updated info: This Stream is mixed in the Kirra Ung Dinga (Modbury) area of Kaurna Country (Adelaide Plains) (edited)
11:04 < Miles/D> Start voting
11:04 < Miles/D> I vote aye
11:04 < mandrke/D> aye
11:05 <~alexjago> aye
11:05 < johna8860/D> aye
11:05 <~alexjago> hang on, I broke Discord
11:05 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
11:05 < Simon/D> aye
11:06 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
11:06 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Will this end up being moot with a full NC given the 2/3rds rule states after?
11:06 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Aye either way.
11:09 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Ah ic. That makes sense. I was assuming it was 2/3rds of positions available.
11:09 < Miles/D> close voting, motion pass
11:12 < mandrke/D> Comment to Simon: Could you please provide links to any groups in the CAPS?
11:13 < owenfm/D> this is my site, as Simon mentions, it's consistent with Fusion's policies, except perhaps that I support nuclear power more than Fusion's stance. https://nonhuman.party/
11:13 < mandrke/D> https://pibci.net
11:13 < Simon/D> https://nonhuman.party/
11:14 <~alexjago> COMMENTs * the main point of Full Membership (currently) is that by being a Full Member you're pledging your support to us for AEC purposes
11:14 < johna8860/D> I'm vaguely supportive of nuclear power, but it is not a hill I want to die on, either.
11:14 <~alexjago> * Fusion also currently has a requirement of being in one and only one branch at a time
11:15 < Miles/D> MOTION: Accept CAP2
11:15 < Miles/D> start voting
11:15 < Miles/D> i vote aye
11:15 < Simon/D> aye
11:15 <~alexjago> Nay
11:15 < mandrke/D> aye
11:15 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
11:15 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> nay
11:15 < johna8860/D> aye
11:15 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
11:16 < gimmeadrink/D> nay
11:16 < johna8860/D> QUESTION: Alex, was there an alternate wording you would have approved of? Or it a more general issue regardless of the details?
11:17 <~alexjago> I have some specific issues with the wording, because it's a key principle
11:17 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> The wording "which goes against the Principles and Objects of the Party" didn't pass the sniff test for me. Principles and Objects don't seem to be well defined.
11:17 <~alexjago> And we extend Supporter membership to all other Fusion members already, for example
11:18 < Simon/D> Principles and Objects of the Party is defined in the constitution
11:19 <~alexjago> +v jedb
11:19 <~alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/
11:19 <~alexjago> voice jedb
11:19 <~alexjago> heck
11:19 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v jedb] by alexjago
11:19 <+jedb> lol
11:20 < Miles/D> I've just disabled slowmode for this channel
11:20 < Miles/D> be free and uncensored, ye pirates
11:20 < Miles/D> close voting, motion passes
11:23 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> I can hear Simon fine.
11:23 < owenfm/D> I think someone was in Simon's background
11:24 < andrewdpirate/D> Simon and you both sound fine.
11:24 < andrewdpirate/D> Mandrade is background quiet
11:24 < Miles/D> MOTION: Accept CAP3
11:24 < Miles/D> i vote aye
11:24 < johna8860/D> aye
11:24 < Jay/D> aye
11:24 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
11:24 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Aye
11:24 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
11:24 < mandrke/D> aye
11:24 <~alexjago> Aye
11:24 < Simon/D> aye
11:24 < gimmeadrink/D> aye
11:25 < Miles/D> close voting
11:26 < satchdotnet/D> Yes, loud and clear on YT
11:27 < satchdotnet/D> Just lost you Jay
11:27 < andrewdpirate/D> Yep Jay dropped out
11:28 < satchdotnet/D> Sorry Jay, we've missed the past couple  of minutes
11:29 < satchdotnet/D> Now you're back
11:29 < andrewdpirate/D> Jay: Please restart
11:31 < Simon/D> Why did we leave PPI in the first place?
11:31 <~alexjago> simon: see the first link in the Rationale
11:32 < satchdotnet/D> COIMMENT: Just to clarify, joining PPI doesn't impact our Aussie pirate movement. The common element is pirate politics / direct democracy. The way policies play out in varius countries obviously vary.
11:32 <~alexjago> indeed we won't have our member vote done by the GA
11:32 < gimmeadrink/D> You can also see the original motion to leave here:
11:32 < gimmeadrink/D> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Motions#FM-1:_Conditional_withdrawal_from_Pirate_Parties_International
11:33 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Q: Wasn't a significant reason for leaving disparate treatment between in person and online attendees of their meetings?
11:36 < Simon/D> 2023 PPI Summer 2023 PPI Summer @ Saturday, July 29th 2023 6.00PM Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane time https://pp-international.net/2023/05/pirate-parties-international-general-assembly-july-29th/
11:37 < Jay/D> MOTION
11:38 < Jay/D> That Pirate Party Australia apply to join Pirate Parties International (PPI) at PPI's upcoming General Assembly in northern-hemisphere winter.
11:38 <~alexjago> Aye
11:38 < Simon/D> aye
11:38 < Miles/D> start voting
11:38 < Miles/D> aye
11:38 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
11:38 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
11:38 < Jay/D> aye
11:38 <~alexjago> aye ++
11:38 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
11:38 < johna8860/D> aye
11:38 < Simon/D> 6PM??
11:39 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Aye
11:39 <+jedb> aye
11:39 < mandrke/D> aye
11:39 < zach__1234/D> just make sure to turn your webcam upside down
11:40 <~alexjago> is that a vote Zach? :D
11:40 <~alexjago> UTC is us minus 10
11:40 <~alexjago> (well, minus 8 for Adam)
11:40 <~alexjago> (... and minus 9.5 for Bryn and Dave and Gold...)
11:41 < satchdotnet/D> -9:30 ACST 😉
11:41 < Miles/D> close voting
11:42 <+jedb> policy motions? more like policy books and tomes, this year
11:42 <~alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2023/Motions/Economics_Policy_Update 
11:43 <~alexjago> ^^ proposed text
11:43 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Loud and clear.
11:46 < johna8860/D> COMMENT: I support repealing the whole, Mark G has noted that simplifying our policy has its own worth.
11:47 < Jay/D> I support the motion but want it spelled thruples
11:47 <~alexjago> COMMENT: I support the update - expanding to include poly support is good
11:47 <+jedb> COMMENT: shifting the focus towards defacto relationships will likely make "divorces" aka breakups an even bigger mess than they already tend to be
11:47 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Comment: This policy seems to have little to do with core pirate principles. While it may be a policy that many people support there are some who agree with core pirate principles but not with this seperate policy.
11:47 < satchdotnet/D> It does make sense to change things now that the Marriage Act itself has been updated, but at the same time from a libertarian standpoint, relationships sbouldn't be regulated by the state.
11:48 < gimmeadrink/D> I'm supportive of repealing the policy in theory, I have concerns around how civil unions would be recognised.
11:48 < andrewdpirate/D> I don't mind removing it entirely, but I don't agree with the description of the fault. The "civil Union" representation of it was not a renaming, but a separation of concerns, so that the government basically got out of the way in regards anything except matters of law and benefits.
11:49 < owenfm/D> I think the state always needs to be involved, otherwise a *marriage* is just a pinky promise with no meaning left.
11:49 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> In relation to this, the idea of Civil Union is quite old in and of itself and has operated parallel but seperate to Marriage.
11:49 < johna8860/D> Pirates are very concerned about the relationship between the individual and the state, I see the issue as naturally emerging from that concern.
11:50 < andrewdpirate/D> The government does not generate meaning for us. Marriage is a promise between people, in the eyes of family, friends, community.  Government records are a formality.
11:50 < zach__1234/D> A civil union should be for receipt of those rights usually attributed to marriage. Marriage itself is traditionally religious and as a secular state, this should not be tied to the state
11:51 < zach__1234/D> A secular marriage should be tied to a non-govt organisation
11:51 < andrewdpirate/D> What @johna8860 said.
11:52 < satchdotnet/D> It has become more of a non issue now that anyone can legally marry anyone else.
11:52 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> With this, making the state only worry about Civil Union also allows churches or religions to have SSM according to their beliefs rather than the potential of forcing churches or religious institutions in australia to allow SSM against their beliefs.
11:52 < gimmeadrink/D> I like that idea.
11:53 <~alexjago> James: current policy already says "no forcing churches etc to marry anyone they don't want to"
11:53 < johna8860/D> Marriage: two people decide they will spend at least a few years together, and throw a party and invite their friends to join them and celebrate.
11:53 < satchdotnet/D> It is still between 2 parties though, so doesn't accomodate more progressive poly relationships.
11:53 < Jay/D> IMO smaller but still an issue e.g poly folks
11:53 <~alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=Pirate_Congress_2023%2FMotions%2FMarriage_Policy_Update&type=revision&diff=13472&oldid=13457
11:53 <~alexjago> ^^^ diff
11:54 < andrewdpirate/D> Best of luck getting someone to marry you with that attitude.
11:56 < satchdotnet/D> The cultural notion of marriage is baked into society, so it's no surprise that it was a big deal for homosexual relationships to have the same as their hetero counterparts.
11:56 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> "The same rights and equivalent legal and monetary benefits which is currently available under the Marriage Act 1961, will transfer to de facto relationships, regardless of being legally married or not"
11:56 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Legally Maried usually refers to Civil Union. Granting those rights reserved to those in a Civil Union to those not in that commitment seems wrong to me. Civil Union specifically refers to a commitment and a unification of property and finance among other things. allowing things such as tax reductions to those who haven't unified their finances raises some deeper issues that shou <clipped message>
11:56 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> ld probably be further discussed.
11:57 <+jedb> COMMENT: aside from consensualness and children guardianship, the state has interests in marriage regarding property ownership, taxes, and ability to provide legal testimony
11:57 < zach__1234/D> Wouldnt repealing the entire policy mean we have no opinion on marriage? Thats a drastic option..
11:58 < Miles/D> MOTION (dont vote yet): Amend Simon's PM-2 to read "Repeal and remove from the party platform section 2.5 Marriage"
11:58 < Miles/D> read the current policy here https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Platform#Marriage
11:59 <~alexjago> jedb: yes, Simon's amendment here is "apply a de facto test rather than an 'are they married' test
11:59 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Exactly. This is why seperating those concerns into Civil Unions would allow marriage to remain in the cultural and religious context which allows the religious people to have exclusivity while also allowing SSM in other contexts.
11:59 < Miles/D> an "aye" vote to this motion will be changing simon's PM2 so that we remove all the references to marraige
11:59 < Miles/D> *remove from our platform the marriage section
11:59 < satchdotnet/D> Might be good to retain a position though, as the mere absence could be misrepresented as if we don't care about the issue.
11:59 < Miles/D> any comments or discussion on this motion text, or are we ready to vote soon?
12:00 < zach__1234/D> The issue wasnt settled, it was taken to a vote, which we have regularly for other issues. Its still a problem for many Australians, usually in the against position
12:00 < johna8860/D> Could be something like "Without buying too much into the issue, we recognise the cultural significance of a union recognised by the state, regardless of the exact details of that union".
12:00 <~alexjago> Miles, can you paste the full text of the motion you're putting?
12:01 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> We could have a seperate policy which simply states that Pirates vary in their opinions on the topic and disagree on the implementation or merrit of SSM as well as State marriage.
12:01 < Miles/D> @ alex that is the entire new motion text
12:01 < Miles/D> MOTION (dont vote yet): Amend Simon's PM-2 to read "Repeal and remove from the party platform section 2.5 Marriage"
12:02 < satchdotnet/D> Yes, if for nothing else, the position should retain the exemptions for minors and arranged marriages.
12:02 <+jedb> I'd just rather whatever policy situation to focus on making things as clear-cut as practical, and defacto relationships seem the opposite of that
12:03 < Miles/D> start voting
12:03 <~alexjago> Nay
12:03 < Miles/D> i vote nay
12:03 < mandrke/D> nay
12:03 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Aye
12:03 < zach__1234/D> Nay
12:03 < Jay/D> Nay
12:03 < satchdotnet/D> Nay
12:03 < johna8860/D> aye
12:03 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
12:03 < Simon/D> abstain
12:03 <+jedb> nay
12:03 < gimmeadrink/D> Abstain, but fully supportive of this being looked at by the PDC
12:04 < mandrke/D> I agree, @gimmeadrink
12:04 < satchdotnet/D> Probably polyamorous relationships being legally recognised.
12:04 < Jay/D> Same as Miles, nay because a position is still important here
12:05 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> I do agree that regardless of if this passes the PDC should look further into it and imo hopefully bring a milder policy to next congress.
12:05 <~alexjago> I've counted 11 votes so far
12:05 < Miles/D> stop  voting
12:06 <+jedb> the "voice" referendum will likely fail? good, and I disagree about that being indicative of conservatism support
12:06 <~alexjago> 3 Aye (James, John, Andrew); 6 Nay (Miles, Bryn, Alex, Zach, David, Jed); 2 Abstain (Simon, Adam)
12:06 <~alexjago> ah yep, I missed Jay
12:07 < zach__1234/D> 4v6 ?
12:07 <~alexjago> does *anyone else* have a *different* motion to amend PM-2 or shall we put it/
12:09 < mandrke/D> Looked that way to me as well
12:09 < satchdotnet/D> I don't think the Marriage Act could incorporate De Faco, as by definition they are not marriages. They generally receive similar legal recoognition, but by the states rather than federal.
12:09 < gimmeadrink/D> It is a tricky subject - there is a lot of nuance.
12:09 < satchdotnet/D> I don't think the Marriage Act could incorporate De Facto, as by definition they are not marriages. They generally receive similar legal recoognition, but by the states rather than federal. (edited)
12:10 < Jay/D> Nothing stops us from defining a certain period of defacto as triggering a state of married
12:10 < zach__1234/D> de facto relationships could have some legal use, but are distinct from actual civil unions/marriages
12:10 < Jay/D> Just like defacto is currently triggered
12:10 < alexjago/D> huh weird, milspec's not making it over the bridge but everyone else is, wtf
12:10 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Sound's like a return to common law marriage to me.
12:10 < Jay/D> Do they have to be distinct tho?
12:11 < johna8860/D> Like some sort of vampire, where you can't see his reflection in the mirror.
12:11 <+jedb> COMMENT: updating laws to look at the actual level of commitment between partners sounds like it could have significant privacy implications, much like how the current questions centrelink asks those to determine defacto relationships can get potentially invasive
12:11 < gimmeadrink/D> Child guardianship, inheritance, joint financial accounts...
12:11 < zach__1234/D> Marriage is often seen in the perspective of the actual union of two persons into one legal entity, and as such if either party didnt consent to formal union, they should not be treated as such
12:12 < alexjago/D> (maybe it's the dot in your username?)
12:12 < johna8860/D> The tax implications of marriage / civil unions are a strange thing.
12:12 < satchdotnet/D> It is a tricky one. I understand the purpose of some legal oversight, for taxes and shared assets, but my libertarian side doesn't think personal relationships shouldn't be regulated by the government at all.
12:13 < johna8860/D> Yes, I'm confused.
12:13 < satchdotnet/D> It is a tricky one. I understand the purpose of some legal oversight, for taxes and shared assets, but my libertarian side doesn't think personal relationships should be regulated by the government at all. (edited)
12:13 < alexjago/D> render unto Caesar, etc
12:13 < mandrke/D> From YouTube: @mofo syne says on the topic of the Voice...:
12:13 < mandrke/D> ​yeah it's a bit of a shame that the referendum discourse is getting muddled
12:13 < mandrke/D> ​I wonder if a century periodic review would allay fears about this being a permanent ethnic body.
12:14 < mandrke/D> From YouTube: @"mofo syne" says on the topic of the Voice...:
12:14 < mandrke/D> ​yeah it's a bit of a shame that the referendum discourse is getting muddled
12:14 < mandrke/D> ​I wonder if a century periodic review would allay fears about this being a permanent ethnic body. (edited)
12:14 < andrewdpirate/D> Government deciding to reduce benefits based on whether people are fucking or not, is terribly unreasonable. Two independent people who happen to share costs do not have the same contraints.
12:15 < satchdotnet/D> And it is a tax loophole. Consider a hypothetical Muslim living in Australia with 4 wives, only 1 of which could be recognised legally. That leaves the others to qualify for welfare support, unless they declare themselves dependants.
12:15 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> There are pros and cons to being at different levels of commitment in a relationship so any relationship should be allowed to declare which level they come in at which would allow them to gain benefits at the restrictions and... commitments that come with that amount. No need to interrogate them as to whether that's true if we don't assume that more commitment==better supports.
12:16 < owenfm/D> I used to live in an apartment with a married couple. I got many of the same cost savings as them, despite not having sex with them.
12:16 < andrewdpirate/D> That's not what happens. If you are "single", then you get single person benefits, and choosing to live in share accommodation is up to you.
12:16 < satchdotnet/D> Mormons too, yes.
12:16 < mandrke/D> from Youtube: @johna8860 says...
12:16 < mandrke/D> ​I note in NZ, the Treaty of Waitangi is in fact an item of pride for many white New Zealanders, rather than a racist notion.
12:17 < andrewdpirate/D> Exactly, but if the government recognition of poly relations would mean that if you did have sex, the government would pay you less, effectively acting as your pimp.
12:17 < johna8860/D> I think we're getting lost in the weeds ...
12:18 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> @johna8860 The difference between the Voice and the NZ treaty is that the NZ treaty was an organic movement that rose from organization of the natives of NZ. The voice and the treaty movements in australia seem not to be so from the interviews and such I have heard. Either way it's not the topic atm.
12:18 < gimmeadrink/D> Maybe not Abbott...
12:19 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> But did that include tax exemptions and subsidies that marriages get or just the normal rooming benefits?
12:19 < johna8860/D> There's the claim that such amendments to the constitution are inherently racist. The NZ treaty provides a worthwhile counterpoint.
12:19 < satchdotnet/D> It's common for Asexuals to live with people they have an intimate connection with, regardless whether physical or phsychological.
12:19 < zach__1234/D> The federal constitution allows for legislating based on race as is
12:20 <+jedb> johna8860: no, it really doesn't, for a few reasons, but not the time for that
12:20 < satchdotnet/D> The Voice is not on the table (yet)
12:20 < andrewdpirate/D> You also shouldn't be penalized on social security support, on the basis that you're acting frugally, to try to make it stretch further.
12:21 < alexjago/D> (I've basically given up on minuting the last 15 minutes of discussion)
12:22 < gimmeadrink/D> https://tenor.com/view/that-would-be-an-ecumenical-matter-ecumenical-father-ted-father-jack-cough-gif-15581032
12:23 < satchdotnet/D> Extending lifespans medically while fertility declines.
12:23 <+jedb> population decline is part of the ongoing effects of the industrial revolution and addressing that will require some interesting economic restructuring
12:23 < Simon/D> MOTION: Accept PM-2 as written to update the Marriage Policy
12:24 < johna8860/D> abstain
12:24 < Miles/D> start voting
12:24 < zach__1234/D> nay
12:24 < mandrke/D> aye
12:24 < Simon/D> aye
12:24 < andrewdpirate/D> nay
12:24 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Nay
12:24 <+jedb> nay
12:24 < satchdotnet/D> Abstain
12:24 < Jay/D> Aye
12:24 < gimmeadrink/D> Removing gif as it's distracting on stream (edited)
12:24 < gimmeadrink/D> Abstain
12:24 < Miles/D> aye
12:25 <~alexjago> Abstain
12:25 < johna8860/D> Wow ... lotsa abstentions ...
12:26 < andrewdpirate/D> Abstinence wins instead of marriage?
12:26 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> https://tenor.com/view/succulent-chinese-meal-democracy-manifest-police-fake-gif-16970184
12:26 < Miles/D> close voting: aye: 4, nay: 4, abstain: 5
12:26 < mandrke/D> I concur
12:27 <+jedb> that's a hilariously even split
12:27 < satchdotnet/D> Abstainance policy, lol. Reminds me of my childhood indoctrination. 😛
12:27 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Yea I think this issue should be passed through PDC. Hopefully some greater consensus can be brought to Congress next year.
12:27 <+jedb> I think the marriage policy does need updating, just not to PM-2
12:28 < Miles/D> list of nominations https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2023/Nominations
12:29 <~alexjago> motion to break?
12:29 <~alexjago> it's traditional
12:29 < Miles/D> MOTION: adjourn for 1 hour lunch
12:29 < Miles/D> start voting
12:29 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
12:29 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Aye
12:29 < Miles/D> aye
12:29 <+jedb> aye
12:29 < Simon/D> aye
12:29 < mandrke/D> aye
12:29 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
12:29 < johna8860/D> aye
12:29 <~alexjago> aye
12:29 < satchdotnet/D> LOL!
12:29 < Miles/D> aye
12:29 < Miles/D> motion passes
12:30 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
12:30 < satchdotnet/D> At least we didn't lose the whole day with Procedural Motions 🤘
12:37 [Users #ppau-congress]
12:37 [~alexjago] [@RelayBot] [+jedb] [+thesunnyk] [ Nick_] 
12:37 -!- Irssi: #ppau-congress: Total of 5 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 2 voices, 1 normal]
12:37 < alexjago/D> @.milspec can you write something? Just testing the brudge
12:37 < alexjago/D> hmm it might not be fully back yet
12:38 <~alexjago> other way?
12:38 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v RelayBot] by alexjago
12:38 < alexjago/D> aha
12:38 < alexjago/D> try again?
12:39 < alexjago/D> dang
12:45 <~alexjago> (fixin bugs)
12:45 < alexjago/D> (yes)
12:45 < alexjago/D> ok again?
12:50 <~alexjago> literally just Milspec so I don't know why
12:50 <~alexjago> but I fixed an issue where the bridge couldn't write its logfle so now we can test haha
12:52 < idcrisis/D> hi
12:54 < alexjago/D> I don't think so - others have those roles and aren't having issues
12:55 < alexjago/D> frustratingly the deliverability fail is also not showing up in my logs
13:00 < satchdotnet/D> RE The upcoming UBI/GBI/Citizens Dividend motion, has anyone run models projecting the impact, and adjusting for the invevitable impact on upwards enflation? I'm not against it, I just want to understand more about the econmic fallout.
13:01 < satchdotnet/D> RE The upcoming UBI/GBI/Citizens Dividend motion, has anyone run models projecting the impact, and adjusting for the invevitable impact on upwards inflation? I'm not against it, I just want to understand more about the econmic fallout. (edited)
13:03 < satchdotnet/D> An example is that as the buying power of people increases, the free market will always increase the costs of commodities unless heavily regulated by centralised powers.
13:04 < satchdotnet/D> So the average cost of living will always rise to absorb most of the average disposable income of it's citizens.
13:08 < satchdotnet/D> We've seen this in our housing and food markets. Left unchecked, the real estate bubble will balloon until it explodes, and the household cost of basic food and sanitary supplies grows.
13:13 < Simon/D> @.milspec
13:24 < idcrisis/D> hi, what is the next upcoming motion? is it: CAP-1: National Council Quorum Reduction?
13:24 < andrewdpirate/D> Nope. Did that one. It passed.
13:25 <~alexjago> Only one left is PM-1
13:25 < idcrisis/D> ok, thanks...
13:29 < idcrisis/D> greetings, about nation finances, there is a serious gap in reporting standards that are adhered to on paper by reporting everything in AUD only...that allows them to report something and reduce the AUD to 0.66 USD and report great economic non recessionary values...recommend that both internal and notational values start to slowly be used to measure strength of economy....
13:33 < Miles/D> <@&358404846354825216> we are resuming for after lunch session
13:34 < satchdotnet/D> Yes
13:34 < satchdotnet/D> You switched it to a SP chat feed 😛
13:35 < alexjago/D> @mandrke this channel 🙂
13:36 <~alexjago> diffs: 
13:36 <~alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=Pirate_Congress_2023%2FMotions%2FEconomics_Policy_Update&type=revision&diff=13456&oldid=13407
13:36 < andrewdpirate/D> @alexjago Looks like you're showing not the congress channel in the stream
13:37 <~alexjago> yeah that's a mandrke problem
13:37 < andrewdpirate/D> @mandrke  ^^^
13:39 < alexjago/D> @mandrke the discord half of stream is not Congress
13:40 < zach__1234/D> could use a zoom in if were supposed to look at the text there instead of in our own tabs
13:40 < satchdotnet/D> Yes, but I can see an issue with calling it a Citizens dividend. UBI is what's most widely understood my the most people.
13:40 < mandrke/D> Sorry...
13:40 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> thx mandrke
13:42 < zach__1234/D> Offering any of these significant payouts to non-citizens will quickly bankrupt the country
13:43 < idcrisis/D> a) 50th percentile ( only half the national citizens are economically feasible ) b) the forex ratio CFD market is $3 Trillion dollars a day that can be taxed ( from an AUD perspective ) c) New Zealand has acted on the CFD market already ( their action was just to remove NZD denominated accounts for international accounts...
13:43 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> the NIT was going to be for only citizens anyway. that isn't really in dispute.
13:44 < satchdotnet/D> Giving any form of UBI to non-citazins begs the question of border policy. Australia needs strong immigration policy.
13:44 < satchdotnet/D> Giving any form of UBI to non-citazens begs the question of border policy. Australia needs strong immigration policy. (edited)
13:46 < satchdotnet/D> This is a hot topic, as this is a socialist policy, and we have the libertarian side to consider of course.
13:47 < satchdotnet/D> Giving any form of UBI to non-citizens begs the question of border policy. Australia needs strong immigration policy. (edited)
13:47 < johna8860/D> It is also about reducing the bureaucratic overhead in term of those who receive welfare.
13:48 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> That is the goal. We cannot afford to do that for any and all permanent citizens especially considering this would attract many people to australia looking for a handout. I support a route to citizenship which would allow people to buy into the system but I am completely against allowing people who are only residents to get money taken from taxes.
13:49 < gimmeadrink/D> How would this work for aussie ex-pats, who may not be actively paying tax or GST within Australia?
13:49 <+jedb> satchdotnet: is it a socialist policy though? I'm not seeing calls for increased public ownership and control of things
13:49 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Also going off NIT would allow potentially going completely away from Income Tax and toward GST/Land Tax which are both more progressive and don't disincentivise labour.
13:50 < zach__1234/D> My issues and questions will come in later segments of this policy
13:50 < andrewdpirate/D> @.milspec, I think that's some great work you've done here. Thanks for your hard work.
13:51 <+jedb> QUESTION: has there been any consideration for minimum wage law implications? I can't see mention of wages outside of the visa rent section
13:51 < Simon/D> COMMENT: I don't like that it would be an abandonment of UBI which is something has been one of our strongest campaign points. I would feel more comfortable with we considered CD a form of UBI rather than drop UBI.
13:51 < alexjago/D> COMMENT: you still need min wage laws because of e.g. international students
13:51 < gimmeadrink/D> QUESTION:  How would this work for aussie ex-pats, who may not be actively paying tax or GST within Australia?
13:52 < zach__1234/D> Flat income tax is quite fair, in a certain sense, alongside its simplicity
13:52 < Simon/D> PRs would have to be paid more so that they can pay their tax bill
13:53 <+jedb> Simon: CD, UBI, NIT are all basically the same thing with quibbling over pluses and minuses of implementation details
13:53 < andrewdpirate/D> COMMENT: If permanent residents want to benefit from this, then can apply to become citizens.
13:53 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> I disagree. This doesn't seem to follow.
13:54 < Simon/D> @jedb I think that the name is important. I want it to be written on paper that Pirates support "Universal Busic Income" as a specific term rather than "Pirates dumped UBI for CD".
13:54 < idcrisis/D> another point, every government subsidy in australia, be it LPG conversion, solar of cars, the price increases directly by the exact amount of the subsidy...so basically prices will inflate by 500 billion dollars...so price "callout" ( not regulation ), where blatant gouging is called out....ok some regulation of price controls need to be looked at...
13:54 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> We already don't support UBI technnicaly. We support NIT as an equivilant alternative to UBI which we advertise as UBI. We can do the same thing with CD.
13:55 < satchdotnet/D> So is there any minumum income? It doesn't make sense fr welfare recipients to pay tax if they're receiving under a threshold.
13:55 < Simon/D> @star_tubeI propose that this continues
13:55 < satchdotnet/D> So is there any minumum income? It doesn't make sense if welfare recipients to pay tax they're receiving under a threshold. (edited)
13:55 < alexjago/D> I'd have to check the wording but I presume the CD would not be taxed
13:56 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Agreed. If it comes up when motions are being done I would support any change to the current motion that brings it more into line with that idea.
13:56 < andrewdpirate/D> If people want to discuss Pirate policies at all, that's a great thing
13:56 < andrewdpirate/D> Go weirdness.
13:58 < mandrke/D> Taxing Gifts and Inheritances as Income... also this means that Lotteries Wins will be taxed
13:58 < andrewdpirate/D> The way we become a party with a reputation for radically interesting policies, is by doing exactly that
13:59 <+jedb> honestly if lotteries just vanished overnight then nothing of value would really be lost...
13:59 < satchdotnet/D> I wasn't against the wild notion of replacing most taxes with a flat transfer tax.
13:59 < alexjago/D> transfer taxes *very* bad
13:59 < Simon/D> Some things which might be a "Too Weird" like Death Taxes have the effect that someone who might agree with us 99% will get to the 1% thing (Death Tax for example) and then write us off as an option.
13:59 < idcrisis/D> the official measure of inflation does not include basic amenities like electricity, health, transport, education, food, water...
14:00 < idcrisis/D> housing...
14:01 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Thanks for the input. We aren't talking about inflation right now though.
14:01 < idcrisis/D> PM1 - "Inflationary Effects"
14:02 <+jedb> COMMENT: Australian govt is so authoritarian and divergent from PPAU values that we will be pretty weird no matter what we do
14:03 < satchdotnet/D> Regulated free markets, social safety nets, and freedom for citizens.
14:05 < andrewdpirate/D> COMMENT: If you're concerned about dropping references to UBI, I don't think that's really a problem at a policy level. You can still run campaigns about UBI, but detailed discussion of the method of implementing UBI would be explained by this policy. It is providing a basic income in for form of a dividend to all citizens.
14:05 < idcrisis/D> what about arbitrage bullies...like the price of electricity and carbon credits and health insurance and property etc get reflected from other nations due to arbitrage...should arbitrage be taxed to slow the arbitrage bullies....
14:06 < Star_Tube-(James)/D> Q: Wouldn't moving money to lower income portions of the society be nominally deflationary because it increases the velocity because lower income citizens spend faster on GST taxed products?
14:07 < satchdotnet/D> My primary opinion is that, regardless of the specifics of implementation, UBI has wider public understanding than re-labelling it as something most have never heard of.
14:07 < johna8860/D> Yes, makes sense.
14:08 < alexjago/D> @.milspec @☠_Swashbuckler_☠ I've just made a config change to the IRC bridge, can either of you say somethjing
14:08 < milspec/D> test
14:08 < Swashbuckler/D> test
14:08 <~alexjago> woooo
14:08 < andrewdpirate/D> Our previous policy was a NIT, but we still promoted it as UBI
14:08 < milspec/D> test
14:08 <+jedb> wow, a wild milspec is visible
14:08 <~alexjago> all hail https://github.com/42wim/matterbridge/wiki/Settings#stripnick
14:09 < StarTubeJames/D> Might be able to remix the two names to something like "Citizens Basic Income" or "Universal Dividend"
14:10 < alexjago/D> people with special characters, like dots, weren't coming through
14:10 < StarTubeJames/D> Though that may just be even more complex.
14:10 < zach1234/D> I dont find a problem with either name. A name is a name
14:11 < alexjago/D> PROCESS: series of amendment motions to keep or remove the modules, and then whether to progress or ditch the amended text
14:11 <+jedb> a name has implications that can be annoying, even if at the end of the day a name is just a name
14:11 < andrewdpirate/D> QUESTION: Isn't there a problem if we approve some parts of this and not others?   I expect that would make an incoherent or unbalanced overall policy.
14:11 < gimmeadrink/D> Balancing the CBI against the CPI.  Has a nice ring to it.
14:12 < Miles/D> @jedb a rose by any other name would smell as sweet
14:12 < alexjago/D> that would be a reason to vote against any given amendment
14:12 < StarTubeJames/D> That would be adressed in the final vote as to whether the final product is coherent.
14:13 < Simon/D> QUESTION: Why don't we treat the rest of the day (aside from Guest speaker) as a PDC, milspec can make requested changes, and we finalise tomorrow?
14:14 < alexjago/D> Simon: with guest speaker at 3pm we won't get through it all today anyway
14:15 < satchdotnet/D> We don't have to spin this off to a sub committee unless the outcome calls for it.
14:16 < Simon/D> I mean, not actual PDC, but everyone here works on clearing up milspecs policy as the task for today without official voting on it
14:16 <+jedb> to some degree it may have been better if this policy was organised into multiple motions in the agenda
14:16 < alexjago/D> BUG: $28.4 billion divided by (21.3 million citizens times 52 weeks) equals $26/person/week, not $32
14:17 < Swashbuckler/D> Q: won't a 25% flat tax without UBI be devastating for poor permanent residents tax wise?
14:18 < idcrisis/D> what is the internet, possibly 50% of the time, one leg of the parties to a transaction are in a different nation...there is no point in discussing taxation like the olden days of taxing nationals with complete disregard to the way the internet works...enter cfds...
14:20 < alexjago/D> really good Q from Swashbuckler
14:20 < Swashbuckler/D> low income yeah
14:21 < Simon/D> many low income PRs, that is the whole point of having them, they are low paid workers doing the jobs Aussies don't want.
14:22 < johna8860/D> In an ideal world, we pay them more and they can pay the flat tax. At present we have issues with non-residents, "legal" and otherwise, working cash jobs, a bit of a muddle ...
14:23 <+jedb> importing foreigners to do low paid work sounds like a sketchy concept anyway
14:24 < zach1234/D> Permanent residents could get a lesser dividend, to offset the significantly higher tax rate for under 45k/year
14:24 < alexjago/D> I'd support an amendment to set the tax free threshold for non-citizens at the level of the CD
14:24 < Simon/D> yes and if PRs continue, this would make it even more sketch.
14:24 < Swashbuckler/D> I understand that CD would make the flat tax more progressive, but 25% on every dollar earned without it is harsh
14:24 < Simon/D> @☠_Swashbuckler_☠The CD negates harshness of no threshold
14:24 < satchdotnet/D> Indeed, I once worked for a consultancy that just kept a few of us in Australia, and they paid the off shore devs $12/hour to write code to our specs.
14:24 < zach1234/D> Existing federal income tax rates: https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Individual-income-tax-rates/
14:25 < alexjago/D> progressive tax better because diminishing utility of money
14:25 < Swashbuckler/D> not for permanent residents is what I am saying
14:26 < Simon/D> exactly
14:26 < zach1234/D> If basic expenses like food are excluded, a progressive tax curve has no moral justification. Unfortunately those are significant expenses for low income people
14:26 < satchdotnet/D> There should be a minimine tax threshold.
14:27 < idcrisis/D> why doesn't the government play the markets to make money? so it doesn't have tax and money printing as the only way to fund anything...
14:28 <+jedb> half? try 75% of the budget on housing expenses at the lowest end of things
14:28 < satchdotnet/D> They do. Government bonds and quasi-gpvernment stocks.
14:28 < johna8860/D> Also Housing Australia Future Fund ...
14:29 < andrewdpirate/D> The progressiveness  of all this is in the shift away from income taxes across to assets, and the application of the flat tax at the low end is offset by the citizens dividend.
14:29 < Simon/D> actually DSP+RA is al ittle bit more
14:29 <+jedb> idcrisis: we moved away from tax-to-spend a loooong time ago, and taxes and govt spending is all about controlling inflation and keeping the economy a functioning playing field these days
14:31 < Simon/D> https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/payment-rates-for-disability-support-pension?context=22276  
14:31 < Simon/D> https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-much-rent-assistance-you-can-get?context=22206
14:31 < Simon/D> = $532 + 120.20 = $652.2
14:31 < alexjago/D> I'll note that if you're on JobSeeker earning one more dollar can cost you up to 60c in welfare, so that's a 60% tax rate for low income people
14:31 < Simon/D> so $72 a week worse off
14:32 < idcrisis/D> ok if devaluing the currency is not reported, costs of australian property to international parties is 33% lesser ( seeing how AUD moved from 1.10 USd to 0.66 ) and no difference to nationals...
14:32 < Swashbuckler/D> I'm not in favour of flat tax
14:33 < Simon/D> I am in favour conditional on PRs being adequately addressed later on, because the flat tax only works in conjunction with CD.
14:33 < Swashbuckler/D> ok, how do I structure that? never done that before
14:33 <+jedb> COMMENT: I think the only big problem with flat tax in the context of CD/UBI/NIT is with resident non-citizens, but we aren't talking about that aspect right now
14:33 < alexjago/D> > motion: amend PM-1 to remove section 1.2 "Transition to a Flat Income Tax System"
14:34 < Swashbuckler/D> MOTION: amend PM-1 section 1.2 "Transition to a Flat Income Tax System"
14:34 < StarTubeJames/D> I can't seem to find any rate as high as $120 per week for rent assistance.
14:34 < Miles/D> hold your votes
14:34 < andrewdpirate/D> @.milspec, can this overall policy work without this section?
14:34 < Miles/D> is everyone happy with that motion text, or does anyone suggest changes to it?
14:34 < milspec/D> yes, it can, but it will have a $32 impact on weekly CD
14:34 < Swashbuckler/D> MOTION: amend PM-1 to remove section 1.2 "Transition to a Flat Income Tax System" (edited)
14:35 < Simon/D> @star_tube ah yes im looking at wrong column
14:35 < milspec/D> I'll have to do some rewriting in some parts
14:35 < Miles/D> start voting
14:35 < StarTubeJames/D> Nay
14:35 < zach1234/D> nay
14:35 < Miles/D> abstain
14:35 < gimmeadrink/D> Nay
14:35 < andrewdpirate/D> nay
14:35 < milspec/D> nay
14:35 < mandrke/D> nay
14:35 <+jedb> nay
14:35 < gold1227/D> Nay
14:35 < johna8860/D> nay
14:35 < satchdotnet/D> Abstain
14:35 < Simon/D> abstain
14:36 < idcrisis/D> aye
14:36 < Swashbuckler/D> aye
14:36 < alexjago/D> I'll vote AYE on this because there's achievements we could make elsewhere
14:36 < alexjago/D> (which get most of the flat tax wins without the vitriol from every other leftist)
14:36 < Jay/D> Aye
14:38 < StarTubeJames/D> "My enemy like this so I shouldn't like this"
14:38 < StarTubeJames/D> reflexive antibipartisanship
14:38 < mandrke/D> @alexjago please explain later...
14:38 < Miles/D> close voting
14:39 < Swashbuckler/D> 4 in favour I think
14:39 < alexjago/D> the household agnosticism is the big one
14:41 < johna8860/D> Georgism goes back to Mencius, Chinese philosopher.
14:42 < idcrisis/D> did you know that 70% of the world's rain is from the dust from south australian land?
14:42 <+jedb> technically there is already land with a value of essentially $0, but nobody cares about it because it has that value for good reason...
14:44 < gold1227/D> Owner occupied exemptions too
14:44 < satchdotnet/D> Yes, obviously this should exempt home-occupiers.
14:45 <+jedb> COMMENT: replacing state level taxes with a federal tax will probably attract a lot of pushback from state govts
14:45 < idcrisis/D> why cannot you offset carbon credits with natural contribution to world rain?
14:45 < Simon/D> COMMENT: can LVT replace council rates also?
14:45 < satchdotnet/D> I finally bought a home, though HSBC still owns the majority of it's value.
14:45 < zach1234/D> 3% feels really high, though such an exemption may lessen that. To have paid the entire value in taxes in only 33 years, wow
14:46 <+jedb> idcrisis: you got a source for that 70% figure?
14:46 < alexjago/D> I'd support an amendment to clarify that states are reimbursed to the amount of money they're losing
14:47 < alexjago/D> oh i see, it's in the text, not the dotpoint
14:47 < gimmeadrink/D> QUESTION:  My concern with this also ties into the proposed fertiliser tax.  How do you implement these without severely negatively impacting agricultural producers?
14:48 < Jay/D> Meh $20bn doesn't even build you an Inland Rail these days 😅
14:48  * jedb sighs
14:49 < Simon/D> I would like some modelling of what a typical family homeowner would pay extra and how it would affect their mortgages etc.
14:49 < milspec/D> hey guys, i have to transition to hands free mode... sorry can't read text for awhile
14:49 < alexjago/D> Council rates are also around specific cost recovery around services to a large extent
14:49 <+jedb> local council exists at the whim of the states so they can delegate things they don't want to deal with directly, as can be seen with how local councils don't exist in ACT
14:51 < satchdotnet/D> Local councils are closest to us. State and Federal can't address local issues, or involve locals in the process.
14:51 < Simon/D> if LVT is too high wouldn't that force peole out of their homes?
14:51 < alexjago/D> (and finally a fair bit of council funding comes from state and federal governments anyway)
14:51 < idcrisis/D> https://www.droughtmanagement.info/literature/UNCCD_global_alarm_dust_and_sandstorms_2002.pdf is a start...
14:51 < Simon/D> or force farmers off their farms
14:51 < StarTubeJames/D> How do you determine if agriculture use is actually happening? potentially someone may claim to be a farmer while being a hobbiest or even not farming on the land at all.
14:51 < andrewdpirate/D> @milspec, looking ahead slightly, the Fertilizer tax could be a real problem in the short to medium term. Phosphate prices are already through the roof since our primary source (China) is now hoarding it, and nitrogenous fertilizers have came primarily from Ukraine and Russia, so we're looking at a global shortage.
14:51 < StarTubeJames/D> Q: How do you determine if agriculture use is actually happening? potentially someone may claim to be a farmer while being a hobbiest or even not farming on the land at all. (edited)
14:52 < mandrke/D> 10 seconds delay
14:53 < satchdotnet/D> Anarchist farming
14:53 < idcrisis/D> https://www.droughtmanagement.info/literature/UNCCD_global_alarm_dust_and_sandstorms_2002.pdf is a start..., https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/1301.0main+features1432012 (edited)
14:53 < alexjago/D> as far as owner occupied properties goes, remember this substitutes for stamp duty
14:54 < StarTubeJames/D> My main concern is with the billionaire farmer who happens to also buy and sell land. Might be an easy loophole to see but not simple to define as far as I can tell.
14:54 < Simon/D> if someone has already paid stamp duty, now they will be slugged LVT. there must be a credit of stamp duty paid or just for new homes or something?
14:55 < satchdotnet/D> We have lots going on in the backyward, but the possums ate our lettuce sprouts, but we're looking to have enough by summer.
14:55 < gimmeadrink/D> (full disclosure - I'm pruning my mango tree and checking the chook coop while listening)
14:55 < alexjago/D> yes, I'd support a sub-dot-point to apply a (partial) credid to LVT based on recent stamp duty paid
14:55 < Jay/D> Ditto
14:55 < Miles/D> @gimmeadrink @jaystephens pirate farmer faction
14:56 < Miles/D> also @thefred3672
14:56 < Miles/D> we've had heaps of other farmers in the party before too
14:56 < alexjago/D> QUESTION: ok, but what about conservation land?
14:56 < Jay/D> Rural interest SIG incoming
14:57 < satchdotnet/D> hey s this is davids mate, gardening as way of building community is something i am loking int myself
14:59 <+jedb> alexjago: that would be a question about non-crown conservation land, I guess?
15:01 < StarTubeJames/D> It is also hard to determine the value of conservation land for the sake of calculating LVT.
15:01 < satchdotnet/D> brb
15:03 < idcrisis/D> dividing total land value thinking held by a few but per capita leaves australia at a 1000% disadvantage to nz...
15:03 < StarTubeJames/D> Also private conservations can produce revenue through ticketing or through renting companies setting up unintrusive stalls on the land. idk if it would be feasible for that to cover LVT. maybe they could be calculated with an altered LVT calculation?
15:05 < alexjago/D> CALL for motions on this section
15:06 < Simon/D> happy with LVT in princple
15:08 < idcrisis/D> please consider throughfare rules continent wide...who is allowed to walk across what?
15:08 <+jedb> right to roam law would certainly be nice, but not currently ontopic
15:09 < milspec/D> I've had to drop from the call but listening in via YT
15:10 < milspec/D> Exempted home owners is a pretty big carveout
15:10 < idcrisis/D> australasia is a different legal entity than australia...
15:12 < milspec/D> @sorokyne stamp duty a once off payment so in the steady state it wont affect costing
15:12 < milspec/D> @sorokyne stamp duty a once off payment so exempting past payers  in the steady state it wont affect costing (edited)
15:12 < Simon/D> "recently paid stamp duty" a bit vague, maybe like NSW did to only count for new homes? or a much lesser rate where SD already paid?
15:13 <~alexjago> I'd do it as "whatever stamp duty last was, you get that dollar figure as a credit"
15:13 < Miles/D> MOTION: Amend PM1 "1.3 The Case for a Federal Land Value Tax" to add a final bullet point "In principle, we also support targetted exemptions for owner-occupied land and land zoned for agricultural use."
15:13 < Miles/D> (dont vote yet)
15:13 < milspec/D> Miles, I'm not sure if you missed it, but I suggest encouraging certain land use via subsidies rather than making carveouts. Because the value of the incentive might be different from the tax
15:13 < Simon/D> I think  a back assessment is the only fair way
15:14 < Simon/D> I think mulspec wants OO and Ag included?
15:14 < Simon/D> I think milspec wants OO and Ag included? (edited)
15:15 <~alexjago> for reference, policy as of 2022 would apply a per-square-metre tax-free-threshold, and exclude land "in its natural state"
15:17 < milspec/D> Yeah that's correct. I didn't actually like the rewilded land part because a lot of land bankers would come under that
15:18 < satchdotnet/D> Perhaps a limit on the size of property as a threshold? Nobody needs more than a few acrews for personal use.
15:18 < satchdotnet/D> Perhaps a limit on the size of property as a threshold? Nobody needs more than a few acres for personal use. (edited)
15:19 < milspec/D> Should we have a motion for subsidies?
15:23 < milspec/D> I don't mind either way.
15:23 < idcrisis/D> land rating from a green productivity/natural perspective, from 1 star empty, to mono culture to naturally dusty and green cover, to 6 star for permaculture...
15:23 < satchdotnet/D> Could turn it over, and define commercial use for profit, instead f trying to define a threshold for family properties.
15:24 < satchdotnet/D> Could turn it over, and define commercial use for profit, instead of trying to define a threshold for family properties. (edited)
15:24 <~alexjago> if we're gonna move on, can we move on?
15:24 < gold1227/D> How do you determine whether "rewilding" is actually done in earnest and not just being done temporarily for the intention of land banking?
15:24 < gimmeadrink/D> Without trying to throw a spanner into the works, is there anything we need to be aware of for the land tax portion that would run contrary to the Fusion housing policy that is currently getting developed?
15:25 <+jedb> lmao "just abolish all taxes, that'll solve everything"
15:25 < satchdotnet/D> I need to clean or replace my keyboard. The 'o' key doesn't work sometimes.
15:25 < alexjago/D> formal conservation covenant
15:25 < gimmeadrink/D> 'smetimes'?
15:26 < alexjago/D> legal conservation covenant
15:26 < satchdotnet/D> Yes, exactlly that
15:26 < alexjago/D> extinguish the covenant, you're up for LVT again (and for CGT)
15:27 < gold1227/D> So you would have to backpay all LVT and capital gains made in that time?
15:27 < gold1227/D> So you would have to backpay all LVT excused and capital gains made in that time? (edited)
15:27 < alexjago/D> potentially
15:27 < idcrisis/D> soil quality per acre determined by moisture and ph from drones and gps as nationwide heatmap...
15:27 < milspec/D> Hmm theyre still talking through potential solutions. Nothing is incompatible with LVT
15:28 < StarTubeJames/D> My 5 key doesn't work either. That's why I can't type the percent symbol.
15:28 < alexjago/D> Maybe half or something - it has at least performed some ecological function
15:29 < Simon/D> What are thoughts on skipping 25% flat tax and print money to the same effect instead? that way no tax collection/dodging if AUD is used.
15:29 < alexjago/D> I'd like to add a transitional measure wrt Stamp Duty
15:29 < alexjago/D> but I'll also draft overnight
15:29 < alexjago/D> not complex, just can't do three things at once
15:30 < Jay/D> Input into overnight considerations: land isn't fungible because of zoning, so you can't have any major carve outs for owner occupied residential without making the purpose of the policy moot
15:32 < alexjago/D> if no guest speaker then let's go til 4
15:33 < alexjago/D> ok, fair
15:33 < StarTubeJames/D> Who is the quest speaker? Is there potential for members to put questions for you to bring to them?
15:33 < milspec/D> Yeah sorry guys
15:33 < mandrke/D> Sven?
15:33 < milspec/D> I don't mind being represented by someone else on voice though haha
15:33 < satchdotnet/D> Sounds fair
15:34 < Simon/D> I am interested in how Sven got elected?
15:36 < idcrisis/D> what is a document after your msoffice expires and you're not using libreoffice?
15:36 < idcrisis/D> govt wide...:)
15:37 < StarTubeJames/D> ur muted @alexjago
15:37 < satchdotnet/D> Very much like the origins if TPD, with a couple  imprisoned, and another who scored the first EU Pirate seat.
15:37 < satchdotnet/D> Very much like the origins oof TPD, with a couple  imprisoned, and another who scored the first EU Pirate seat. (edited)
15:37 < Miles/D> ```Q: What was your background before you got into politics? 
15:37 < Miles/D> Q: What initially sparked your interest in Pirate politics? 
15:37 < Miles/D> Q: What is your role now, and what do you spend time doing? 
15:37 < Miles/D> Q: Can you tell us a little bit about your election campaign? 
15:37 < Miles/D> Q: How does Pirate Politics apply at a local council level? 
15:37 < Miles/D> ```
15:37 < satchdotnet/D> Very much like the origins of TPD, with a couple  imprisoned, and another who scored the first EU Pirate seat. (edited)
15:37 < Miles/D> questions for guest speaker Sven Clements, Pirate Party Luxembourg
15:38 < StarTubeJames/D> Nothing wrong with a drunken interview.
15:38 < Simon/D> perhaps during
15:39 < zach1234/D> There might be, since we'll all be watching it tomorrow, not in that same state
15:39 < Miles/D> MOTION: adjourn National Congress 2023 until 10am tomorrow (Sunday)
15:39 < Miles/D> dont vote yet
15:39 < Miles/D> is motion text ok?
15:39 < alexjago/D> I encourage people to really review the remaining policy text overnight because we're going to have to work quickly tomorrow
15:39 < alexjago/D> text ol
15:40 < Miles/D> ok start votes
15:40 < Miles/D> i vote aye
15:40 < alexjago/D> aye
15:40 < idcrisis/D> aye
15:40 < StarTubeJames/D> Aye
15:40 < johna8860/D> aye
15:40 < mandrke/D> aye
15:40 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
15:40 <+jedb> aye
15:40 < milspec/D> Aye
15:40 < zach1234/D> aye
15:40 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
15:40 < Simon/D> aye
15:40 < gold1227/D> Aye
15:41 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
15:41 < Miles/D> close voting, motion passes
15:41 < satchdotnet/D> Rune stones, nice gamer ref
15:42 < satchdotnet/D> Tomorrow
15:42 < milspec/D> Cya tomorrow guys!
15:42 < Simon/D> ty o/
15:43 < gimmeadrink/D> o7
15:44 < Jay/D> Aye
15:45 < Jay/D> What's the YouTube delay lol
15:47 < Miles/D> 10sec
15:47 <~alexjago> #### end day 1 ####
15:49 < Miles/D> @alexjago just had a call with bridgid, we want to move her interview to first item of business at 10am tmw
15:50 < Miles/D> that will give us a bit more flexibility with the later schedule, because if i have this video interview with sven then we can just play that anytime
15:50 <~alexjago> cool
16:24 -!- jedb [[email protected]] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
17:07 -!- jedb [[email protected]] has joined #ppau-congress
17:29 < milspec/D> yeah fair enough, I'm not an expert at this one so it might be one of the ones we remove
17:59 < andrewdpirate/D> We probably end up building up our own production facilities for that stuff but it's going to take time. We have gas inputs for the nitrogenous stuff but not enough refining capacity. Phosphates have to come from mining rock phosphate deposits, but that would need a lot of development to scale up too - we've been getting this cheap from China.
17:59 < andrewdpirate/D> There's also a trend toward high-tech farming where we're exact dosing water/fertilizers/pesticides/weed killing on a plant by plant basis as tractors run across the land - this produces much higher and more reliable overall yields without the run-off.  I saw a thing recently where they had a tractor with lasers that zapped bugs and weeds directly from image recognition.
19:58 -!- jedb [[email protected]] has quit [connection closed]
19:58 -!- jedb [[email protected]] has joined #ppau-congress
21:01 < milspec/D> Yeah agreed
23:10 < alexjago/D> Wording for the two amendments I wanted to put re LVT:
23:10 < alexjago/D> * Credit the cost of the most recent stamp duty paid against land value tax obligations, as a transitional mechanism
23:10 < alexjago/D> And in the absence of a specified subsidy programme:
23:10 < alexjago/D> * Exempt conservation land
--- Day changed Sun Jul 23 2023
00:44 -!- jedb [[email protected]] has quit [Ping timeout: 2m30s]
01:11 -!- jedb [[email protected]] has joined #ppau-congress
01:44 < milspec/D> Agree with the first one. 
01:44 < milspec/D> How about something about in principle support for subsidies?
08:20 < alexjago/D> I'm not opposed to a subsidies programme, but I'd want to specify it more than a dot point, but that's too much for now, therefore my other option
08:24 < idcrisis/D> how about graded gst to incentivise low prices...1% for lowest priced items, 2% for next lowest priced items, 3% for next lowest priced items, 9% for second highest priced items, 10% for most highest priced items?
08:47 < alexjago/D> Also @.milspec I'm not convinced about the revenue numbers for CGT discount abolition - sure were abolishing the discount but for the high end we're also near-halving the base rate
08:53 < alexjago/D> As for graduated GST - how would a retailer know what price decile their product was in?
09:00 < idcrisis/D> we would have to classify it, otherwise they will just collude to keep the entire set of prices up, it would have to add up to the inflation numbers...the basic items to live a dignified life are the food component of the nationwide inflation metric, that's both monitored from a national perspective and a "gouging compared to international" perspective because gold-plating infras <clipped message>
09:00 < idcrisis/D> tructure is a common thing in aussie providers like electricity and telecom etc, where they use expensive items in the infrastructure and keep the prices of all up...water 10x compared to the world, electricity 10x compared to the world, LPG 5x compared to the input costs...also buffering, stabiliser batteries water tanks at the house keeps prices low...ok even incinerating toile <clipped message>
09:00 < idcrisis/D> ts...
09:00 < idcrisis/D> yes a billion dollars per km of road in victoria...
09:01 < idcrisis/D> or something i forget...
09:38 < milspec/D> Yeah it's difficult to estimate how flat tax would affect CGT. As you can see in the flat tax estimate, it's impact on income tax is actually an increase in the tax raised. So depending on how CGT sits on the income spectrum. it might not impact the revenue as much as you think.
09:39 < alexjago/D> well a lot of CGT is property sales, so that blows through the brackets
09:59 < idcrisis/D> https://newatlas.com/energy-on-demand-redox-home-electricity-generation-storage-system/49568/ - A new energy production device called a Chemical Looping Energy-on-Demand System (CLES) can produce electricity, heating, cooling, hot water, oxygen and hydrogen in one system
09:59 < idcrisis/D>     University of Newcastle 
09:59 < idcrisis/D> https://www.riversimple.com/ - Hydrogen fuel included in the car lease costs
09:59 < satchdotnet/D> Morning all! :tapebones:
10:00 < Miles/D> morning dave, just in time
10:00 < Simon/D> No Audio
10:01 < Simon/D> Audio working
10:01 < mandrke/D> sorry!
10:01 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v jedb] by alexjago
10:01 [Users #ppau-congress]
10:01 [~alexjago] [@RelayBot] [+jedb] [+thesunnyk] [ Nick_] 
10:01 -!- Irssi: #ppau-congress: Total of 5 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 2 voices, 1 normal]
10:04 <+jedb> considering the traditional owners as if they somehow have claim to land in perpetuity despite everything sounds suspiciously similar to perpetual copyright, so no, I don't think I will consider them, thank you
10:04 < zach1234/D> Its a manner of careful wording to not tick off a harsh response
10:05 < Miles/D> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/National_Congress_Standing_Orders
10:05 < mandrke/D> This stream was mixed in the Kirra ung dinga (Modbury) area of Kaurna Yerta (Adelaide)
10:06 <+jedb> ugh, more "never ceded sovereignty" nonsense
10:09 < milspec/D> It's difficult to estimate. Atm PPORs are exempt, and investors, well many of them use trusts and companies. Companies tax rate is capped at 30%, and also can be used to spread out that gain across years or defer to a low income tax efficient year.
10:10 < johna8860/D> Yes, interesting that the Labor ministers involved in implementing HECS for the most part had free tertiary education themselves.
10:12 < Jay/D> Great to see we're attracting some veteran punk anarchists to the party 😀
10:12 < idcrisis/D> what's a health faucet?
10:14 < satchdotnet/D> @mandrke Bridgid's stream isn't visible no the YT feed.
10:15 < satchdotnet/D> @mandrke Bridgid's stream isn't visible on the YT feed. (edited)
10:15 < Miles/D> i can see bridgid on the YT stream
10:15 < satchdotnet/D> Ah, my bad.
10:18 < idcrisis/D> continental passports to alleviate asylum seeker problem...
10:18 < johna8860/D> Yes, confidentiality of stuff in government is an issue, also stuff in council meetings that is labelled "confidential".
10:20 < idcrisis/D> ok, i heard that at the tent embassy...
10:20 < satchdotnet/D> Corporate too. A few monts ago Telstra started enforcing a selection for classification rating on all Office documents.
10:21 < mandrke/D> Suburbs of the City of Yarra: Abbotsford, Burnley, Clifton Hill, Collingwood, Cremorne, Fitzroy, Princes Hill and Richmond
10:21 < mandrke/D> Alphington & Fairfield are shared with the City of Darebin, Carlton North is Shared with the City of Melbourne, and Fitzroy North is shared with the City of Merribek    
10:21 < mandrke/D> So, inner northern suburbs (neighbourhoods) of Melbourne
10:21 < johna8860/D> I recall being at a science fiction covention, where a fan from Rumania ( I think ) was speaking that he circulated science fiction underground for ten years, and then took up a gun and fought for his country. But he said that he saw his participation in the underground SF movement as more significant.
10:22 < idcrisis/D> The Good Book, the good book!
10:22 < satchdotnet/D> Invite a Satanist to conduct a prayer, and see if they're still in favour of including an opening prayer. 🤘
10:24 < idcrisis/D> what does evidence based mean? is it humanly possible to see all the evidence?
10:25 < satchdotnet/D> It's never perfect, but it's the principal of basing decisions on the best understanding available, rather than being based on feelings and abstract ideologies.
10:26 < idcrisis/D> https://www.creativemachineslab.com/hidden-variables.html - hidden variables...decimal variables not factored in current definitions of evidence...basically means "sometimes in play"...
10:27 <~alexjago> QUESTION: do you have commentary on the ward boundary changes?
10:27 < mandrke/D> Suburbs of the City of Yarra: Abbotsford, Burnley, Clifton Hill, Collingwood, Cremorne, Fitzroy, Princes Hill and Richmond
10:27 < mandrke/D> Alphington & Fairfield are shared with the City of Darebin, Carlton North is Shared with the City of Melbourne, and Fitzroy North is shared with the City of Merri-bek    
10:27 < mandrke/D> So, inner northern suburbs (neighbourhoods) of Melbourne (edited)
10:28 <~alexjago> COMMENT: yeah, but BCC councillors represent a lot of people
10:33 < idcrisis/D> how to about evidence in response to stimuli...or interventionist science, like stoking a fire...
10:34 < johna8860/D> QUESTION: if other councilors are being dodgy - that might mean abusing committee process, trying to push things towards being confidential, or generally being dodgy in broader ways hard to define ... how to you manage to hold them to account and communicate the concern to the broader ratepayers?
10:35 < johna8860/D> I think rather than an "evidence based approach", a better articulation would be "aspiring to be thorough and look at all the implications as best you can".
10:37 <+jedb> "evidence based approach" is shorthand for "consider what is most consistent with reality to actually achieve what you are setting out to achieve" or something like that, is it not?
10:37 <~alexjago> Gabba ward isn't that big
10:38 < johna8860/D> I'll advertise some of my own writings:  https://johnaugust.com.au/article/clangers-current-political-debate and https://johnaugust.com.au/article/miranda-devine-rape-and-lighting
10:39 <+jedb> wtf? why on earth would 50/50 split on gender of who is elected be of any importance whatsoever?
10:40 <+jedb> modern sexism/racism is going too far...
10:41 <~alexjago> nonetheless jedb you and I know that single member wards are bad - we wrote a policy about it :)
10:41 <+jedb> yes, I know, very much so
10:41 < idcrisis/D> healthcare = interventionist science, medicine = evidence based science...
10:41 < Simon/D> guys can we please not be jerks and be respectful of other people's opinions.
10:42 < Miles/D> final chance for questions for Bridgid, please put Qs in chat before we finish
10:45 <~alexjago> probably a couple of Qs coming
10:45 < johna8860/D> I know around cairns, very much a movement in favor of cash and against obligations for electronic transactions only.
10:45 <~alexjago> Liam will be her from 11 I think
10:46 < mandrke/D> 10 minutes...
10:46 < mandrke/D> 14
10:46 < mandrke/D> me...?
10:47 < Miles/D> MOTION: adjourn for 10 minute break
10:47 < Miles/D> place votes
10:47 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
10:47 < Miles/D> i vote aye
10:47 < gold1227/D> Aye
10:47 < Simon/D> aye
10:47 < mandrke/D> aye
10:47 < Sam/D> aye
10:47 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
10:47 < idcrisis/D> aye
10:47 <~alexjago> nay
10:47 <+jedb> abstain
10:47 < milspec/D> Aye
10:47 < DrLiam/D> Aye
10:48 < Miles/D> motion passed
10:49 < johna8860/D> aye
10:53 < Miles/D> guys if anyone is interested in last minute nominations for National Council please consider it! we have some spaces still https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2023/Nominations
10:54 < Miles/D> if you need help with how to apply please DM myself or @alexjago
11:00 < Miles/D> im back, i got muesli
11:01 <~alexjago> MOTION: amend as much of the Standing Orders as needed to consider all nominations up to the time of that positions' consideration.
11:01 <~alexjago> I vote Aye
11:01 < Simon/D> aye
11:01 < mandrke/D> aye
11:01 < DrLiam/D> Aye
11:01 < gimmeadrink/D> aye
11:01 < milspec/D> aye
11:01 < idcrisis/D> aye
11:02 < Miles/D> aye
11:02 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
11:03 <+jedb> aye
11:03 < johna8860/D> aye
11:05 < gimmeadrink/D> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/By-laws#By-law_2023-01_.E2.80.93_Fusion_Branch_Representative
11:05 <~alexjago> I count 11 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions
11:06 < mandrke/D> Currently no nominations, Deputy Secretary, Deputy Treasurer, 2 Councillors, PDO all other positions are  currently uncontested...
11:06 < mandrke/D> Currently no nominations: Deputy Secretary, Deputy Treasurer, 2 Councillors, PDO all other positions are  currently uncontested... (edited)
11:06 < alexjago/D> @mandrke spotlight video on people pls
11:08 <~alexjago> hang on, that was Isaac
11:11 < idcrisis/D> ok, question for all nominees, why cannot we have a gender/sexuality spectrum, like the autism spectrum where you are just given a spectrum place where after medical analysis of your hormonal composition ( testosterone, oxytocin, adrenalin etc and other bodily metrics ), both for body composition, so gender and a different one for preference ( which will probably be more subjecti <clipped message>
11:11 < idcrisis/D> ve and simply not as important as actual body composition?
11:12 < mandrke/D> Adam, could you please turn on your lights?
11:12 < Miles/D> Q for Adam: what specific area does your interest in the party lie eg candidate, campaign organising, comms/promoting/policy etc
11:14 < satchdotnet/D> That's the distinction between biological sex and gender identity, both of which are based primarily on genetics, but the latter can be a personal choice regardless.
11:14 < Miles/D> Q for Adam (I think you maybe answered though): assuming there was an active, vibrant and strong WA branch of pirates/fusion, would you prefer to stay focussed on WA organising or switch over to focussing on national organising?
11:14 < Miles/D> Q  for Adam: what are your personal policy interests?
11:14 < Simon/D> @idcrisis Is this a question for candidates as it somehow relates to their candidacy or are you trying to make suggestions for policy development committee?
11:16 < idcrisis/D> to see one's stance, don't know when policy will arrive, doctor's certificate for place on gender spectrum...
11:16 < milspec/D> Q for Adam: should we organise more WA meet ups?
11:16 < milspec/D> Lol I hear you about being early in the morning
11:18 < Simon/D> Q for Adam, are you actually a Vampire?
11:20 < milspec/D> Q for Adam: should we organise more WA meet ups? (kind of answered) (edited)
11:20 < milspec/D> 🍻
11:21 < idcrisis/D> so what's Frew up to?
11:22 < johna8860/D> Hanging out with the Woolongong anarchist scene, to some degree. His music is still on soundcloud, I have played it on my show.
11:24 < gimmeadrink/D> ::ppwa:
11:26 < milspec/D> WA icon is obviously the best cause it uses libertarian colours
11:26 <+jedb> anyone who doesn't burn in the Queensland sun is the weird one... call them anti-vampires, perhaps
11:29 < Miles/D> john im cacking myself 😢
11:30 < idcrisis/D> mind-body-spirit balance neuroscientific measure versus measure...
11:32 < milspec/D> good one John
11:32 < zach1234/D> Just taking a moment to breathe
11:34 < milspec/D> agreed
11:38 < gimmeadrink/D> @satchdotnet Dream Theater vs Tool, thoughts?
11:38 < andrewdpirate/D> Tool, clearly
11:38 < satchdotnet/D> I love them both, but Dream Theatre are my favourite
11:39 < satchdotnet/D> Also Liquid Tension Experiment of course. They still have Portnoy even though he's left Dream Theater.
11:40 < alexjago/D> @.milspec you don't want to go for PDO? you're doung the work :p
11:40 < mandrke/D> sorry for the blanking... I was thinking I could do screenshare... for Sean's nominations
11:40 < milspec/D> uhh I might have to participate on an informal basis this year. lots of life commitments atm
11:41 < milspec/D> but will def support
11:41 < Simon/D> I was wondering about milspec being POD as well, might as well
11:41 < gimmeadrink/D> Mood dependant, but Tool (and APC) edge out on top for me.
11:42 < Miles/D> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDKwCvD56kw
11:42 < johna8860/D> My tastes in music are electronic / goth / post punk, with Black City Lights  a favorite.
11:42 < Miles/D> @smg0356
11:42 < satchdotnet/D> No contested positions
11:43 <~alexjago> yes, the Constitution provides that we'll need to hold by-elections
11:43 < Simon/D> oh damn, should have said we don't have enough
11:44 < Simon/D> I thought if CAP passes we don't need as many?
11:44 <~alexjago> no, CAP-1 reduces quorum
11:44 < Miles/D> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18LJd0XDRkfybhHSdpd3aqzEUuGH5GxaPREuN_3ewnNI/
11:44 < andrewdpirate/D> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJHjLgv1EP4
11:44 < idcrisis/D> having trouble with those empirical equations handed down to you over centuries and having found those new hidden variables, wondering how they all add up? Eureqa is here: https://www.creativemachineslab.com/eureqa.html
11:45 < gimmeadrink/D> Thanks all, I'll drop off the Zoom and go back to the stream.
11:45 < Miles/D> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2023/Motions/Economics_Policy_Update#The_Case_for_a_Federal_Land_Value_Tax
11:46 < DrLiam/D> I've got to head off to do some work myself as well, but if you need me for anything, please just ping.
11:46 < Miles/D> thanks liam and adam
11:46 < milspec/D> coming on zoom, updating the software atm
11:47 < mandrke/D> would you like me to put the motion on stream?
11:47 < Miles/D> yes please brny
11:47 < Simon/D> If you paid stamp duty 20 years ago and that gets credited that means 20 years of not have paid anything
11:47 < alexjago/D> Wording for the two amendments I wanted to put re LVT:
11:47 < alexjago/D> * Credit the cost of the most recent stamp duty paid against land value tax obligations, as a transitional mechanism
11:47 < alexjago/D> And in the absence of a specified subsidy programme:
11:47 < alexjago/D> * Exempt conservation land
11:48 < johna8860/D> Have the more general issue that government land is not taxed, is outside of that framework.
11:48 < Simon/D> what about a back assessment from the time paid?
11:48 < satchdotnet/D> Exemptions for owner occupiers?
11:48 < Simon/D> dw its good enough
11:49 < milspec/D> Alex, I would agree with point 1 but can we put point 2 to a vote?
11:49 < gimmeadrink/D> Thinking last night, isn't land conservation largely covered by national parks?  The idea of personal land conservation seems counter productive - personal land is generally fenced and thus prevents egree for animals; it becomes nothing more than a personal park.
11:49 < satchdotnet/D> I'm wondering how that will impact people paying off a mortgage (including myself).
11:49 < Miles/D> there is a significant amount of private land that is relatively wilded
11:50 < Miles/D> either bought for development or agriculture purposes but left unused
11:50 < zach1234/D> Theres plenty of features of conservation that arent affected by fences
11:50 < Miles/D> there is a big issue in north qld at the moment with private cattle getting into national parks and causing huge damage. state gov declared a cattle cull it got so bad
11:51 < andrewdpirate/D> Sometimes fencing is there to keep out introduced species like cats.
11:51 < idcrisis/D> do mosquitoes pollinate?
11:52 < Simon/D> I don't understand the argument against conservation land?
11:52 < johna8860/D> Maybe male mosquitoes.
11:52 < milspec/D> So the thing with conservation land is, you would need someone in the government to approve the eligibility for the exemption right? So the overhead is not nessesarily higher than a subsidy program.
11:52 <+jedb> no, the variety of mosquitos that bite humans are a blight upon the world that should be wiped out, idcrisis
11:52 < Simon/D> just look at satellite map?
11:52 < idcrisis/D> ok the pollination is lesser for it...
11:53 < gimmeadrink/D> Not so much against land conservation, more the exemption based off self classification of property.
11:53 < Simon/D> why pay for land which is unusable and for a earthly good purpose
11:53 < alexjago/D> MOTION: amend PM-1 to exempt conservation land from land value taxation
11:53 < idcrisis/D> maybe flies can fill the gap...
11:53 < gimmeadrink/D> Ahh, sorry Simon, I misunderstood.
11:53 < Simon/D> aye
11:53 < alexjago/D> I vote Aye on my motion
11:54 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
11:54 < mandrke/D> aye
11:54 < Miles/D> aye
11:54 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
11:54 < johna8860/D> aye
11:54 < idcrisis/D> aye
11:54 < milspec/D> nay
11:54 <+jedb> abstain
11:54 < gimmeadrink/D> Nay
11:54 < Swashbuckler/D> abstain
11:54 < Miles/D> 8 aye, 1 nay, 1 abstain
11:55 < Miles/D> 8 aye, 2 nay, 1 abstain (edited)
11:55 < Miles/D> 8 aye, 2 nay, 2 abstain (edited)
11:55 < johna8860/D> Bees, wasps and hand pollination?
11:55 < alexjago/D> close voting in 15 seconds
11:55 < idcrisis/D> grate, just grate!
11:56 < johna8860/D> Bees, wasps and hand pollination? You knows, ants were wasps before they became ants. (edited)
11:57 < gimmeadrink/D> Face reveal at 100k subs!
11:59 < zach1234/D> Q: How can the value of these assets be accurately determined without an actual sale?
11:59 <~alexjago> hence not collecting it all the time
12:00 <~alexjago> (and not resetting the cost basis, I guess)
12:01 < gimmeadrink/D> Market value - it's already done for determining asset value for welfare purposes.
12:01 < gimmeadrink/D> And insurance
12:01 < johna8860/D> Keep in mind that's a struggle with rates at present, but there's a compromise value, done as best as people can, at present.
12:02 < andrewdpirate/D> I think the original 50% discount after a year was intended to incentivise longer term investment vs short term speculation
12:05 < satchdotnet/D> Q: Consideration for a owner occupier property value threshold?
12:05 < gold1227/D> I know QLD has a website where you can look up the land value of any property
12:05 < zach1234/D> Not all assets are land
12:05 < Simon/D> so if an elderly person is living in a large family home now by themselves as others move on, but the LVT is getting a bit much because they are only one person, that seems a bit wrong to me that they would be financially pressured to downsize.
12:07 < idcrisis/D> how many inches above national land is continental airspace?
12:07 < Miles/D> Q: LNP campaigned against ALP with just the suggestion that ALP might introduce a "death tax" (ALP opposed it). Given the Australian cultural support for "self made battler" and family supporting family, how can we market this policy? How can we respond to someone who says "I've worked and saved my whole life so that my kids and family can live comfortably"
12:07 < Miles/D> Q: LNP campaigned against ALP in 2022 federal election with just the suggestion that ALP might introduce a "death tax" (ALP opposed it). Given the Australian cultural support for "self made battler" and family supporting family, how can we market this policy? How can we respond to someone who says "I've worked and saved my whole life so that my kids and family can live comfortably" (edited)
12:08 < satchdotnet/D> Thanks @.milspec
12:08 < johna8860/D> OK, this is an issue ... the unemployed and people struggling to pay mortgages are used as a tool to manage the economy, and the burden unfairly falls on people in difficult positions. We want to have incentives that route economic activity in the broader interest, but at the same time not put people in difficult positions to manage stuff going on elsewhere in the economy. We wan <clipped message>
12:08 < johna8860/D> t to make sure the whole economy and the way we manage it means that the burden does not fall unfairly on certain groups. There needs to a broader perspective that engages with these issues, that a broader and more difficult story.
12:08 < Miles/D> i support a death tax
12:09 < Miles/D> but fuckloads of aussies dont
12:09 < zach1234/D> People who have just had a loved one die should probably not have even MORE expenses to pay off
12:09 <+jedb> Miles: "self made battler" and "worked and saved whole life so that *kid* can live comfortably" seems contradictory, does it not?
12:09 < idcrisis/D> does ACN imply continent and ABN imply nation?
12:09 < Miles/D> @jedb it's an inherently emotional ego defence, it's definitely not rational
12:10 <+jedb> in that case you have your answer: it has to be marketed emotionally somehow to overcome that emotional defence
12:10 < satchdotnet/D> It looks good on paper, but when NSW implemented an inheritance tax, it resulted in a mass migration of wealthy families over the boarder into QLD. They injected all that into the Gold Coast. :thonk:
12:11 < Miles/D> @zach its not a case of more expenses, it's a case of people with enormous wealth who want their inheritants to also be wealthy (eg not have to work)
12:11 < johna8860/D> Expenses around funerals can be deducted from the inheritance *before* it is passed on.
12:11 <+jedb> satchdotnet: that's a good argument for only ever looking at inheritance tax at the federal level
12:11 < zach1234/D> There are expenses around a death that arent based on inheritence, ie the actual funeral being expensive
12:11 < Morton/D> Q: Arn't long term investments generally better for the economy? While short term tends to be less beneficial, if you remove the 50% after one year, what other methods do you incentivise longer term investments?
12:12 < Morton/D> Q: Arn't long term investments generally better for the economy? While short term tends to be less beneficial, if you remove the 50% after one year, what other methods do you use to incentivise longer term investments? (edited)
12:12 < zach1234/D> If someone gains inheritence below the cost of the funeral, theyre even more out of pocket
12:12 <~alexjago> I don't think there are any specific amendments here, does anyone want to put a motion deleting some or all of this section?
12:12 < Miles/D> then they shouldnt be spending millions of dollars on a funeral they cant afford? it's like people going bankrupt from overspending at a wedding
12:13 < zach1234/D> @sorokyne Im talking about the normal joe, who cant afford a 10k funeral
12:13 < Miles/D> then they shouldnt spend 10k on a funeral?
12:13 < Morton/D> Q: What are your thoughts if it was something like 10 years instead?
12:13 < Miles/D> or if they intend to spend it out of inheritance, they shouldnt spend more than the inheritance can afford?
12:14 < zach1234/D> It doesnt matter what the threshold is. A small inheritance where a tax will hurt the repayment of the funeral expenses
12:14 < satchdotnet/D> Funerals are for the living, not the recently deceased. It makes sense to give them a decent chance of memoralising and venting their grief.
12:14 < Miles/D> that's the same for any tax
12:14 < Miles/D> if i pay more in tax ill have less money to pay for other things
12:15 <~alexjago> Again, does anyone have specific motions here?
12:15 <+jedb> zach1234: the proposed policy specifically notes it is a tax on the recipient, not the deceased, so if the funeral is paid out of the estate of the deceased then there would be no problem
12:15 < Miles/D> so why have taxes? in this case, an inheritance tax is to prevent massive accumulation of wealth in society
12:15 < zach1234/D> Yes, taxes hurt people and we shouldnt have too many of them
12:15 < Miles/D> @zach__1234 do you want to amend this policy?
12:16 < zach1234/D> To remove the CGT section, sure
12:17 < idcrisis/D> i want the sin tax removed...
12:17 < alexjago/D> that's latr
12:17 < Miles/D> @zach__1234  type MOTION then something like "remove blah"
12:18 < satchdotnet/D> A federal death tax would tackle the problem of intergenerational wealth increasing the divide.
12:18 < zach1234/D> MOTION: Remove section 1.4.1 'Inheritance' from PM-1
12:18 < andrewdpirate/D> QUESTION/COMMENT On inheritance tax.   I notice there has been a sceme in NSW for essential workers buying properties, where the government could buy 40% of the property with your purchase of the rest. The government then also takes 40% back from any subsequent sale.  Now, a similar thing could happen in reverse if you're inheriting a property and owe 25% tax, but can't pay it, a <clipped message>
12:18 < andrewdpirate/D> nd want to keep living in the property you and your parents grew up in ...,
12:19 < andrewdpirate/D> scheme
12:19 < alexjago/D> yep, the wording accounts for that
12:19 < alexjago/D> >  In cases where cash is not readily available to pay the tax, alternative means could be arranged. For example, the tax could be paid by ceding a proportionate amount of equity in the asset, through mechanisms such as a lien or shares. This provision prevents the need for forced sales to meet tax obligations.
12:20 < zach1234/D> Contributing to only $21.21, i dont see this being justified
12:20 < Miles/D> (voting after this)
12:21 < andrewdpirate/D> Nice answer
12:21 < Miles/D> start voting
12:21 < zach1234/D> aye
12:21 < alexjago/D> Nay
12:21 < milspec/D> nay
12:21 < gold1227/D> Nay
12:21 < andrewdpirate/D> nay
12:21 <+jedb> nay
12:21 < johna8860/D> nay
12:21 < Swashbuckler/D> nay
12:21 < gimmeadrink/D> Nay
12:21 < Miles/D> nay
12:21 < Morton/D> nay
12:21 < satchdotnet/D> Abstain
12:21 < Simon/D> abstain
12:21 < idcrisis/D> nay
12:21 < mandrke/D> nay
12:22 < johna8860/D> While this motion looks like being lost, we will need to address the concern in terms of selling the policy, moving forward.
12:22 <+jedb> ewwww emojis
12:22 < satchdotnet/D> https://easypoll.bot/
12:23 < Miles/D> close voting
12:23 < gimmeadrink/D> Strawpoll?
12:23 <+jedb> discord will never take me alive!
12:23 < alexjago/D> meta comment: the old Rhythm Bot relied on IRC features by only counting votes from people with certain flags
12:23 < Morton/D> We already have /poll with 2 of our bots, but I doubt it works with IRC
12:24 < johna8860/D> Miles, U need to be a motivational speaker.
12:24 <~alexjago> Yags' poll doesn't show up on IRC
12:24 < gold1227/D> Does an abstain vote count as a Aye or Nay?
12:25 < Morton/D> Sane stuff they all seem to use reactions
12:25 < Swashbuckler/D> I like the current voting system, saying yay and nay makes me feel old timey
12:25 < gimmeadrink/D> Faster until we get drawn into discussions about how to make it faster.  😉
12:25 <+jedb> at this time polls don't seem to have enough voters at congress for it to be a concern
12:25 < Morton/D> I can try code something @sorokyne do you wanna add something to trello and I might get around to it
12:25 < johna8860/D> Lunch coming up soon ....
12:26 < Miles/D> yeah 🤩
12:26 < idcrisis/D> you say yay i say yeah...
12:26 < Swashbuckler/D> I like the current voting system, saying aye and nay makes me feel old timey (edited)
12:26 <+jedb> idcrisis: as long as you remmber the 'h'
12:27 < idcrisis/D> i actually beg to differ...
12:27 < satchdotnet/D> Gifts over $300 from 1 person should be declared on tax returns?
12:27 < mandrke/D> This also means that gambling winnings are taxed as well - the great Australian vice!
12:27 < satchdotnet/D> Value may have changed, haven't looked at it in years.
12:28 <+jedb> mandrke: I thought the great Australian vice was beer?
12:29 < gimmeadrink/D> Yeah.  Poor Hewson was nearly as badly done over by Howard as Chifly was by Menzies...
12:30 < johna8860/D> Keating too.
12:31 <+jedb> COMMENT: I could be wrong, but I don't think NZ has GST exemptions on "essential items" like Australia currently does, so they serve as an example
12:31 < zach1234/D> Does it matter that the rich are 'taking advantage' if the exemptions are still helping the poorer class?
12:32 < mandrke/D> Willesee: "If I buy a birthday cake from a cake shop and GST is in place, do I pay more or less for that birthday cake?"
12:32 < mandrke/D> Hewson: "...If it is a cake shop, a cake from a cake shop that has sales tax, and it's decorated and has candles as you say, that attracts sales tax, then of course we scrap the sales tax, before the GST is..."
12:32 < mandrke/D> Willesee: "OK — it's just an example. If the answer to a birthday cake is so complex — you do have a problem with the overall GST?"
12:32 < gimmeadrink/D> Can confirm NZ GST
12:32 < gimmeadrink/D> https://www.ird.govt.nz/gst/what-gst-is
12:32 < Simon/D> This isn't going to work. It was a big deal about making female-only products like tampons etc. exempt because that is a cost which women face but men don't. even if the revenue goes back to a public good, women still have higher expenses. And women aren't getting more CD to compensate for that either. I would support this measure if female sanitary products are subsidised enough <clipped message>
12:32 < Simon/D>  to make generic female sanitary products free.
12:32 <+jedb> zach1234: if the exemptions help the rich more than the poor then that indicates maybe another option could be better
12:33 < mandrke/D> The Birthday Cake Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WndWM71-jSQ
12:33 < johna8860/D> Yes, some tweaking at the public health support end.
12:33 < idcrisis/D> have you heard of tax plugins....it's basically a signed rules based engine that resides on the eftpos machine that automatically applies the tax to the transaction....so one can push 150000 micro taxes directly to the EFTPOS machine...
12:34 < johna8860/D> Depends on the overall impact, you want minimise it, but maybe it can be justified depending on circumstances.
12:34 < gimmeadrink/D> Exemption for 'medical items and services'?
12:34 < andrewdpirate/D> QUESTION: Wouldn't it be better to just cap the exemptions, so that lower income people can still use this to better save for retirement, but the ultra wealth don't get to abuse it?
12:34 < zach1234/D> What are the alternatives to shift peoples choices towards healthier options? UBI/etc will help poor people, but doesnt affect their choice of product purchases
12:34 < Miles/D> @zach__1234 sugar tax 😉
12:34 <+jedb> Simon: you aren't ever going to be able to tax things to force gender parity in shopping bills
12:35 < gold1227/D> Women don't use razors?
12:35 < Simon/D> hard disagree, wth don't have anything comparable
12:35 < zach1234/D> Nose trimmers
12:36 < idcrisis/D> also chasing a person after the fact assumes he is a criminal...the onus is on the govt to collect tax at source...
12:36 < Simon/D> and I think it is a distortion to tax something and then give it back in a "progressive way".Just don't tax it
12:36 < andrewdpirate/D> Super
12:36 < Simon/D> and do the progressive thing anyway
12:37 < johna8860/D> I suggest these details are getting too broad to really fit into the current policy, and we should allow for policy tweaking by a different process down the track.
12:37 < Simon/D> MOTION: Keep exemption for medical items in GST
12:37 < Swashbuckler/D> anything that is necessary for some group but not for everyone should probably have some exemption. otherwise some people are getting burdened more than the general population
12:38 < Miles/D> does anyone want to propose any tweaks to Simon's motion?
12:38 < Miles/D> (dont vote yet)
12:38 < gimmeadrink/D> Perhaps the motion could be to re-phrase:
12:38 < gimmeadrink/D> The proposal to broaden Australia's GST base involves eliminating current exemptions on essential items such as healthcare, education, and fresh food, among others.
12:38 < gimmeadrink/D> to
12:39 < gimmeadrink/D> The proposal to broaden Australia's GST base involves eliminating current exemptions on essential items such as education and fresh food, among others.
12:39 < Simon/D> it's not a group thing, ALL meical.
12:39 < idcrisis/D> sorry medical item pricing is a joke that trascends gst or no gst...
12:39 < Simon/D> medical
12:39 < gold1227/D> It's probably how all our exemptions got through in the first place
12:39 <+jedb> Swashbuckler: unless you are proposing to make those things free, that doesn't make logical sense
12:39 < idcrisis/D> remove the sub-sub-contractor culture...
12:39 < Swashbuckler/D> but can't we capture the vast majority of those special groups with a few exemptions? such as tampons and certain medical things
12:39 < Simon/D> MOTION: Exempt Medical and Personal Care items (regardless of gender/group etc)
12:39 < satchdotnet/D> And this would only affect medical products not on Medicare's PBS.
12:40 < Simon/D> I don't see Adams'
12:40 < zach1234/D> Determining what constitutes 'personal care' could be extremely broad
12:40 < gimmeadrink/D> Mine.  🙂
12:40 < johna8860/D> OK, so shavers and combs would be exempt, what about cosmetics?
12:40 < milspec/D> Deoderants vs perfumes?
12:40 < Swashbuckler/D> jedb: well, making it tax exempt is certainly better than taxing it, even if making it free is more consistent with the goal
12:41 < Simon/D> perhaps exemptions could be placead on a schedule, similar to PBS?
12:41 < Morton/D> Q: How to word this such that "fake medical product" e.g. stuff that trends on various social media but isn't actuall good for you doesn't get tax excemptions
12:41 < gimmeadrink/D> I missclicked on the reply, text moved too quick.
12:41 < gimmeadrink/D> Was meant to reply to Simon's.
12:41 < Morton/D> Q: How to word this such that "fake medical products" e.g. stuff that trends on various social media but isn't actually good for you doesn't get tax exceptions (edited)
12:41 < Simon/D> this is moving too quick for me
12:41 < Morton/D> Q: How to word this such that "fake medical products" e.g. stuff that trends on various social media but isn't actually good for you doesn't get tax exemptions (edited)
12:41 <+jedb> Swashbuckler: I disagree with the goal of trying to make everyone's shopping bill identical
12:42 < Swashbuckler/D> jedb: then why are you coming at me about not making sense if you just disagree with my goal? 😭
12:42 < johna8860/D> Hungry ...
12:42 <~alexjago> just procedurally, we're currint into lunchtime now
12:42 < gimmeadrink/D> I'm fine, I was just proposing a slight wording change for Simon's consideration
12:42 <+jedb> Swashbuckler: because I also dislike logical inconsistency :P don't mind me
12:43 < Simon/D> WORDING: Exemption to GST to remain for certain Medical and Personal Care items, by schedule, similar to the PBS ??
12:43 < satchdotnet/D> Maybe hold over the vote until after lunch?
12:43 < Miles/D> MOTION: Exemption to GST to remain for certain Medical and Personal Care items, by schedule, similar to the PBS
12:43 < Miles/D> (dont vote yet)
12:43 < Simon/D> happy with that
12:44 < Miles/D> start voting
12:44 < zach1234/D> abstein
12:44 < Simon/D> aye
12:44 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
12:44 < idcrisis/D> aye
12:44 < gold1227/D> Nay
12:44 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
12:44 <+jedb> nay
12:44 < johna8860/D> abstain
12:44 < milspec/D> nay
12:44 < Miles/D> aye
12:44 < mandrke/D> aye
12:44 < Morton/D> aye
12:44 < alexjago/D> aye
12:44 < andrewdpirate/D> nay
12:45 < Swashbuckler/D> aye
12:45 < Morton/D> My count: 9 aye, 4 nay, 2 abstain
12:45 < Miles/D> aye: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 nay: 1, 2, 3, 4, abstain: 1, 2
12:46 < Miles/D> stop voting
12:48 < Miles/D> MOTION: adjourn for lunch for 45 mins (until 1.30)
12:48 < Miles/D> place voting
12:48 < milspec/D> sorry for taking so much time guys XD
12:48 < Miles/D> i vote aye
12:48 < zach1234/D> abstein
12:48 <~alexjago> aye
12:48 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
12:48 < idcrisis/D> yeah / yes / aye
12:48 <+jedb> aye
12:48 < milspec/D> aye
12:48 < johna8860/D> aye
12:48 < Morton/D> abstain
12:48 < gimmeadrink/D> Nay
12:48 < Simon/D> aye
12:48 < gold1227/D> Aye
12:48 < Swashbuckler/D> aye
12:48 < mandrke/D> aye
12:48 < andrewdpirate/D> nyet
12:48 < johna8860/D> hungry
12:50 < Miles/D> finish votes, we're now on lunch
12:50 < Miles/D> returning 1.35
12:50 < gimmeadrink/D> No official count?  😉
12:50 < Miles/D> stop the count
12:50 < Simon/D> would it make sense not to eliminate lVT for owner-occupiers, but rather give them a discounted rate?
12:50 < Simon/D> would it make sense not to eliminate LVT for owner-occupiers, but rather give them a discounted rate? (edited)
12:50 < alexjago/D> Ayes 11
12:50 < alexjago/D> Nay 2
12:50 < alexjago/D> Abstain 2
12:51 < gold1227/D> that music spooked me a bit
12:51 < Swashbuckler/D> I think so
12:52 < milspec/D> hmm I don't think so, part of the benefit of the LVT is to apply gentle pressure on those occupying land to nudge them into the most optimal use of land. This includes families to downsize when suitable.
12:53 < alexjago/D> the point of LVTis that in occypying land you exclude other uses
12:53 < milspec/D> yeah
12:54 < Simon/D> yes but this completely ignores emotional attachment to a home, the friction of moving homes, occupants with needs such as dimentia who wouldn't cope with a change in scenery, losing their own capital improvements for their own enjoyment, ties to the community, and so on.
12:54 < Simon/D> Homes are not really a commodity which can be easily changed in all cases
12:54 < milspec/D> @alexjago are we able to skip the CES and digital currencies sections? I dont think I changed those.
12:55 < Simon/D> Homes are being treated as purely a financial instrument and they are not
12:56 < milspec/D> They wouldn't be forced to sell, Simon. The LVT is less than what the value of the land increases every year. They could hold on to it and pay the LVT using lines of credit indefinitely if they wanted to.
12:56 < alexjago/D> should be able to race through them with a pro forma motion
12:57 < Simon/D> so if the LVT is getting a bit much to afford because the area has shot up in value, it can essentially be deferred?
12:57 < milspec/D> well not deferred, but rather paid using the equity of the land
12:58 < milspec/D> well not deferred, but rather paid using the equity of the land (as a potential option) (edited)
12:58 < Simon/D> Perhaps deferral from the government is something that can be done rather than rely on the whims of the market and finance companies?
12:59 < milspec/D> Well they have the option to give a lien to the government that is proportional to the LVT
12:59 < idcrisis/D> sorry there is nothing known as crypto currencies, it's digital currencies, some of them are CBDCs ( Central Bank Digital Currencies ), some are just digital currencies...more importantly it should be illegal to play god ( ie ban or prosecute ) over other people's money....some want to ban private currencies...well someone told me that the federal reserve is a private entity...so <clipped message>
12:59 < idcrisis/D>  nations with an actual public currency are rejoicing in what effectively means trying to ban fiat in private reserve banks...moreover since Bitcoin in legal tender is any nation in the world, it's illegal to not accept legal tender, so it's just foreign currency....
13:00 < Simon/D> happy with Lein instead of LVT
13:00 < Simon/D> happy with Lein in lieu of LVT option (edited)
13:00 < zach1234/D> Private currencies are illegal in many places around the world, due to the actual physical distribution of them, which tended towards scam, back in the day
13:01 < Simon/D> is this already the policy or does it need an amendment?
13:02 < zach1234/D> What part of it being illegal will vary: Possession, printing, tender, etc
13:02 < idcrisis/D> that game is over when the internet began....when one leg of the transaction is in one nation and another in another nation, one has to respect the laws of every nation...
13:02 < alexjago/D> only changes in CES and digital currency are one "bn" to 'billion" and capitalisation in the title. Can move to adopt those unchanged.
13:03 < milspec/D> Ah I've added it into the CGT section but not the LVT section. So yeah we can have an amendment if you like.
13:03 < Simon/D> I think it's appropriate for both
13:04 < idcrisis/D> the current turnover of fiat cfds is not 3 but 6 trillion usd a day...yet banks in australia refuse to acknowledge them...pushing cash which denies the concept of the internet...when you buy a cfd it automatically buys in one nation and sells in another nation transparently...fiat cfd that is...
13:05 < milspec/D> Theres a subtle point as well that when you give government co-ownership there are some complications that go with that. For example does the government collect rent on that ownership? Does that rent then accrue as additional lien?
13:05 < alexjago/D> that seems bad. just a payment deferral is fine
13:06 < idcrisis/D> more importantly when will australia create it's CBDC to quell aspersions that it's a private federal bank playing with public money?
13:09 < idcrisis/D> second, if the entire australian public sector has been closed down when it comes to banking and health insurance...and we have realised that a healthy economy means a public sector in competition with the private sector and had to create a public sector entity called NBN from scratch after removing Telstra and CommBank and Medibank....when will we create Australia's only public  <clipped message>
13:09 < idcrisis/D> sector bank responsible to dispense the CBDC?
13:12 < Simon/D> I think that it is fair to have the lein indexed for inflation at most. At long as it only becomes payable when essentially the person no longer lives there, then it isn't going to displace anyone out of their home.
13:12 < milspec/D> I remember at the last election, Labor proposed a "Help to Buy" program where the gov co-owned the home. My understanding is that the Victorian Homebuyer Fund works the same way? 
13:12 < milspec/D> This lien system could be similar to that.
13:12 < Simon/D> yes happy with VIC.
13:13 < milspec/D> I think the help to buy program charged interest as well.
13:14 < Simon/D> as much as I want to say 'interest free' I think that might be taking the piss and everyone will do interest free loans and hardly anything will be collected for some time
13:16 < milspec/D> If you charge interest it's essentially a line of credit, but instead of getting it from a bank, you get it from the government.
13:17 < Simon/D> exactly, and that's a feature not a bug. Should not be forced to use banks, given banking royal commission.
13:17 < Simon/D> I almost suggested as well a People's bank based on public benfit rather than profits, but don't want to complicate your policy even more.
13:17 < Simon/D> Administratively, that is how it could function
13:18 < milspec/D> If it was structured like a loan, the government wouldn't be entitled to growth (eg a 10k loan is still a 10k loan), but would be entitled to rent.
13:18 < milspec/D> If it was structured like a share, the government would be entitled to growth (but also potential exposure to loss), no interest, and (in theory) rent as well.
13:18 < milspec/D> Loan is probably simpler
13:19 < Simon/D> it's intricacies which goes above my head
13:19 < idcrisis/D> this is a public sector entity from the looks of it: https://treasury.gov.au/programs-and-initiatives-superannuation/mysuper competing well with the private sector...
13:19 < Simon/D> ultimately when it comes to do a final vote on this, it will be a vote based on trust, without my having a good economic understanding of it all
13:30 < milspec/D> ready
13:35 < Simon/D> yes
13:36 < alexjago/D> <@&358404846354825216> back from Lunch!
13:37 < Simon/D> we had some discusison over lunch for providing a lien option for owner-occupiers for LVT and CGT
13:37 < Simon/D> milspec would  be best placed to word it
13:38 < Simon/D> ok all good then
13:39 < andrewdpirate/D> COMMENT: I don't recommend specifying specific thresholds for things like this in actual policy. It dates/ages quite rapidly.
13:40 < alexjago/D> Roll call - who's here??
13:41 < zach1234/D> yo
13:41 < idcrisis/D> hi
13:41 <+jedb> greetings
13:41 < johna8860/D> yes, eating.
13:41 < gold1227/D> Yes
13:41 < andrewdpirate/D> hi
13:42 < zach1234/D> I expect similar results for the 2nd inheritence segment
13:44 < Miles/D> COMMENT: engineers from countries with lower GDP than australia eg India, Pakistan, South America, are likely to see a significant pay bump. There is a separate but related issue with skilled migration that their qualifications arent often recognised
13:44 < Miles/D> COMMENT: engineers from countries with lower GDP than australia eg India, Pakistan, South America, are likely to see a significant pay bump by migrating here. There is a separate but related issue with skilled migration that their qualifications arent often recognised (edited)
13:45 < gold1227/D> Are qualifications even recognised between the states?
13:45 <+jedb> COMMENT: "job shortages" these days are more accurately characterised as a combination of wage disputes and hiring process incompetence
13:45 < Miles/D> @gold yes
13:46 < Jay/D> Rejoined after the break by clicking discord event then YouTube link but it was for Saturday so I thought lunch just went long
13:46 < idcrisis/D> it all comes down to wanting to listen to classical musicians....while there is not folk music....one should look at ireland and folk music in general to know what the difference between folk and classical is...
13:46 < idcrisis/D> it all comes down to wanting to listen to classical musicians....while there is no folk music....one should look at ireland and folk music in general to know what the difference between folk and classical is... (edited)
13:47 < andrewdpirate/D> COMMENT: They might triple their income, but their costs to live here would likely also be tripled. I don't think this specific policy makes any sense at all. It's setting up immigrants as a lower class.
13:47 < Simon/D> How is a fruit picker meant to afford their 25% income tax with not threshold + visa rental, without them making them a very highly paid fruit picker?
13:47 < zach1234/D> I like bringing free market principles to immigration
13:47 < Swashbuckler/D> QUESTION: so is the price set at a nominal level or is it relative to the migrants income or something else like that?
13:47 <+jedb> combining all visas into one seems like it would screw over international students pretty heavily
13:48 < Simon/D> the taxes are so high it's essentially indentured servitude
13:48 <+jedb> QUESTION: are there any caps on number of migrants, or is this a proposal for letting any number of people move to Australia so long as they can pay?
13:50 < Swashbuckler/D> wait, so not only will PRs have to pay more in tax without receiving CD but they will also have to pay for a visa once PR is phased out?
13:50 < Simon/D> so we move the exploitation from the business to the government?
13:52 < Jay/D> QIESTION given that there is a very high demand from people in places with worse rule of law and worst human rights to escape those places, is there some proposed mechanism to stop the rich from simply renting the visa and pretending to be working here?
13:52 <+jedb> the whole idea of renting visas according to demand, with the demand being high, contradicts the notion of not preferencing high income migrants
13:52 < Simon/D> how are farmers meant to pay for high wage fruit picking to attract workers, while keeping their prices reasonable?
13:53 <+jedb> Simon: they could pay the native population a wage good enough to attract them, that could always work...
13:54 < johna8860/D> Not that I disagree, but there will be an interaction with the notion of a refugee. If there is a refugee stream, we prioritise people suffering human rights abuses over people in poverty wanting to be immigrants.
13:54 < gold1227/D> Not sure how I really feel. Isn't the "supply" side of visas just an arbitrary value and represent an injustice in the first place?
13:55 < andrewdpirate/D> COMMENT: It's not a zero sum game. Adding a person into a "slot" isn't consuming a fixed capacity for slows. It's increasing the economic capacity of the nation also.
13:55 < andrewdpirate/D> This also sets up a situation where the government won't want to allow people on visas who are paying visa rent, to become citizens - it woudl prepresent a loss of income to the government.
13:55 < andrewdpirate/D> COMMENT: It's not a zero sum game. Adding a person into a "slot" isn't consuming a fixed capacity for slots. It's increasing the economic capacity of the nation also.
13:55 < andrewdpirate/D> This also sets up a situation where the government won't want to allow people on visas who are paying visa rent, to become citizens - it woudl prepresent a loss of income to the government. (edited)
13:55 <+jedb> taking advantage of someone in vulnerable circumstances is a recognised definition of coercion under Australian law (ignored by govts, but recognised in legislation) so that is something to keep in mind
13:55 < Swashbuckler/D> COMMENT: it seems like this is ripe for market failure, since it will only select for migrants who have increases in income. it doesn't select for general increases in welfare. a low income migrant could have high benefits to migrating to australia outside of sheer income, while a rich migrant who has relatively little benefit would be able to take the spot of the low income migrant
13:56 < idcrisis/D> what is folk music? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlWTASnnft4
13:56 < Miles/D> COMMENT: I actually don't see this as a rent seeking policy. The current system of "buying" a visa that expires is functionally no different to renting a visa. The main change is that visa holders can stay indefinitely, under the current wording
13:56 < Swashbuckler/D> COMMENT: it doesn't make the policy any better if it only effects future people and not current PRs 😭
13:57 < Simon/D> so you are not differentiating between migrants and refugeees?????
13:59 < Simon/D> I agree that there are problems with visas/migration, but I don't think that this is the solution
13:59 <~alexjago> I'm happy to put a motion to restore exemptions for refugees and students (the latter being time limited)
13:59 <+jedb> this notion of renting visas with price set according to demand (with presumably a minimum cost) would be a good reform for working visas, but I can't see it having good outcomes for other categories
14:00 < Swashbuckler/D> COMMENT: it doesn't make the policy any better if it only effects future people and not current PRs 😭 (re: my comment about PRs having to pay more without receiving CD) (edited)
14:01 < idcrisis/D> what is a folk-level skill compared to classical-level skill? and can folk level skill work well for around 80% of professions while there is a severe shortage and insistence on classical-level skills?
14:01 <+jedb> economy, culture, infrastructure are all reasons to not have open borders - remember there's Indonesia sitting right there with around 10x the pop of Australia, open borders would be literally political suicide at a nation level
14:02 < Simon/D> I am leaning towards making a motion to exclude visa rent, and suggest that it is a novel idea but needs some more time to bake (PDC).
14:03 < Simon/D> it's basically a politcy to only allow rich/high income migrants in for them to fleece
14:03 < gold1227/D> Comment: How do you balance the ethical concern that a rich person may hoard a visa, not utilising it effectively compared to someone who depserately needs the visa instead to improve their quality of life?
14:03 < alexjago/D> that reminds me, we didn't get around to putting a tax free threshold in for non citizens
14:04 < Miles/D> @ simon what about a different class of visa for refugees, eg low/no charge for valid refugee grounds?
14:04 < Swashbuckler/D> COMMENT: it doesn't make the policy any better if it only effects future people and not current PRs 😭 (re: my comment about PRs having to pay more without receiving CD +plus paying for a visa) (edited)
14:04 < idcrisis/D> why are people allowed to book doctors entirely, as in stuff like "family doctor" and all that stuff prevalent in the east? the queues for seeing A doctor becomes less when you don't allow taking a doctor up completely and removing him from the market?
14:04 < Swashbuckler/D> COMMENT: it doesn't make the policy any better if it only effects future people and not current PRs 😭 (re: my comment about PRs having to pay more without receiving CD + paying for a visa) (edited)
14:06 < johna8860/D> Yes, milspect, good response. Where do we start and stop accepting the market? Something to be done with care.
14:06 < Simon/D> I think that this goes beyond refugees. To take not refugees as fundamentally different circumstances is icing on the cake of how this hasn't been thought through enough. 
14:06 < Simon/D> But even non-refugee workers supporting essential roles which keep things ticking in jobs Aussies we don't want to do, this would be a major shock. just because higher paid jobs are available doesn't mean we should abandon farming. 
14:06 < Simon/D> How does migrant workers in the middle of the country impact a migrant working in IT in the city.
14:07 < Swashbuckler/D> the market failure comes from the difference in potential welfare vs potential income. there will be many poor migrants who would receive a lot of welfare from migration, but who cannot afford the monetary payment. and there will be a lot of rich people who will receive significantly less welfare, but the increase in welfare is still large enough to justify the payment for the visa
14:08 < Simon/D> It also makes has have to revisit 25% tax not having a tax free threshold. Because milspec's 'solution' would be to exclude low paid migrants from even existing. That is not really a solution. lower income migrants are integral to Australia's culture and economy, it should not be limited to the rich.
14:08 < gimmeadrink/D> Do you see any need to change the requirements for citizenship if we adopted the visa changes?
14:09 < Simon/D> I geneerally like food
14:09 < Simon/D> why not both
14:09 < zach1234/D> Farmers will thrive if you pay them enough to
14:09 < Swashbuckler/D> the market failure comes from the difference in potential welfare vs potential income. there will be many poor migrants who would receive a lot of welfare from migration, but who cannot afford the monetary payment. and there will be a lot of rich people who will receive significantly less welfare, but the increase in welfare is still large enough to justify the payment for the visa.
14:09 < Swashbuckler/D> effectively, the demand in the market is not an accurate reflection of actual demand, but rather it only shows the people who are both willing *and able* to pay (edited)
14:09 <+jedb> COMMENT: farming is a somewhat noteworthy sector in that maintaining enough farming to feed your own country, if you have enough arable land to do it, is a national security issue
14:10 < andrewdpirate/D> I don't think the implications of this one are as well worked out, in comparison to other parts of this wider set of proposals.
14:10 < andrewdpirate/D> MOTION: Remove Visa Rent from the proposed policy changes.
14:10 < zach1234/D> But we want both cheap food AND a thriving agriculture industry
14:10 < Simon/D> why even have more migrants if we don't have houses to put them in, housing is already short supply leading to a crisis
14:10 < pdgeorge/D> (We're already in a housing crisis)
14:11 < milspec/D> yeah again, the number isnt changing here
14:11 < Simon/D> If anyone can come up with an amendment to fix it, they are a genius
14:11 < alexjago/D> I'd be willing to put a motion to amend it to carve out humanitarian and time-limited (student and holiday) visas
14:11 < johna8860/D> Hang, on there's a multitude of other policy elements designed to help here. Worst case, make things contingent on having policy elements to sort out housing situation.
14:11 <+jedb> an amendment to fix it would be too major of a change imo
14:12 < alexjago/D> but I'd need some time for the wording. I'd rather come back to this after today
14:12 < idcrisis/D> this is a step towards continental passports and private sector helping with visas and passports...
14:13 < Simon/D> if there is an amendment to carve out exemptions, I would recluctantly vote to accept it, as a backup to the vote to completely remove it failing. But honestly spare the wording and lets just vote to remove the whole thing.
14:13 < alexjago/D> I want to note that I support the concept for indefinite/economic migration
14:13 < andrewdpirate/D> I would welcome a future immigration policy development, but it would need to be far more wide ranging in its scope.
14:13 < Miles/D> ok start voting
14:13 < idcrisis/D> there is a humanitarian crisis and private sector visas are necessary because public sector is finding it difficult to handle the queue...
14:13 < Simon/D> what is the voting question
14:13 < zach1234/D> nay
14:13 < Miles/D> i abstain
14:13 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
14:13 < idcrisis/D> no
14:13 <+jedb> aye
14:13 < johna8860/D> nay
14:13 < gimmeadrink/D> Nay
14:13 < milspec/D> nay
14:13 < alexjago/D> aye
14:14 < satchdotnet/D> Abstain
14:14 < Simon/D> aye
14:14 < Swashbuckler/D> aye
14:14 < alexjago/D> the voting question is to remove the section
14:14 < gold1227/D> Abstain
14:14 < Simon/D> can you repeat thew question I don't think it came through
14:14 < Morton/D> abstain
14:15 < Miles/D> current count: abstain: 1, 2, 3, 4, aye: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, nay: 1, 2, 3, 4
14:15 < zach1234/D> 5 nay
14:15 < Morton/D> looping audio
14:15 < gold1227/D> Hot mic
14:15 < Simon/D> can we repeat the vote, the motion didn't come through
14:15 < Simon/D> motion didn't come through on discord
14:15 < milspec/D> ^
14:16 < zach1234/D> I see 5 no's
14:16 < Simon/D> this is too messy can we repeat
14:17 < johna8860/D> Miles you as chair has some discretion.
14:18 < Miles/D> the motion text was "Remove Visa Rent from the proposed policy changes." please indicate if you misunderstood and want to revote
14:18 < milspec/D> Alex, suggest you put a motion for humanitarian carve out.
14:18 <+jedb> someone remind me, why was all this policy grouped into a single policy motion to begin with?
14:18 < alexjago/D> yep
14:19 < Simon/D> MOTION: Visa rent policy to be significantly re-worked to take into consideration refugees, low-income migrants, students, and their ability to pay taxes, and not be exploited by employers or systematically.
14:19 <~alexjago> jedb: because it all impacts the amount of the citizens dividend
14:20 < zach1234/D> We can make amendments for it next congress, to clarify those situations
14:20 < Simon/D> MOTION: Put visa rent on ice for 12 months
14:20 <+jedb> alexjago: 1.11 on down doesn't have any notes to that effect
14:20 <~alexjago> jedb: sorry, yes, 1.11 and 1.12 are unchanged from today
14:21 < milspec/D> so for short stays, the visa rent won't kick in for them anyway
14:21 <+jedb> ugh, diffs...
14:21 < idcrisis/D> tent embassy says hi to continental passports....to paraphrase...another entity like the private sector is good enough...and and good step in the correct direction...
14:21 < milspec/D> so for short stays, the visa rent won't kick in for them anyway (theres a ramp up period) (edited)
14:21 < alexjago/D> MOTION: exempt student and humanitarian visas from visa rent
14:21 < alexjago/D> (noting that students and refugees could still rent a visa)
14:22 < Simon/D> how about refugees? Seasonal? industries like aged care where Australians are hard to recruit because they don't want to wipe bums?
14:22 < alexjago/D> refugees are humanitarian
14:22 < alexjago/D> the other two - pay more
14:22 < andrewdpirate/D> If you include holiday visas, then it hits tousism
14:22 < andrewdpirate/D> If you include holiday visas, then it hits tourism (edited)
14:22 < zach1234/D> The solution to lack of workers is to pay them more, which can mean companies can subsidize the visa rental
14:23 < alexjago/D> I'll take an amendment to my motion:
14:23 < alexjago/D> MOTION (amended): exempt student, holiday and humanitarian visas from visa rent
14:23 < Simon/D> include tourists?
14:23 < alexjago/D> I'll take an amendment to my motion:
14:23 < alexjago/D> MOTION (amended): exempt student, tourist and humanitarian visas from visa rent (edited)
14:23 < idcrisis/D> more importantly, who selected these civil servants in the first place?
14:23 < Simon/D> lets go
14:23 < zach1234/D> Surely a tourist would only stay for a short time and so their rental would be small
14:24 < idcrisis/D> why is the government itself not elected by the people?
14:25 < Simon/D> we offer visa free to many countries
14:25 <+jedb> zach1234: sure, but the idea with tourists should be to make it as easy as possible for them to turn up, then bleed them dry of money before they leave, so charging more to just get here is detrimental :P
14:25 < milspec/D> yeah
14:25 < andrewdpirate/D> Visa rent should only apply to visas that allow you to work
14:25 < Simon/D> we bleed them at the quarantine when they bring in a biscuit
14:25 < idcrisis/D> an opaque civil service saying it is the austrlian government is not elected, nor a representative of the australian sentiment or identity....
14:26 < alexjago/D> > MOTION (amended): exempt student, tourist and humanitarian visas from visa rent
14:26 < Miles/D> alright start voting
14:26 < zach1234/D> aye
14:26 < Miles/D> i vote aye
14:26 < alexjago/D> aye
14:26 < Morton/D> aye
14:26 < Simon/D> aye
14:26 <+jedb> aye
14:26 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
14:26 < milspec/D> abstain
14:26 < mandrke/D> aye
14:26 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
14:26 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
14:26 < idcrisis/D> aye
14:26 < gold1227/D> Aye
14:26 < johna8860/D> aye
14:26 < Swashbuckler/D> aye
14:27 < Miles/D> stop voting
14:28 < Jay/D> Abstain
14:28 < Simon/D> Now have have to address CD not including PR because I don't think that this was adequately addressed that migrants are paying 25% tax on everything with no CD to negate that. Can it be solved just be reinstating a moderate tax free threshold for PRs?
14:28 < zach1234/D> This policy should clarify that regular church services are not taxed
14:28 <~alexjago> Simon: yes
14:29 < Simon/D> I have an issue with Relgiious tax conessions, I don't agree to skip, can we please go back to that after education
14:29 <+jedb> COMMENT: this education dividend is micromanagement on how people spend money, and is also quite strange since on the one hand things like Family Tax Benefit are being removed and replaced with CD, yet on the other hand there's this
14:30 < satchdotnet/D> How would you define as a 'regular church service'?
14:30 < zach1234/D> The policy is vague as to what constitutes charitable activity vs commercial activity
14:31 < zach1234/D> Services such as actually going to church and its general administration
14:31 < Simon/D> @zach__1234we have skipped religion for now because Miles incorrectly assumed no questiosn
14:31 < Miles/D> yep we can return, im just worried about time
14:32 < satchdotnet/D> The principal is to base any tax exemptions on how much an organisation provides charitable services. Sinply 'advancing religion'  shouldn't be a reason.
14:32 <+jedb> COMMENT: even if you give people money for education it still won't really get around the geographic restrictions - unless a school is especially terrible, kids would be most concerned with going to whatever school is closest and hence takes up the least amount of their time to travel to and from
14:32 < Simon/D> I want to point out that LDP have a school voucher policy, this sounds  similar
14:32 < zach1234/D> I dont mind 'advancement of religion' being non-exempt from tax, but attending weekly mass is not promoting religion. Its a spiritual service
14:33 < Simon/D> @zach__1234 we are talking about education now, save the religious questions so we are not discussing two things at once
14:33 < idcrisis/D> It should be taxed at par with charities...
14:34 < satchdotnet/D> If they aren't contributing anything else, it should be taxed the same as any other service industry.
14:34 <+jedb> "parents not responsible financial managers" is the same sort of reasoning used for those cashless welfare card programs
14:35 < Simon/D> jedb: I am more concerned about parents who don't actually have a funds to get the education for their children which they think that their child needs
14:36 < zach1234/D> Bringing free market principles to the education system is good in my eyes too
14:36 < alexjago/D> COMMENT: I'm still not happy with this policy - if you lose $x/week for sending your kid to public school it's still an issue
14:36 < alexjago/D> (or rather, it's equivalent to subsidising all families that same $x/week for sending your kid to a private school)
14:37 <+jedb> Simon: my preference is for there to be cash payments in addition to the basic CD according to number of underage dependents, which would address that issue
14:37 < gimmeadrink/D> Where would home schooling fall under this?  Public or private?
14:37 < Simon/D> Did I hear right that vouchers are worth less to public schools???
14:37 < satchdotnet/D> Private schools perpetuate the intergenerational opportunity and wealth cycle
14:38 <+jedb> never really agreed with governments providing public funds for private schools...
14:39 <+jedb> nothing more permanent than a temporary government measure, I guess
14:39 < milspec/D> private
14:39 < alexjago/D> prtty sure the Dutch have public funding for religious schools as part of religious-conflic fallout
14:39 < Simon/D> The voucher should be a cash value which is the same for private and public, if anything favour public funding further to what public already gets
14:39 < Simon/D> but easier to just say samew
14:40 < idcrisis/D> avoid over gamification of society...the lowest common denominator is usually availed...
14:41 <+jedb> COMMENT: it's worth noting that education funding is usually considered a state level issue
14:41 < Simon/D> jedb: sadly I agree with the notion that there are plenty of bad parents who can't manage money. in an ideal world they are all good providers, but that is not reality. at least with a voucher system ,in the name of the child, no one can take the child's money away for other purposes. The only choice the parent makes is which school to send them to.
14:41 <+jedb> lmao the loops
14:42 < alexjago/D> private school funding comes from the Feds primarily
14:42 < milspec/D> yeah, its a hard one.
14:42 < Simon/D> if vouchers save even 1 child from a parent who blows all their childs money away, then it is worth it
14:42 < milspec/D> I went back and forth between cash or education expense only.
14:42 <+jedb> Simon: that means there needs to be work done on child welfare agencies (I know certainly they were trash when I was a kid...)
14:42 < milspec/D> I ended up with:
14:42 < milspec/D> > or, in severe financial hardship scenarios, accessed as cash to meet the family's essential needs. 'Severe hardship' follows the existing definition and assessment procedures by Services Australia.
14:43 < milspec/D> So in that situation they can still access it as cash
14:43 < Simon/D> I would remove severe financial hardship provision, because that means a poor family could miss out on education for their child
14:43 < satchdotnet/D> Many religious schools have blatant Statement of Faith policies, that all their staff must commit to.
14:43 < gimmeadrink/D> Hmm, I disagree with this.  The moderators who administer home schooling families fall under the state education system, I'd advocate for home schools to be classed as an independent public system.
14:43 < Jay/D> COMMENT
14:43 < Jay/D> further to Alex's comment, I feel like there are better ways than this to bring in done benefits of price signals without risking as many of the societal benefits of University available public schooling. Vouchers effectively make a % of public school costs compete in a marketplace where they inevitably end up hamstrung by being the providers of education to the poor and disadvantaged.
14:44 < zach1234/D> Whats the point of them being religious if theyre not going to align with those religious views?
14:44 < milspec/D> yeah in term of management, definately. 
14:44 < milspec/D> I was just referring to whether or not for funding readings its classified as private.
14:44 < alexjago/D> yeah I'm happy for religious schools to go off being religious as long as they don't get public momey for it
14:44 < idcrisis/D> The Good Book, the good book!
14:44 < milspec/D> yeah in term of management, definately. 
14:44 < milspec/D> I was just referring to whether or not for funding purposes its classified as private. (edited)
14:44 < gimmeadrink/D> But fully acknowledge that it is a fringe branch.
14:45 < idcrisis/D> What does the word secular mean?
14:45 < zach1234/D> Surely theyd only get public money IN SPITE of it
14:45 < satchdotnet/D> Secular public education doesn't preclude families indoctrinating kids. That's what Sunday school and church is for.
14:45 < Miles/D> MOTION: remove education dividend from PM1
14:45 < Miles/D> (hold voting)
14:46 < alexjago/D> I'd want to see the numbers - are we paying a full CD to citizen kids?
14:46 < alexjago/D> the numbers depend on subtracting the ~40% of cash hypothecated to public school education
14:47 <+jedb> COMMENT: if looking for something to do with the money then the logical replacement for this sort of education dividend is a general underage dependent dividend, but now isn't the time for coming up with new policy proposals
14:47 < Simon/D> fixable by making voucher the same between public/private, remove hardship exemption as the voucher is needed for all children to get an education, and maintain public funding in line with Gonski?
14:47 < milspec/D> if this section was removed altogther, kids would get nothing
14:47 < alexjago/D> yep exactly
14:47 < Jay/D> Nonreligious
14:48 < Simon/D> fixable 2: transpose existing education policy into milspecs new one
14:49 < alexjago/D> I'd support an amendment to remove the public-private thing, and pay the ED at whatever lower rate it ends up being
14:49 < milspec/D> $580 per week to all kids would cost $139 billion on its own.
14:49 < Morton/D> Have to also account for the existing spending its replacing though
14:50 < Simon/D> the joys of not having a functional PDC
14:50 < Simon/D> someone please step up
14:50 < idcrisis/D> does it? what about The Good Book by AC Grayling? and across faiths? Hence the word God...
14:50 < alexjago/D> Yeah, so net cost of $69.9 billion across 4.62 mil citizen kids equals $290/week
14:50 < andrewdpirate/D> So the government pays the family to pay the education department, that is government?
14:51 < gimmeadrink/D> There is also a general trend for costs to go up as the kid progresses through school.  A sliding scale could be more appropriate based off the kids year
14:51 < alexjago/D> sorry, ED = ed dividend
14:51 < Simon/D> do kids get a regular CD as well?
14:52 < Miles/D> no, only adults
14:53 < Simon/D> why not give kids a regular CD instead of ED and are required to have it paid into bank account in the child's name which can only be used towards expenses of the child
14:53 < satchdotnet/D> I like the notion of setting at half CD instead of specifying an unrelated amount
14:55 < mandrke/D> I agree with both @alexjago and @sorokyne
14:56 < gimmeadrink/D> Policing the spending also adds overhead, loopholes, and removes privacy and personal agency.
14:57 < Miles/D> MOTION: to remove the education dividend from PM1 entirely, and add a section for the citizen dividend that applies to children equivalent to 50% of the adult rate
14:58 < zach1234/D> How would public schooling be funded using this proposal?
14:58 < Miles/D> (hold voting)
14:58 < Simon/D> I see two options, 1. replace policy with existing education policy or 2. CD $290 a week for citizen children (paid into a bank account in the child's name?) to pay towards the direct expenses of the child such as education.
14:58 < alexjago/D> no changes to pub schooling funding under this proposal
14:58 < Miles/D> @.milspec has said he will accept this amendment
14:58 < Miles/D> any comments or concerns?
14:59 < Simon/D> if public school funding continues under Child CD, does that mean this section needs transposing from the existing policy?
14:59 < gimmeadrink/D> Can the exact number be tweaked once the costing is done?
14:59 < alexjago/D> yeah I need to double check my numbers
15:00 < Simon/D> @sorokyne Do we need to copy and paste the existing education policy (gonski) to make Child CD happen???
15:01 < Miles/D> i dont think PM1 actually removes the existing education policy
15:01 < Simon/D> ok
15:03 < alexjago/D> I checked my numbers - yep, childrens dividend
15:03 < alexjago/D> can be set at $290/week with same net spend
15:04 < satchdotnet/D> I don't have a mic right now
15:04 < Simon/D> can we vote on ecducation now
15:04 <+jedb> loooooop de looooop
15:05 < satchdotnet/D> Loud and clear @johna8860
15:05 < Simon/D> can we quickly go over religion and give 2 mins to hear out zach
15:05 < alexjago/D> @brij in here
15:06 < Simon/D> @brij👋
15:06 < milspec/D> MOTION: Adopt SWF and Resource Extraction section
15:06 < johna8860/D> place votes
15:06 < johna8860/D> aye
15:06 < zach1234/D> aye
15:06 < mandrke/D> aye
15:06 < idcrisis/D> non religious, secularism ( God ) and religious ( Christ, Buddha, Jedi )...
15:06 < alexjago/D> aye
15:06 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
15:06 < Simon/D> aye
15:06 <+jedb> aye
15:06 < milspec/D> aye
15:06 < Miles/D> aye
15:06 < idcrisis/D> aye
15:07 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
15:07 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
15:07 < gold1227/D> Aye
15:07 < satchdotnet/D> It was an non contested motion
15:08 < Simon/D> @sorokyne can we quickly get through religion
15:08 < Miles/D> sorry just remembrered simon
15:10 < Simon/D> I asusme no one has issues with Child CD?
15:10 < Miles/D> i havent heard any comments or opposition simon
15:10 < satchdotnet/D> Apparently not
15:11 < Simon/D> so can we just move on and touch on unfinished topics
15:11 < Simon/D> @zach__1234  go ahead with relgious tax concession concernns
15:11 < zach1234/D> It states at the end "Exemptions are to be retained for qualifying activities such as charity or community service.". This is vague as to whether regular church services constitute charity or community services
15:12 < zach1234/D> If its outlined explicitly, contention can be clarified among secularists and faithful folk
15:12 < idcrisis/D> this page has been coopted - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism there are national constitutions with billions of people who have defined secularism as generic God and religion as specific God...
15:13 < Simon/D> My concern is that legitimate charitable services which delivery public benefit (more than just spirituality) on a non-discriminatory basis might be excluded under this policy?
15:13 < idcrisis/D> https://www.secularism.org.uk/what-is-secularism.html - Secularism is not atheism
15:13 < zach1234/D> I find church attendance to be non-discriminatory and for public benefit
15:13 < Simon/D> @zach__1234 depends on the church
15:14 < zach1234/D> Walk into a church on a sunday and they wont turn you away for not being a member
15:14 < alexjago/D> basically, existing policy is that you can't make a tax deductible donation to a church just because it's a church
15:14 < Simon/D> @zach__1234 but will they attack you because of your sexuality, etc?
15:14 < zach1234/D> For your sexual acts, not your sexual interests
15:14 < johna8860/D> I know someone who had a very different experience, but it was in the style of a fundamentalist US church.
15:14 < satchdotnet/D> That all depends no the church.
15:15 < satchdotnet/D> That all depends on the church. (edited)
15:15 < Simon/D> so what about charities providing social housing, and they don't discriminate in who they offer that to (i.e. LGBTIQA+ friendly)?
15:15 < Swashbuckler/D> what is the public benefit they are providing?
15:15 < Simon/D> can that activity of social housing still get charity status
15:15 < zach1234/D> To a believer, plenty
15:15 < johna8860/D> man fbreader
15:16 < alexjago/D> BRB
15:16 < satchdotnet/D> It could be defined as a portion of their budget.
15:17 < Simon/D> can we add something to milspec policy to add a non-discrimination to their charitable/community services
15:17 <+jedb> zach1234: cultists are inherently biased
15:17 < Simon/D> we can also vote for "advancement of religion" as being a charitable activity within itself, because I think that is what zach__ is contending
15:17 < satchdotnet/D> For example, some Protestant churches pay 10% to their governing bodies, and at least 30% to charities.
15:18 < zach1234/D> I dont mind 'advancement of religion' being taxable, but that doesnt include regular church services in my mind
15:18 < Simon/D> isn't a regular church service for the purpose of advancing the religion?
15:18 < zach1234/D> This is why clarification on the policy should be added
15:19 < Simon/D> regular church service = advancement of religion under the current charity legislation.
15:19 < alexjago/D> The existing policy's dotpoint was quite carefully drafted
15:19 < zach1234/D> I find weekly mass to be charitable. You dont pay for that service
15:19 < andrewdpirate/D> COMMENT: Regardless of whether an organization is religious or not, simply hassling LGBT folks isn't a basis for charitable status. The point of this exercise is not about the definition of charity, it's about removing the tax concessions specifically for the promotion of religion.
15:19 < Swashbuckler/D> I think if a church does normal charity things, that activity and funds for *that* should be non-taxable, but a church just doing church things should not be tax free
15:20 < Simon/D> zach what you are talking about is 'advancement' an ANNC
15:20 < Simon/D> ACNC
15:20 < satchdotnet/D> A regular church service is still a service. It's profit should be taxed like any other.
15:20 < idcrisis/D> secularism is religion in it's infancy stage...
15:20 < zach1234/D> You dont pay for regular church service. Its free
15:20 < johna8860/D> Some churches have a collection, yes optional but ...
15:20 < idcrisis/D> secularism is religion in it's infancy stage...generic god as opposed to specific god... (edited)
15:21 < Simon/D> correct MIles
15:21 < Swashbuckler/D> lots of services are provided for free or at any cost you like, that doesn't make it charity
15:21 < zach1234/D> If i donate during a mass service, that shouldnt be taxed, since it is a donation during a charitable event
15:21 <+jedb> idcrisis: no
15:21 < alexjago/D> Proposed Motion: replace the dotpoint in PM-1
15:21 < alexjago/D> > * Remove tax concessions for religous organisations. Exemptions are to be retained for qualifying activities such as charity or community service.
15:21 < alexjago/D> with the dotpoints from the pre-existing policy 
15:21 < alexjago/D> > * Remove 'advancement of religion' as a charitable activity for the purpose of determining tax exemption.
15:21 < alexjago/D> > ** Retain exemptions for non-commercial income earned by religious organisations if the organisation meets any other categories for exemption including provision of charity, education, culture, community service, or health.
15:21 < Jay/D> COMMENT
15:21 < Jay/D> The obvious issue is the difficulty policing that such institutions aren't discriminating according to their weird beliefs while delivering genuine charitable services (e.g. choosing only to deliver services in postcodes where there aren't any of the demographics they dislike
15:21 < idcrisis/D> yes
15:22 < Simon/D> I see what zach is contenting, that is what we are disagreeing if zach's contribution to religious advancement should be considered charity or a taxable payment. I think we have enough to go to vote on this topic if zachs contribution for mass service should be taxed?
15:22 < idcrisis/D> yes, i want the exemption and to remove it... (edited)
15:22 < andrewdpirate/D> We're not trying to be the religion police
15:23 < satchdotnet/D> May I suggest adding 'secular' to the last point?
15:23 < satchdotnet/D> ** Retain exemptions for non-commercial income earned by religious organisations if the organisation meets any other categories for exemption including provision of charity, secular education, culture, community service, or health.
15:23 < Miles/D> Milspec is accepting Alex's proposed changes
15:23 < Simon/D> PS: Zach I don't think you will win this one, most pirates would be against church service getting special tax status, despite making you feel good and who is allowed to walk in to hear their messaging
15:23 < Miles/D> @alexjago @.milspec  ^ ?
15:24 < Miles/D> @zach__1234 do you want to place a motion to remove this section?
15:24 < Simon/D> I agree with Bridgid and entirely appropriate
15:24 < milspec/D> I'll defer to Alex
15:24 < zach1234/D> Then tax all charitable services
15:24 < Simon/D> @zach__1234 I don't agree, let's vote
15:25 <+jedb> mentioning and targeting specific groups goes against the idea of equal opportunity
15:25 < satchdotnet/D> Just that churches would see their indoctrination as education.
15:25 < zach1234/D> Then whats the difference between a religious service thats not charged for, and a secular service?
15:26 < Miles/D> @zach__1234 ok i want to move on, would you like to place a motion to amend?
15:26 < Simon/D> @zach__1234milspec has already accepted amendment to not count advancement, so this discussion is now over
15:26 < satchdotnet/D> It's close enough
15:26 < zach1234/D> Just clarify whether regular church services constitute charity or community service, and i can make an opinion for or against
15:27 < Simon/D> MOTION: Include a statement that the qualifying charitable activities must be non-discriminatory, both in who they accept into the activity, and how they deliver it to not discriminate against any margionalised group.
15:27 < alexjago/D> that's a matter for discrimination law
15:27 < Swashbuckler/D> as long as notre dame uni will have to pay rates I am happy
15:27 <+jedb> Simon: the word "marginalised" shouldn't need to be in there
15:27 < Simon/D> vote
15:28 < satchdotnet/D> It doesn't hurt to explicitly state it in tihs policy, despite being covered elsewhere.
15:28 < alexjago/D> cool, I vote nay
15:28 < Miles/D> start voting
15:28 < Miles/D> abstain
15:28 < Jay/D> abstain
15:28 < Simon/D> aye
15:28 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
15:28 < idcrisis/D> aye
15:28 < milspec/D> abstain
15:28 <+jedb> aye
15:28 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
15:28 < zach1234/D> aye
15:28 < Swashbuckler/D> aye
15:28 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
15:28 < mandrke/D> aye
15:29 < Simon/D> @brij add your vote
15:29 < gold1227/D> Abstain
15:29 < johna8860/D> abstain
15:29 < satchdotnet/D> The Ayes have it
15:29 < alexjago/D> Brij isn't a member to my knowledge
15:29 <+jedb> I lurk in the irc PDC channel all the time, but afaik most discussion there shifted to audio chat quite some time ago with discord
15:29 < satchdotnet/D> Yes, that's correct
15:29 < Miles/D> its true jedb 😢
15:29 < Miles/D> stop voting
15:30 < Simon/D> @miles well said about PDC, can you please press harder that we need someone
15:30 <+jedb> "quick to go through" famous last words
15:30 < Simon/D> great policy this one 🔥
15:31 < Miles/D> jedb i just remembered the massive debate we had about taxation this morning and my heart sank 😩
15:31 < alexjago/D> QUESTION: When we say "raised 15.4 billion" is that the Gillard era tax or the PPAU post-Gillard proposal revenue estimate?
15:32 <+jedb> COMMENT: congestion tax cannot work because the modes of transport people choose is largely dependent on urban street design and related infrastructure, as can be seen with how everyone still drives despite the cost of fuel going up and up
15:32 < alexjago/D> Cool, can we say "Australia's" rather than "our"?
15:32 < Simon/D> jedb: congestion tax plays a part in the traffic engineering to discourage it's use
15:33 <+jedb> Simon: and yet it would only discourage if there are viable options already in place, otherwise it's just another cost that people will swallow
15:33 < Jay/D> Counterpoint: if they raise money to fix the infrastructure that's still good
15:33 < idcrisis/D> it's better to "put a lid on it"....pass brown coal fumes through water, car exhaust too....99% reduction...
15:34 < Simon/D> Does anyone have any actual contention to this policy?
15:34 <+jedb> yes
15:34 < johna8860/D> MOTION: Amend and include the following paragraph: "As pirates, we endorse personal choice. It is not the intention of this section that we limit people's freedom to make choices, however we would like to ensure people may for the consquences of their choices others".
15:34 < andrewdpirate/D> If you did this to fertilizer at the moment there would be a huge problem. Fertilizer costs are through the roof as a combination of China hoarding Phosphates, and Ukraine/Russia no longer being sources of Nitrogrnous fertilizers that were manufactured from natural gas.
15:35 < Swashbuckler/D> counter counter point: the money should be raised by a better tax
15:35 < satchdotnet/D> They are spicey ones. The congestion tax would be biased towards rural populations, who need powerful vehicles, and don't have access to charging stations for EVs
15:35 < zach1234/D> I agree that sugar is bad for your health, but it can also keep you alive, soo...
15:35 < johna8860/D> MOTION: Amend and include the following paragraph: "As pirates, we endorse personal choice. It is not the intention of this section that we limit people's freedom to make choices, however we would like to ensure people may for the consquences of their choices on others". (edited)
15:35 < Simon/D> OK Miles but I meant on the FLoor here
15:35 < Simon/D> so I count two contentions, 1. fertilizer cost (andrew) and 2. Jedb wants to say something
15:35 < johna8860/D> MOTION: Amend and include the following paragraph: "As pirates, we endorse personal choice. It is not the intention of this section that we limit people's freedom to make choices, however we would like to ensure people pay for the consquences of their choices on others". (edited)
15:36 < Miles/D> accepted by milspec
15:36 < milspec/D> Congestion Tax: 👍  or 👎
15:36 < Miles/D> reply to  this with emoji
15:36 < milspec/D> Pay as you throw 👍  or 👎
15:36 < alexjago/D> just type
15:36 < alexjago/D> Congestion Y/N
15:36 < alexjago/D> Garbage Y/N
15:36 < alexjago/D> Sugar Y/N
15:36 < alexjago/D> Tobacco & Alcohol Y/N
15:36 < alexjago/D> Pesticide & Fertiliser Y/N
15:36 <+jedb> nay to congestion
15:36 < milspec/D> Sugar tax 👍  👎
15:36 < satchdotnet/D> I also think the alcohol tax should be based on the alcohol content, not the retail rate. It skews the price range, such that a decent bottle of scotch runs over $100
15:36 < zach1234/D> the third is abstein
15:36 < milspec/D> Tobacoo and Alcohol 👍 👎
15:37 < mandrke/D> jedb prefers replacing the sugar tax with a tax based on waist measurement
15:37 <+jedb> I have a motion about sugar once we're done with the congestion though
15:37 < milspec/D> Pesticide and Fertiliser Taxes 👍 👎
15:37 < Jay/D> just type
15:37 < Jay/D> Congestion Y
15:37 < Jay/D> Garbage N
15:37 < Jay/D> Sugar Y
15:37 < Jay/D> Tobacco & Alcohol Y
15:37 < Jay/D> Pesticide & Fertiliser Y
15:37 < mandrke/D> jedb prefers replacing the sugar tax with a tax based on waist measurement or BMI (edited)
15:37 < Simon/D> I am against Fertilizer because this would be a massive cost we are not prepared to displace yet
15:38 < alexjago/D> I'd support Pesticide only for now
15:38 < zach1234/D> Pesticide and fertiliser should have other policies to ensure safety, conservation, etc
15:38 < Simon/D> alcohol/taboccao drug/vape tax, can we get some clarification about not OVER taxation .. is is currently the vape sitaution and medical marijuana which is being made basically unaffordable for many and many turning to black market?
15:38 < alexjago/D> 100%
15:39 < idcrisis/D> taxation doesn't work...govt has to clean up as a utility after the fact refer crap...Direct Air Capture...
15:39 < Simon/D> alcohol/taboccao drug/vape tax, can we get some clarification about not OVER taxation .. is is currently the vape sitaution and medical marijuana which is being made basically unaffordable for many and many turning to black market? @.milspec (edited)
15:39 < Miles/D> let the minutes show that pesticide and fertiliser tax will be removed from PM1, all other targetted taxes to remain
15:39 < Miles/D> jedb do you want to place your formal motion now
15:39 < Miles/D> or anyone else
15:39 < alexjago/D> we did have that tax free threshold for non citizens
15:39 < satchdotnet/D> RE Congestion tax, could we restrict this to urban areas?
15:39 <+jedb> MOTION: Replace the text elaborating the Sugar Tax bullet point with "Sugar Tax: To combat the negative externalities associated with high sugar consumption, we propose a tax on added sugar in beverages, to be levied on the manufacturer or importer. By increasing the price of such drinks, that tax would encourage ingredient lists to be reformulated to healthier levels and generate revenue to fund public health initiatives."
15:40 < satchdotnet/D> So as not to unfairly penalise rural folk?
15:40 < Simon/D> MOTION (or milspec accept): Can we add a blerb to Drugs policy about not taxing too high that it would open up the black market and penalise users for their choices disproportionate to the negative effects caused on everyone else?
15:41 < Miles/D> milspec is accepting jedb's amendment
15:41 < gold1227/D> Jedb, it's not just beverages, almost every processed food puts in an obscene amount of sugar in it because it's cheap and addictive.
15:41 < Simon/D> MOTION (or milspec accept): reintroduce a tax free threshold for non citizens
15:41 < johna8860/D> Not cheesemakers, but rather any purveyor of diary produce.
15:41 < alexjago/D> main section
15:41 <+jedb> gold1227: the original text in the PM is just about beverages anyway
15:41 < idcrisis/D> as an indicator of scale, one DAC plant is a few million trees equivalent....
15:41 < Simon/D> Alcohol and Nicotine is drugs
15:41 < johna8860/D> Not cheesemakers, but rather any purveyor of dairy produce. (edited)
15:41 < Simon/D> 25% flat tax
15:42 < johna8860/D> Not just cheesemakers, but rather any purveyor of dairy produce. (edited)
15:42 < Miles/D> milspec changed his mind, no longer accepting jedb's amendment
15:42 < Miles/D> jedb do you want a vote?
15:42 < gimmeadrink/D> Alcohol and tobacco already have taxes in excess of 50% in some cases.
15:42 < gimmeadrink/D> https://www.ato.gov.au/business/excise-on-alcohol/excise-duty-rates-for-alcohol/
15:42 <+jedb> I would like a vote, sure
15:42 < Simon/D> lets just give non citizens $20k tax free and be done with it
15:42 < satchdotnet/D> Also there's already a massive black market for untaxed tobacco, 'chop chop', often sold through retail tobacconists at a fraction of the cost of the legit options
15:42 <+jedb> I also note that the original PM text did specify beverages
15:42 < mandrke/D> MOTION: Replace the text elaborating the Sugar Tax bullet point with "Sugar Tax: To combat the negative externalities associated with high sugar consumption, we propose a tax on added sugar, to be levied on the manufacturer or importer. By increasing the price of such drinks, that tax would encourage ingredient lists to be reformulated to healthier levels and generate revenue to  <clipped message>
15:42 < mandrke/D> fund public health initiatives."
15:43 < idcrisis/D> A large facility capable of extracting significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the air is being planned for north east Scotland.
15:43 < idcrisis/D> The proposed plant would remove up to one million tonnes of CO2 every year - the same amount taken up by around 40 million trees. - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57588248
15:43 < Miles/D> milspec apologises, jedb you are correct
15:43 < Miles/D> so he does accept your amendment
15:44 < mandrke/D> MOTION: Replace the text elaborating the Sugar Tax bullet point with "Sugar Tax: To combat the negative externalities associated with high sugar consumption, we propose a tax on added sugar, to be levied on the manufacturer or importer. By increasing the price of such products, that tax would encourage ingredient lists to be reformulated to healthier levels and generate revenue t <clipped message>
15:44 < mandrke/D> o fund public health initiatives." (edited)
15:44 < Miles/D> voting on this motion
15:44 < Miles/D> hold voting
15:44 < Miles/D> simon what threshold?
15:44 < Simon/D> $20k
15:44 < Simon/D> which is piss all really, but something
15:45 < zach1234/D> https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Individual-income-tax-rates/
15:45 < Simon/D> $30,160
15:45 < Simon/D> (580x52)
15:45 < Miles/D> motion text is to introduce tax free threshold of 30,160$ on the flat tax of 25% in PM1
15:45 < Miles/D> place your votes now
15:45 < Simon/D> ayea
15:45 < mandrke/D> aye
15:45 < Jay/D> Aye
15:46 < milspec/D> nay
15:46 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
15:46 < johna8860/D> nay
15:46 < zach1234/D> nay
15:46 < Swashbuckler/D> aye
15:46 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
15:46 < idcrisis/D> aye
15:46 < andrewdpirate/D> nay
15:46 < Simon/D> oh issue with motion text, did not say non citizens
15:46 < Miles/D> hang on sorry everyone
15:46 < Miles/D> i misquoted the motion text
15:46 < Simon/D> cancel and repeat to say non citizens please
15:46 < Miles/D> simon do you want to word it?
15:46 < zach1234/D> So.. citizens pay the tax but non-citizens dont? CD may cover it but thats bad for optics
15:46 < andrewdpirate/D> Oh right, if it's only for non-citizens, then I change my vote
15:46 < Simon/D> motion text is to introduce tax free threshold of 30,160 for non citizens  on the flat tax of 25% in PM1
15:46 < alexjago/D> > set the tax-free threshold for non-citizen Australian residents at the level of the Citizens Dividedn
15:46 < Miles/D> ok start voting now
15:47 < Simon/D> aye
15:47 < Jay/D> Aye
15:47 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
15:47 < mandrke/D> aye
15:47 < milspec/D> nay
15:47 <+jedb> aye
15:47 < zach1234/D> nay
15:47 < johna8860/D> aye, non citizens, ok
15:47 < alexjago/D> aye
15:47 < Swashbuckler/D> aye
15:47 < idcrisis/D> aye
15:47 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
15:47 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
15:47 < Miles/D> abstain
15:47 < gold1227/D> Abstain
15:47 < Miles/D> stop voting, motion passes
15:48 < zach1234/D> Why are we not taxing non-citizens but now taxing citizens under 36k
15:48 < zach1234/D> That was a terrible motion
15:48 < Simon/D> ok and motion outstanding about overtaxation of Alcohol/Nicotine
15:48 < Swashbuckler/D> but they'll be getting the UBI
15:48 < Simon/D> @zach__1234 becase citizens get CD giving them heaps of money to negate flat tax, but non citizens done.
15:48 < Swashbuckler/D> it's literally impossible to make less than 30k as a citizen
15:48 < zach1234/D> Then whats the point of the UBI at all
15:49 < Swashbuckler/D> the UBI is tax free
15:49 <+jedb> zach1234: for citizens it works out to be "govt gives you $580, then everything above that gets taxed" and for non-citizens it works out to be "earnings up to $580/wk are tax-free, then everything above that gets taxed"
15:49 < Swashbuckler/D> I'll have to come to the policy development thing next time
15:49 < milspec/D> guys, i need to switch to voice only - won't be able to monitor chat
15:49 < Simon/D> MOTION: Say something to speak out against overtaxation of Drugs which cause black markets and serve as a sin tax in excess of the negative effect on others. For example vaping.
15:50 < Simon/D> can you fix it to be valid in some way
15:50 < Simon/D> I had a couple others agree
15:50 < Simon/D> or milspec can just agree to make a change
15:50 < Simon/D> I don't want us to be just another leftist parties who see drugs as a cash cow to make money
15:50 < satchdotnet/D> It could be fleshed out and proposed at next year's Congress
15:51 < idcrisis/D> decriminalise marijuana with no exceptions...
15:51 < Simon/D> I sent milspec an email about it a few days ago, I only just saw PM1 recently
15:51 < Miles/D> MOTION: adopt PM-1 as amended (on behalf of milspec)
15:51 < Simon/D> I have done what I can on this without a functional PDC
15:51 < Miles/D> place your votes now
15:51 < Jay/D> Aue
15:51 < Miles/D> i vote aye
15:51 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
15:51 < alexjago/D> aye
15:51 < idcrisis/D> aye
15:51 <+jedb> aye
15:52 < mandrke/D> aye
15:52 < Jay/D> Aye (edited)
15:52 < zach1234/D> nay
15:52 < johna8860/D> aye
15:52 < Swashbuckler/D> nay
15:52 < alexjago/D> milspec voted Aye verbally
15:52 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
15:52 < Miles/D> minutes record mlspec as verbally voting aye on livestream
15:52 < mandrke/D> and aye for @.milspec
15:52 < Simon/D> aye, but I want to see a functional PDC to fine tune it over the next year
15:52 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
15:52 < gold1227/D> Aye
15:52 < Simon/D> I was very close to voting abstain but I recognise the significant amoutn of work milspec has put into it
15:54 < Swashbuckler/D> I am a permanent resident, so as the policy stands I can't advocate for it above the current economic policy. although the new tax free threshold for non-citizens makes it much more agreeable
15:54 < Miles/D> close voting, motion passes
15:54 < gimmeadrink/D> @smg0356 Our existing drug policy, while not as elaborate or detailed as this current proposal, does kind of address your concerns (slightly).  This is inspiring me to start attending PDC to flesh it out a bit further.
15:54 < gimmeadrink/D> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Platform#An_end_to_the_war_on_drugs
15:55 < Miles/D> MOTION: hold national congress 2024 online
15:55 < Miles/D> begin voting
15:55 < Miles/D> i vote aye
15:55 < zach1234/D> aye
15:55 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
15:55 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
15:55 < mandrke/D> aye
15:55 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
15:55 < alexjago/D> aye
15:55 < idcrisis/D> aye
15:55 <+jedb> abstain
15:55 < Swashbuckler/D> aye
15:55 < Simon/D> @gimmeadrink please volunteer to be PDC officer! please!!
15:55 < Simon/D> aye
15:55 < johna8860/D> aye
15:55 < gold1227/D> Aye
15:56 < Miles/D> stop voting, motion passes
15:56 < satchdotnet/D> As is tradition 😛
15:56 < Miles/D> MOTION: extend congress scheduled finish time to 4.30 AEST (an additional 30 minutes)
15:56 < Miles/D> start voting
15:56 < Simon/D> abatain
15:56 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
15:56 < johna8860/D> aye
15:56 < Miles/D> i vote aye
15:56 < mandrke/D> aye
15:56 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
15:56 < idcrisis/D> aye
15:56 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
15:56 < alexjago/D> aye
15:56 <+jedb> abstain
15:56 < gold1227/D> Aye
15:57 < Simon/D> I have heard too much Miles for one weekend 😆
15:57 < Miles/D> stop voting, motion passes
15:57 < alexjago/D> can confirm Sven audio on stream
15:58 < Simon/D> 👋 Sven
15:59 < Simon/D> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Deputies_(Luxembourg)
15:59 < Simon/D> Pirates in Purple
16:01 < gold1227/D> Eurovision isn't as big of a thing over here
16:01 < idcrisis/D> libreoffice can save to pdf...so around a billion children can easily do their assignments and gain an education without much friction like a license...also is it a govt risk having aging closed source products which are out of support...is the govt being held hostage outright?
16:01 < Simon/D> speak for yourself, big to some
16:02 <+jedb> I only really know Luxembourg as part of the Benelux grouping (not a question)
16:02 < satchdotnet/D> Some schools are even worse. Many mandated the use of Apple iPads!
16:03 < Simon/D> Sven: It looks like you sit with the government coalition but you are not in government, what is the dynamic there that you sit with them but you are not included?
16:04 < idcrisis/D> what is a continent?
16:05 <+jedb> idcrisis: a miserable pile of countries
16:05 < gold1227/D> North Queensland independence!
16:05 < satchdotnet/D> Australia is both an island and continent. It's pretty much the text book definiton dividing the 2
16:06 < Simon/D> WAexit
16:06 < alexjago/D> Bavarian independence party - exclusively running outside of Bavaria with the slogan "don't you want to get rid of us?"
16:06 < Swashbuckler/D> WAxit!
16:07 <+jedb> satchdotnet: Australia-the-continent actually includes the isle of New Guinea to the north if you examine the seafloor map closely
16:07 < gimmeadrink/D> Question:  What is the role of the (monarch?  duke?) in Luxembourg, and is there a republican movement?
16:08 < Simon/D> Do you find that this leads to better outcomes compared to opposition sitting on the other side?
16:09 < Swashbuckler/D> Question: what were the primary policy issues that you think got you the most support for the elections?
16:09 < idcrisis/D> when GBPEUR and EURGBP was floated...that being the first reciprocal pair in the world, removing systemic reciprocal "jumping around" risk....dy/dx(1/x)=-1/x^2 for AUD and USD vs GBP, does it incentivise reducing one's own currency? when will GBPAUD AUDGBP and USDGBP and GBPUSD be floated?
16:09 < gimmeadrink/D> Question:  What is the role of the (monarch?  duke?) in Luxembourg, and is there a republican movement (and if so, are the Pirates part of the republicans)? (edited)
16:09 < Simon/D> Question: Do you find that this leads to better outcomes compared to opposition sitting on the other side? (edited)
16:11 < Simon/D> Question: With working alongside government compared to sitting opposite. Do you find that this leads to better outcomes compared to opposition sitting on the other side? Do you have examples of where you were able to get an issue changed because of the mostly positive working relationship you have with them? (edited)
16:14 < Simon/D> QUESTION: A bit of a longer question (maybe save for last) but what was your pathway from being unknown to getting elected? How much would the average Luxembourger know about Pirate issues? Has having a seat raised more awareness significantly? Is the media giving you any attention or trying to hide your existance?
16:15 <+jedb> arguably governments that understand the internet are even worse, because that seems to often lead to governments that want to strangle any freedom out of the internet...
16:15 < Simon/D> Questions: How much local issues to you get into even if it is not strictly speaking a Pirate issue?
16:16 < gimmeadrink/D> 'Radical centrists'.  I like that phrase.
16:18 < satchdotnet/D> The misinformation censorship of social media turned into an Orwellian Ministry of Truth, stifling the voice of anything that ran against the official narrative.
16:19 < Simon/D> It's strange how local Luxembourg issues are also issues locally here as well.
16:20 < andrewdpirate/D> At 2-3% return, you'd be losing money relative to inflation.
16:21 < satchdotnet/D> Guessing their interest rate is lower than ours
16:21 < Simon/D> Question: So you want to allow investors to take a small non controlling stake into social housing?
16:23 < andrewdpirate/D> Luxenburg inflation running at 7% in 2022
16:24 < Simon/D> Miles, it hacking time
16:26 < satchdotnet/D> That's very risky here, we have too much legislation surrounding it. Technically even running a port scan against a target without express prior approval is illegal.
16:26 <+jedb> unfortunate reminder that 3-4% won't get you much of anything in Australia, unfortunately
16:26 < Miles/D> 4% is electoral funding threshold in australia
16:26 <+jedb> and yeah, Australian computing law is incredibly draconian - glad I don't live there :P
16:26 < milspec/D> That's awesome, congratulations Sven. Very inspirational.
16:26 <+jedb> Miles: true, there's that at least
16:27 < Jay/D> Good description of a long game thanks Sven
16:27 < Simon/D> Question: do you also face issues of overrepresentation of predominantly male IT guys being in the Pirate Party? Have you done anything, and to any success, in broadening the demographics?
16:27 <~alexjago> Australian Pirates, if you have ideas for (legal) stunts I want to know
16:28 < Simon/D> I suggest we make Alex walk the plant to protest some environmental waterways issue
16:28 < Simon/D> I suggest we make Alex walk the plank to protest some environmental waterways issue (edited)
16:28 < Miles/D> great barrier reef bleeching, drop alex offshore near heron island
16:28 <+jedb> Simon: why do you consider the gender of political representatives to be important? they can still talk to and represent people just the same, can they not?
16:29 < satchdotnet/D> I was threatened by the AFP Cyber Crimes unit (back then called Hi-Tech Crim es division) after running some SQL queries through a dev webpage portal that was deployed into prod. There's really not much we can do as a 'stunt' without risking criminal prosecution.
16:29 < Simon/D> ask your own question jedb
16:30 <+jedb> Simon: not asking Sven, I'm asking you
16:30 < Simon/D> I will answer you later but let's not derail the live interview
16:31 < idcrisis/D> open source car, assemble the 150 or so parts in an afternoon - https://www.riversimple.com/ lease includes unlimited h2 fuel...
16:33 < Simon/D> 👋 🙏
16:33 < Swashbuckler/D> 👋
16:34 < alexjago/D> 👏🏻
16:34 < gold1227/D> Thanks
16:34 < gimmeadrink/D> 🍻
16:35 < SvenClementLuxembourg/D> By actively recruiting underrepresented voices and enabling them to be heard (without quotas) through encouragement and training
16:36 < milspec/D> Big thanks to both of our guest speakers @Sven Clement - Luxembourg and @brij
16:36 < Simon/D> @Sven Clement - Luxembourg if youy are available to stick around or make another time with Miles, would love the interview to continue, thanks so much
16:36 < SvenClementLuxembourg/D> I consider it important to have all voices represented (this includes gender, but also socio-economic attributes)
16:36 < zach1234/D> "Strongly anarchist", just hold the bombs
16:37 < SvenClementLuxembourg/D> Will have to go campaign in a few minutes, but we can certainly schedule another round-table type of discussion
16:37 < Simon/D> lovely, would love to learn a lot and collaborate
16:37 < andrewdpirate/D> "Anarchist" just literalls means  No Ruler.
16:37 < satchdotnet/D> Agree, there's no systemic discrimination. It's just that more of some groups happen to throw their hand in.
16:38 < zach1234/D> It was a reference to earlier anarchist movements involving dynamite
16:38 < Simon/D> @Sven Clement - Luxembourg good luck campaigning. Pirates for Government!
16:38 < satchdotnet/D> The solution to discrimination isn't more discrimination.
16:40 < SvenClementLuxembourg/D> And that's why you need to have a strategy to actively engage, train and empower those that won't do that naturally
16:41 < satchdotnet/D> How though? There's equal opportunity for all. The rest is up to whoever steps up to take them.
16:42 < owenfm/D> I'd love to see the 3 Pirate rule catching on, in Fusion 🙂
16:47 < SvenClementLuxembourg/D> Equal opportunity doesn't mean that everybody magically participates.
16:47 < SvenClementLuxembourg/D> I like the following illustration a lot: https://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png
16:47 < SvenClementLuxembourg/D> If you want to be inclusive and representative of whole of society you need to not only tell people: "step up, take the opportunity" but you need to encourage them, listen to the reasons why they might not participate (Time of meetings? Language? Feeling of belonging?). Depending on the answers you'll get you have different pathways to activate the potential that will not simply  <clipped message>
16:47 < SvenClementLuxembourg/D> raise their hand and participate but that needs some encouragement.
16:47 < SvenClementLuxembourg/D> One specific example: Without such a strategy we would not have gotten our first mayor elected 😉
16:49 < alexjago/D> > Equal opportunity doesn't mean that everybody magically participates.
16:49 < alexjago/D> thank you
16:50 < satchdotnet/D> I support equality of opportunity, but not equity in outcomes. Otherwise we're moving towards a Marxist Communist thinking.
16:51 < Simon/D> jedb [IRC]: To answer your question...
16:51 < Simon/D> I don't think that gender/identity to particular groups is of supreme importance, but people of certain groups bring important context to discussion through their own lived experiences related to their memberships of such groups. 
16:51 < Simon/D> When a particular group is overrepresented by a certain demographic, than many voices which are common in the wider electorate (most notably, women are almost 50% of the population), many issues related to that group get lost. 
16:51 < Simon/D> Also, come election time, with a group which is mainly of one group would alienate people outside that group because the voter does not find that Party relatable in any way. 
16:51 < Simon/D> The Pirates have done a lot of great important work, especially around digital issues given the amount of IT-background people we have and that is a strength, but we have too much of the same thing which makes the other issues suffer.
16:51 < Simon/D> I don't advocate for quotas, but we should be encouraging diverse voices to come on board to enhance our viewpoints rather than be an echo chamber.
16:51 < Simon/D> Some groups have traditionally found it difficult to actively reach out to participate in a political group, and so it is not quite an even field either.
16:52 < Simon/D> Today, I think that some proposed policy has not considered the needs of other demographics - be it women, poor migrants, people often on the receiving end of religious discrimination (@brij pointed this out also) - and if I had not put in those Motions (which were all accepted) - Those groups would have missed out for another year and we would have turned away potential pirates  <clipped message>
16:52 < Simon/D> who would have not joined because they saw that. 
16:52 < Simon/D> There could be other examples I missed due to my own limited experience and not knowing everything about all the marginalised groups, and not having many others with this awareness on board.
16:52 < Simon/D> I am absolutely delighted to have @brij on board because even though she is a bit more involved on the IDpol side of things that you would like, she brings a lot of experience to the party which will help us break away from unconscious bias.
16:52 < Simon/D> This isn't about putting certain groups about others, but to make sure that we are adequately representative of the needs of all potential voters
16:52 < zach1234/D> Good lord...
16:52 < satchdotnet/D> With safety nets of course, and universal health care. Accessible education and health services are a basic.
16:53 < zach1234/D> I find that gender issues being raised including participation is not unjustified, but as with other contentious issues such as recognition of native land, should be measured and nuanced.
16:53 < idcrisis/D> health facuets, health faucets!
16:55 < satchdotnet/D> Last I checked, it was ~53% No on The Voice referendum.
16:55 < andrewdpirate/D> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/580190396110340107/1132566719664234546/iu.png
16:56 < Jay/D> COMMENT:
16:56 < Jay/D> IDpol issues are divisive due to people's experiences in bureaucracies.
16:56 < Jay/D> I welcome @brij 's offer to  help us discuss and frame these issues
16:56 < Simon/D> I find opinions about Indigenous issues within PPAU essentially irrelevant, as we basically have no Indigenous representation to give us proper context and both sides of the argument would be white fellas arguing behind their back, which is essentially the whole point of the voice in the first place.
16:56 < Miles/D> MOTION: close National Congress 2023
16:56 < Miles/D> place your votes
16:56 < Simon/D> aye
16:56 <~alexjago> aye
16:56 <+jedb> aye
16:56 < Miles/D> i vote aye
16:56 < satchdotnet/D> Aye
16:56 < idcrisis/D> yes
16:56 < andrewdpirate/D> aye
16:56 < zach1234/D> aye
16:56 < Jay/D> Aye
16:56 < gimmeadrink/D> Aye
16:56 < johna8860/D> aye
16:57 < satchdotnet/D> (stream Aye from @mandrke )
16:57 < gold1227/D> aye
16:57 < milspec/D> Aye
16:57 < Miles/D> stop voting, motion passes
16:57 < Morton/D> aye
16:57 < mandrke/D> Aye
16:58 < Simon/D> thanks @sorokyne @alexjago @mandrke @johna8860 @.milspec  @brij and whoever else participated on stream
16:58 < satchdotnet/D> Thanks all
16:58 <~alexjago> thanks all!
16:58 <~alexjago> ##### end of day 2 ####
16:59 < Simon/D> should we have a discord voice afterparty?
16:59 < alexjago/D> yep
16:59 <+jedb> I can see from Simon's responses that we still have sexism and racism running around here, which is a shame
16:59 < alexjago/D> hop in General Voice
17:00 < Simon/D> jedb if you can bring yourself to install proprietary software I would love to talk on discord
17:00 <+jedb> lol I'll pass, thanks
17:00 < gimmeadrink/D> No can do - if I don't start gaming with the kids soon they're going to lynch me...
17:00 < gimmeadrink/D> Thanks all, that was great!
17:00 <+jedb> as I said earlier, discord will never take me alive :P