NationStates Jolt Archive

Proposal for an affirmation against poverty

U.N. category: social justice
proposed by: Schoeningia

In order to fight social injustice and ensure that people don't have to live underneath the existential minimum, each state should create an affirmation in which the upper 20% of the respective society, meassured on their property, have to pay a fixed amount of their income.

This amount will be managed by the respective goverment which will grant it to the under 20% of the respective society.

How high this amount is depends from the respective nation, but there should be a under border, pinned down by the U.N.

The part of the society who have to pay this amount shouldn't be able to deduct it from their taxes.

My poorest citizens live in penthouses, closing online real estate deals, while lighting their cigar with $50's. According to your resolution, the richest members would have to pay these people to ensure that they will...have...more money? Steal from the rich and give to the less rich? Sounds like communism.

If somebody has worked hard to build a business and are now earning millions, why should they pay a high tax to support those who do not want to work?

What does it concern you what my citizens are doing, and what right to you have to assume that there is actually a poverty level?

Proposal for an affirmation against poverty

The only way I can get rid of poverty in my nation is to execute people for laziness. And that's not exactly fair.

In order to fight social injustice and ensure that people don't have to live underneath the existential minimum, each state should create an affirmation in which the upper 20% of the respective society, meassured on their property, have to pay a fixed amount of their income.

Why? Poverty is not a result of social injustice in my nation. It's a result of those in that level not wanting to work hard. They're the dregs of society and deserve no help. I don't see why I should punish the rich because of a bunch of lazy fools.

This amount will be managed by the respective goverment which will grant it to the under 20% of the respective society.

Like I said, I see no reason to punish people who have worked for their money because some people don't.

How high this amount is depends from the respective nation, but there should be a under border, pinned down by the U.N.

The part of the society who have to pay this amount shouldn't be able to deduct it from their taxes.

Even more punishment. You want to take away their money, and then tax them even more. This fights social injustice with social injustice.

Automatic no.

@Dresophile:
Well, in your state everyone may be rich, but that's not the case in the majority of states. There are nations, less gifted then yours, where social inequality is a problem.

This affirmation would be an great act of solidarity, and besides, if in your country everyone is already rich, then there wouldn't be a great malus for the richest of your nation if they give some of their money, from which they have more than enough, to the less rich, wouldn't it?

The poor and unemployed aren't in their situation because they are lazy, it's because they have been exploited by others.

This does not have our support as we feel it is more feel good than actual... anything.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

This affirmation would be an great act of solidarity, and besides, if in your country everyone is already rich, then there wouldn't be a great malus for the richest of your nation if they give some of their money, from which they have more than enough, to the less rich, wouldn't it?

Excuse me? In my country, communists like yourself are tarred and feathered.

And how do you know what the majority of the states are like? The majority of the states are already very liberal and socialist, so I see absolutelyno need for this kind of resolution. If you want to even out the rich/poor barriers, go ahead and do so, but don't legislate it through the UN.

For the record, the poor are poor because they are lazy in my country, and in DLE's as well.

Excuse me? In my country, communists like yourself are tarred and feathered.
That's why I am most happy that I'm not a citizen of your country.

And how do you know what the majority of the states are like? The majority of the states are already very liberal and socialist, so I see absolutelyno need for this kind of resolution. If you want to even out the rich/poor barriers, go ahead and do so, but don't legislate it through the UN.

An legalization through the U.N. would help the poor and exploited in other countrys whose leaders care less about social welfare and equality than me.
Man's dignity is every man's birthright, not only that of the rich.

Fantastic! So, because all of you liberals have such big hearts, you are going to demand that the more capitalistic states be dropped into a communist state, where EVERYBODY is poor, or a state where the rich are working their asses off to give free rides to 'disadvantaged minorities' and people who couldn't care less about working.

And I think that you will find most countries do have the same rights for poor as they do for the rich. Everybody is officially entitled to a free education in the public education system, therefore everybody has a chance to kick off and start a good life.

You seem to think that all capitalism is inherently evil, and that rewarding the lazy is the cause to all the solutions.

No.

This resolution is far to vague, firstly. Secondly, it is badly worded. The major point in this resolution is not understandable

"grant it to the under 20% of the respective society"

under 20% of what? Under the twenty percent of the top twenty percent who just gave that money away?


Good idea, but solving poverty is a hard thing to do, and definatly needs more specifics with better wording.

Solving poverty has to do with boosting the economy, developing a positive mindset (this is a big one; a defeatist moron waiting for a government handout will do nothing but spend the money irresponsibly) and education.

So...if you have capitalistic, developed economies in NationStates, and mandatory education, all that is left is a mindset.

What do I care if a slug doesn't want to work? Why should I pay him?

Is this intended to create a welfare state mentality? If so, don't expect your idea to be warmly embraced by, well, anyone.

Helping people who are unable to help themselves is one thing, but helping people who are just plain unwilling to help themselves is something quite different.

U.N. category: social justiceThat's fine.

underneath the existential minimum"Existential" minimum? I think you've got the wrong word here. Perhaps "underneath the subsitance level"?

an affirmation in which the upper 20% of the respective society, meassured on their property, have to pay a fixed amount of their income. Well, here's the "reduc income inequality" part. This is, essentially, an additional tax.

This amount will be managed by the respective goverment which will grant it to the under 20% of the respective society. Clunky syntax. I assume you mean "the bottom 20%".

How high this amount is depends from the respective nation, but there should be a under border, pinned down by the U.N.And here's the "increas[ing] basic welfare". You've got a problem here, however. If there is going to be a basement level (which would be largely impossible with the wide range of wages in UN countries) you must define it. Simply saying "[to be] pinned down by the U.N." is not up to snuff, and is terminally vague. You'd be best off by just eliminating this clause, especially since you're taking from the top 20% and giving to the bottom 20%.

The part of the society who have to pay this amount shouldn't be able to deduct it from their taxes.This is unnecessary. Since you are instituting a tax, people aren't going to deduct it from their taxes.

GM stuff aside, my views:

Problems here are the levels you've set. The top and bottom 20% of a population is, obviously, 40%, nearly half your population. This is a [i]huge swath of people with wildly different incomes; especially on the top of the pile. Unless you're a nation with almost no income inequality, which means you wouldn't need this Proposal in the first place.

Well, the other problem I have is it goes against how my nation works, especially since I don't have any taxes. But then, I'm not in the UN, heh.

Helping people who are unable to help themselves is one thing, but helping people who are just plain unwilling to help themselves is something quite different.
And what if they money goes only to the people who try to find a job but can't find one, or to those who are disabled?
People, who have the proved ability to get jobs but refuse this because of their "lazyness" shall be excepted from the affirmation.

Clunky syntax. I assume you mean "the bottom 20%".
Sorry for that. I'm still working on my English.

And here's the "increas[ing] basic welfare". You've got a problem here, however. If there is going to be a basement level (which would be largely impossible with the wide range of wages in UN countries) you must define it. Simply saying "[to be] pinned down by the U.N." is not up to snuff, and is terminally vague. You'd be best off by just eliminating this clause, especially since you're taking from the top 20% and giving to the bottom 20%
The point is that you can't define this by yourself without U.N. discussion, in my opinion. There are two many different countries and too many different income rates.

This is unnecessary. Since you are instituting a tax, people aren't going to deduct it from their taxes.
I thought of it not as a tax but as a honorary solidarity act.

Problems here are the levels you've set. The top and bottom 20% of a population is, obviously, 40%, nearly half your population
What about reducing it to the top 5% and the bottom 10%?

Aren't any socialists here?^^

The point is that you can't define this by yourself without U.N. discussion, in my opinion. There are two many different countries and too many different income rates.

Right, but when a UN Proposal leaves the meat of itself up to later decision, you've gutted the whole proposal. Besides, you've already set a basement. If the proposal sets the basement to 10%, what's the point of the UN arbitrarily raising it? Socializing individual member nations is what this category's for, not socializing the UN as a whole, if you see the difference.

A "poor" person in a nation with a Frightening economy is likely to be better off than a middle class person in a nation with an Imploded economy. Trying to put an absolute minimum would be disasterous to the Imploded nation, as it would likely be impossible for them to bring their citizens up to the proper level when everything's skewed by the Frightening nations (which likely outnumber the Implodeds).

This Proposal can still accomplish its primary goal (helping the poor within a given nation) without the universal basement.

I thought of it not as a tax but as a honorary solidarity act.

Heh. Idealism.

The problem here is that a Resolution mandates action. The UN Gnomes go into a country and forcably rewrite the laws of every member nation and forces the nation to take the money from the top % and give it to the bottom %. Since it's not optional, I'd view it as a tax.

The tax line doesn't sink the proposal, but it also doesn't really add anything.

What about reducing it to the top 5% and the bottom 10%?

That seems more fair. I'm sure the forum regulars will be willing to argue over the hard numbers; I'm more interested in the legality of the thing.

Aren't any socialists here?^^

I guess they're all in General or something. I'm a little surprized myself, you seem to have hit the capitalist hour.

I always thought the UN was full of filthy tree-hugging commies who'd love this Proposal... :p

I guess they're all in General or something. I'm a little surprized myself, you seem to have hit the capitalist hour.

I always thought the UN was full of filthy tree-hugging commies who'd love this Proposal... :p

I like the idea of the proposal - but it's the actual execution I have problems with. The top fifth of society encompasses a lot of people, as does the bottom fifth. And it's not beyond reason that only the bottom 1% of a nation is below the national poverty line, which means 19% of the people helped are already considered pretty well off and are now getting bonus money that could be put to better use.

This Proposal can still accomplish its primary goal (helping the poor within a given nation) without the universal basement.

But in this case, countries with a small rich minority and a poor majority could modify the act to insignificancy.
(For example that the top 0,00001% of the society have to spent 0,00001% of their income for the bottom 0,00001% of the society.)

The problem here is that a Resolution mandates action. The UN Gnomes go into a country and forcably rewrite the laws of every member nation and forces the nation to take the money from the top % and give it to the bottom %. Since it's not optional, I'd view it as a tax.

Call it a tax, then. Making it optional would mean that everybody ignores it.

And it's not beyond reason that only the bottom 1% of a nation is below the national poverty line, which means 19% of the people helped are already considered pretty well off and are now getting bonus money that could be put to better use.
Can there be a better use than making the rich poorer and the poor richer?^^

Ok, so what changes do you propose?

the nation of earth pig does not support this propsal. our freedom to govern ourselves shall not be denied.

But in this case, countries with a small rich minority and a poor majority could modify the act to insignificancy.
(For example that the top 0,00001% of the society have to spent 0,00001% of their income for the bottom 0,00001% of the society.)

If you put hard % in, then the country can't modify it. If the top 5% have to "donate" to the bottom 10%, then there's nothing the nation can do to alter that.

Aside from random tax manipulations that people do anyway.

Ok, so what changes do you propose?

Well, I try to keep my activities here limited to legality issues, especially since I'm not in the UN, I'm just the one who usually kills Proposals.

If I understand your concerns, however, you might want to make it something like:

The top 5% earners of the nation will be assessed an additional 1% tax which will be distributed to the bottom 10% earners of the nation.

Obviously that's a little raw for a Proposal, but if you mandate who pays, what they pay, and who gets it, you've largely eliminated all wiggle room.

Although I like the idea of this, there are some points that I disagree with. First of all, I don't really like the idea of simply taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. There's no reasoning behind it, no justification. That won't go down well with the richer people. And who says those bottom x% needs the money? I've done a lot to reduce income inequality, but that money doesn't go directly to the poor, but to social welfare and education. This means that "the poor" don't get a load of florins, but they profit from a good and cheap healthcare system for example.

The basic premise of this proposal is that money = good and poor = bad. That's not necessarily true. It's more important whether the living conditions in a nation are good. You can have all the money you want, but if you have to spend it on barricading your house because the police is function inadequately, what's the point? A high income is nice, but if healthcare is crap you'll die sooner. I (and other before and after me) have, in the past, submitted a proposal dealing with that: mandating that each person should be guaranteed an income that can sustain them and their household with regards to the four basic needs (shelter/accomodation, education, health care and food). That way, it's not too bad being poor, while not taking away the motivation to work hard and become rich. Because if you know that you're going to fall in the top x%, your income is going to be severely reduced, what's the point? You either make sure you won't reach that top x%, or you flee to abroad. Because you're not getting *anything* in return for the extra tax.

Just my 2 florincents.

Vastiva is not a welfare state - we are a Sultanate approaching a pure Captializt State.

We believe duly in the right and responsibility of each individual to rise and/or fall by their own hand, by their own actions. Considering the number and type of state educational and aid programs in place already, there is no need for a "wealth redistribution".

If you want, go get. It starts with education, not welfare.

In our opinion, Robin Hood was a crook. Period.

Ok, seems that most members here wouldn't like any kind of poverty prevention because they believe that poverty is only a result of lazyness and that everybody has the possibility to get rich if he wants it.
I will establish the affirmation only in my own state, then. Socialists can feel free to copy it for their own nations.

Ok, seems that most members here wouldn't like any kind of poverty prevention because they believe that poverty is only a result of lazyness and that everybody has the possibility to get rich if he wants it.
I will establish the affirmation only in my own state, then. Socialists can feel free to copy it for their own nations.

I accept there is poverty and it is not just cause people are lazy. But the top 20 and bottom 20 percent of a nation? You don't think that that is just a tad too wide ranging to be effective?

I reduce it to 5% of the top and 10% of the bottom. Should be fair, in my opinion.

PS:
I am not offended, but I realized that my English isn't good enough for a proper discussion. Have to work on that.

I reduce it to 5% of the top and 10% of the bottom. Should be fair, in my opinion.

Still - that's the problem. What if only 0.1% of TilEnca is below the national poverty line? You are going to be forcing money to be given to 9.9% of people who don't need it and don't deserve it.

Meanwhile the top 5% could cover a huge salary range. What if my salary is twenty times the rest of the nation. That means I am part of the top 5%, but so are people who earn a twentieth of what I do. That is a huge range of salaries.

Introduce a tax on the top 1% but take it back to the government, and the government use it to help those families in trouble. But the money should not be taken from one group and given directly to the others. It's just - odd.

But the money should not be taken from one group and given directly to the others
That's why I added the point that the money has to be managed by the goverment.

That's why I added the point that the money has to be managed by the goverment.

Glad to see a failsafe solution...

I will establish the affirmation only in my own state, then.

Fantastic! I wish the best for you and your country then. Don't try to dictate what goes on in my country though. The UN doesn't need to step in whenever an idealist gets an epiphany.

The Theocracy of the Holy Word already has a 100% flat rate of income tax. How do you propose we would implement this policy?

The 20% of smartest and most capable citizens works 20% more to supply the lazy population that will be chosen to work 20% less.

Fantastic! So, because all of you liberals have such big hearts, you are going to demand that the more capitalistic states be dropped into a communist state, where EVERYBODY is poor, or a state where the rich are working their asses off to give free rides to 'disadvantaged minorities' and people who couldn't care less about working.

And I think that you will find most countries do have the same rights for poor as they do for the rich. Everybody is officially entitled to a free education in the public education system, therefore everybody has a chance to kick off and start a good life.

You seem to think that all capitalism is inherently evil, and that rewarding the lazy is the cause to all the solutions.
OOC: you're going to confuse him like this.

outside the united states, "liberal" and "conservative" have completely different meanings. "liberal" means capitalist. "conservative" means environmentalist. the word you were looking for is "socialist" or maybe "communist". you should, however, not that those words are not insults in europe the way "liberal" is used as an insult in the u.s.

I meant exactly what I said, and I won't change it. If most people here in NationStates can distinguish between the American conservatives and liberals, then he should, for future usage, learn to do so as well.

Also, the word liberal as I used it was not meant as an insult, for it does not bear any weight alone

I'm a progressive environmentalist social liberal.

The Theocracy of the Holy Word already has a 100% flat rate of income tax. How do you propose we would implement this policy?

Donations? ;)

<-- Pro-environment, pro-business, capitalist. We believe in personal responsibility and a lack of minutae regulation where possible.

"Government governs best where it governs least".

At one point we were liberal (US terms), we have since swung towards Centrist.

We have never seen a Communist governance that works - we have noticed the more Capitalist a country is, the better it does, generally.

Then again, Vastiva also supports the death penalty (we've put in express lanes for some countries), every business in the Nation is 50.1% owned by the Sultan by law, and we have no problems with contractual slavery (once legalities are observed).

Someone else figure out the labels, if you like.

Once again I have to express my disgust and utter contempt at communism. Why should the well off, hard working citizens of any nation have to be forced to hand over their hard earned money just because they bothered to finish school, get a good job and worked damned hard? Yes, there are those very few people who have truely become poor because of conditons they couldn't control, BUT the majority of the poor and homeless bring it on themselves. They try to say "Oh, it's not my fault. I come from a poor backround!" Yes, it is well known that people born into a poorer backround often end up poor in later life. But why should that be an excuse. We have a free education system, every pupil is given the same chance as another. University students are given grants and loans, why don't they go? For example I was born into humble surroundings. I worked hard at school and at University. My parents had hardly any money, yet I worked. I now have a degree in Politics/Criminology and am working for the Northern Ireland Government as part of the Sinn Féin staff. I worked for that. Why can't everyone do that? Two simple words....Welfare State. These people are given money weekly to sit and do nothing. We pay them. Yes, people who truely CAN'T work for one reason or another, should be given financial aid to help them, but these wasters who cannot be bothered to get up and contribute to society do not deserve anything of anybody. They need to learn to work for their money....most of us have! Also, why do we need to give money to people who have worse jobs? They HAVE a job. If they want more money, work harder and get a better job...simple as that.

Thank you.

Once again I have to express my disgust and utter contempt at communism. Why should the well off, hard working citizens of any nation have to be forced to hand over their hard earned money just because they bothered to finish school, get a good job and worked damned hard?

Because some people can't. They are unable to finish school, and therefor have great difficulties getting a job. I'm talking people for who a simple job at McBurgers is too difficult.

Yes, there are those very few people who have truely become poor because of conditons they couldn't control, BUT the majority of the poor and homeless bring it on themselves. They try to say "Oh, it's not my fault. I come from a poor backround!" Yes, it is well known that people born into a poorer backround often end up poor in later life. But why should that be an excuse. We have a free education system, every pupil is given the same chance as another. University students are given grants and loans, why don't they go?

Free education isn't necessarily good education. It has to fit the capabilities of a pupil, it has to get them at the place where they feel good. Even then, not everybody gets the same chance. In the poorer classes it might be considered "bad" to show that you are eager to learn. There is parental pressure ("you should become X, because your daddy/brother/sister/mother/etc was an X"). By dismissing those social circumstances so easily it is no wonder the poor stay poor in your nation.

For example I was born into humble surroundings. I worked hard at school and at University. My parents had hardly any money, yet I worked. I now have a degree in Politics/Criminology and am working for the Northern Ireland Government as part of the Sinn Féin staff. I worked for that. Why can't everyone do that?

Because not everyone is like you.

Two simple words....Welfare State. These people are given money weekly to sit and do nothing. We pay them.

Crap. Only a very small amount of people doesn't want to work. But because in certain societies everyone who doesn't work is viewed like you are viewing them, as people profiting from the hardworking people, they are marginalised and discriminated. Which means they don't get a job. It's a spiral down from there.

Yes, people who truely CAN'T work for one reason or another, should be given financial aid to help them, but these wasters who cannot be bothered to get up and contribute to society do not deserve anything of anybody.

But where do you draw the line? How are you sure that someone doesn't want to work instead of not being able to? And why is there such a holy must on working? If someone hates working, then let them be. They can live, barely, but they don't have money to buy fun stuff, enjoy life. If all they want is sit back, let them. And then you'll see how few there are. And if you've identified those "wasters", do take care in looking at why they behave like that. Because that's often a problem you can't solve by not giving them money.

They need to learn to work for their money....most of us have! Also, why do we need to give money to people who have worse jobs? They HAVE a job. If they want more money, work harder and get a better job...simple as that.

Except that if you are stuck in a certain type of job and can't get out because that means you can't pay the rent, there is no opportunity to find a more suitable job, there is no time to do a course that could get you promotion, and worst of all, your children get less attention they need.

I don't think money should be thrown at a problem to make it disappear, not taken away to make it disappear. It's clever spending of money, accepting that every person is different and a willingness to find out *why* people don't want to work. If you're unwilling or too lazy for that, your people don't deserve you as a leader because you're clearly not working hard enough.

Because some people can't. They are unable to finish school, and therefor have great difficulties getting a job. I'm talking people for who a simple job at McBurgers is too difficult.



Free education isn't necessarily good education. It has to fit the capabilities of a pupil, it has to get them at the place where they feel good. Even then, not everybody gets the same chance. In the poorer classes it might be considered "bad" to show that you are eager to learn. There is parental pressure ("you should become X, because your daddy/brother/sister/mother/etc was an X"). By dismissing those social circumstances so easily it is no wonder the poor stay poor in your nation.



Because not everyone is like you.



Crap. Only a very small amount of people doesn't want to work. But because in certain societies everyone who doesn't work is viewed like you are viewing them, as people profiting from the hardworking people, they are marginalised and discriminated. Which means they don't get a job. It's a spiral down from there.



But where do you draw the line? How are you sure that someone doesn't want to work instead of not being able to? And why is there such a holy must on working? If someone hates working, then let them be. They can live, barely, but they don't have money to buy fun stuff, enjoy life. If all they want is sit back, let them. And then you'll see how few there are. And if you've identified those "wasters", do take care in looking at why they behave like that. Because that's often a problem you can't solve by not giving them money.



Except that if you are stuck in a certain type of job and can't get out because that means you can't pay the rent, there is no opportunity to find a more suitable job, there is no time to do a course that could get you promotion, and worst of all, your children get less attention they need.

I don't think money should be thrown at a problem to make it disappear, not taken away to make it disappear. It's clever spending of money, accepting that every person is different and a willingness to find out *why* people don't want to work. If you're unwilling or too lazy for that, your people don't deserve you as a leader because you're clearly not working hard enough.

No, it's not because of that, it's because I don't reward my citizens for being bone-idle lazy. If someone in my nation is willing to work hard, the rewards are great. As you should notice, I said if they have a valid reason for not being able to work, they will be looked after. Also, you're wrong, everyone has every chance of becoming something in this world (except for a very select few!) it's all to do with how much you want it. If you're too lazy not to try.....you're on your own.

Also, you're wrong, everyone has every chance of becoming something in this world (except for a very select few!) it's all to do with how much you want it. If you're too lazy not to try.....you're on your own.
Being unable to compete in the work force and being lazy are not necessarily synonymous. I realize it is extremely convenient for the successful to believe this, but convenience does not equal truth.

That being said, we do not support this proposal.

No, it's not because of that, it's because I don't reward my citizens for being bone-idle lazy. If someone in my nation is willing to work hard, the rewards are great. As you should notice, I said if they have a valid reason for not being able to work, they will be looked after. Also, you're wrong, everyone has every chance of becoming something in this world (except for a very select few!) it's all to do with how much you want it. If you're too lazy not to try.....you're on your own.

Not wanting to work can be a very valid reason.

And not everyone has every chance of becoming something in this world. You'd be surprised how many. Calling all those people lazy may be convenient, but is incredibly rude and shows little empathy for your citizens.

Not wanting to work can be a very valid reason.

And not everyone has every chance of becoming something in this world. You'd be surprised how many. Calling all those people lazy may be convenient, but is incredibly rude and shows little empathy for your citizens.

*SIGH* Gullible fools! Well if you and your government are prepared waste millions by handing out money to wasters just so they can by their ciggarettes, drink and drugs for the week its no skin of my nose.

I meant exactly what I said, and I won't change it. If most people here in NationStates can distinguish between the American conservatives and liberals, then he should, for future usage, learn to do so as well.
Adds Dresophila Prime to my list of bigot nations to be cut off as a potential trading partner. Obviously someone with no international understanding will not be able to be a trusted international businessman.

I meant exactly what I said, and I won't change it. If most people here in NationStates can distinguish between the American conservatives and liberals, then he should, for future usage, learn to do so as well.

Also, the word liberal as I used it was not meant as an insult, for it does not bear any weight aloneOOC: But it's largely meaningless apart from an insult even in the US. Both the Democrats and the Republicans support a free market economy and have a lot of similar policies. That particular usage is just simply inaccurate. It ignores any reference to historical liberalism.

Besides, us limeys invented the language in the first place, so we should know what stuff means. :D

*SIGH* Gullible fools! Well if you and your government are prepared waste millions by handing out money to wasters just so they can by their ciggarettes, drink and drugs for the week its no skin of my nose.

Unless your nation has in place effective child-care for parents, drug addiction recovery assistance, mental health assistance, and housing programs, I don't see how one can, with one broad sweep, declare all those who are not successful as wasters.

Your statement assumes all people are born on a level playing field, which just ain't so. Remember: Gullibility can take many guises.

I'm going to oppose this resolution as long as it remains mandatory in wording.

The reason is simple: The laziness comment I made is a reality in DLE. If you can't find a job in my nation, you're either not a legal citizen or are not looking. And the only way you can manage to not be a legal citizen is to be an immigrant, and that's nearly impossible due to where DLE is and how its borders are.

DLE has more job openings than it has people. You can't find work anywhere else? Join the military. It covers just about every type of job, needs people of all skill levels, and always has openings. And if you think you won't be paid much, know the DLE government uses the military to control wages and forces all corporations to compete with it.

Success in DLE is related to your choices. You choose to work hard, you'll be surprised how far you can go. It's quite common to hear of the lazy rich kid going broke and the poor upstart with no skills ending up leading a corporation or becomming the top of their field. Hell, Defense Ministress Orbez spent her childhood at the lower end of the income spectrum before joining the military, and now she has the ear of the ruler of DLE.