Join the new world

I have a vote open.. i will be gladly vote for him.. but as far as i know you 2 are against the gold tax.:/

Metallon

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Rangely. I do believe there are better ways to fund the government than the congressional tax. Especially as the country and economy continues to grow. I realize that when the country was small with only a handful of dedicated citizens it made sense. But, longterm, I would like to see it go away.

Japan follows the same procedure, and it works very well for us. Many Japanese are eager and willing to donate their 5G to the country. I guess the customs are a little different between our countries, but the message is the same is it not? Loyal citizens who want their country to continue on do not mind sacrificing 5G that they only received because citizens believed in them. I understand it is nice to keep your gold for yourself, but your country can put it to very good use and it needs it.

Since your country has such little citizens, you cannot ask for much donations from citizens either. Not to mention that would be a little mean... they voted for you, don't expect them to pitch in their own gold while you will not. :3

Just my two cents. We have a few that don't donate, but we call them 'gold-diggers'.

There are people who run for congress shortly after arriving in a nation from elsewhere, without saying a word to anyone, don't even make a presentation, get the 5 gold, and leave. There were several people running in Vorarlberg (namely, from the Conservative Party) who have at least accomplished the first part, and time will tell if they plan on following through and leaving. Seeing as that party has shrunk by over 6 people in a mere day, I suspect it may be happening already.

rjeddings, on the other hand, is an active, participating citizen of Austria who has been elected once, and served out his term without running off someplace. I think even if you disagree with someone on policies, you have to recognize that these qualities make them a better candidate than someone who just showed up - and who, by virtue of not even stating their stances, you don't know if you will agree with any more than rjeddings, anyways.

Obviously its a moot point now since the election is over, but I think its too bad you would rank rjeddings below someone who just moved here to run for congress, Metallon.

Your right, we have those type of 'gold diggers' too. They are not below, but they can be of the same name. 😉

I have never said I don't think he is a good candidate, I have never said that he is not worthy of his position in congress. I have said that for a small country to survive giving up 5 measly gold is something that is considered 'being loyal to your country'. In USA and Sweden they do not need this 'tax' because they make a lot of taxes without it. Smaller countries do not, and it is indeed the right thing to do by helping the country YOU were voted in by, in every way possible. Tell me, what about the citizens? If the country cannot afford something do we get to point fingers?

Loyalty is an interesting thing. Although you may find yourself adequate because you are active and a congressman right now, I find that it is very easy to pick out those who are disloyal because of small things like this. You should be proud of your nation, give it all you got, do your best to see it active and prosper. If not, I don't consider it loyal. In-turn, you're treating your citizens pretty poorly by not giving them a great term in congress in which THEY voted you in for.

In the case where you would rather use the gold for yourself, that is a very very selfish way of using your term.

What's done is done, I just ask that you seriously think about your actions and arguement before you say that what I have said is not true again. Especially since your arguement against me had very little to do with what I initially said. :3

Well, I wasn't rebutting your post, merely Metallon's. That's why it didn't look like I was addressing your points, because I wasn't 🙂

As for the issue of a gold donation, the decision of whether to donate is one each individual - who possesses gold - to make. I do not like that people have attempted to bully others into donating, threatening that they would ensure they would lose, that they would have an article written about them weekly, among other forms of intimidation. I was up front about my opposition to a system like this, and refuse to participate in a system of intimidation.

As such, the people who voted for me did so with the knowledge that I opposed the system. I misled noone, and was open about my position on the issue. People can have different opinions about what is best for Austria. One person might think that donating money to the government, so the government can start a war game is the best thing to do. Another might think that donating money to a company, so they can upgrade their quality to produce better products for Austrians, is the best thing to do. Another might want to give it to a friend so they can make a company, another might give it to an organization that is attempting to give out wellness to people.

Whatever the case, all of these people would be doing what they are doing because they want to help Austria. People can disagree, and will disagree about what is the best way. But I think its wrong to accuse people of disloyalty to Austria just because of this disagreement. People will weigh their options and come to the right decision for the right reason. There's no reason to throw intimidation into the mix.

Actually your country (with low wellness, age, and skill by the majority) is in no position to have high Quality companies, unless you want to be killing your citizens. So, that arguement where using it to upgrade your company to help the country is pretty invalid. It would actually do more damage then good.

As you say, I am just being honest and telling it as it is. For me you are not helping the country succeed, and in turn that is dis-loyal to your country. The fact that other small countries have the same rule and it works for them should be a huge clue telling you that you just may be wrong. Being stubborn in politics is no way to go my friend.

Also, this is not 'intimidation'. It is a simple discussion with disagreement. By saying that I am trying to 'intimidate' you is actually turning the discussion to a more sour note.

Well, I wasn't accusing you of intimidation. The system where people are threatened with reprucussions for not donating is what I consider to be reprucussions. There is nothing wrong with talking about it, weighing the options, and deciding where to put the money.

My argument is that people can disagree with which way is the best way to spend the money. The examples I provided are simply hypothetical possibilities.

As I said in IRC, I will be watching for you to prove yourself then. Don't let me down, okay? 😉

When the right causes come about, such as fundraising for taking back a territory, I will gladly support that cause.