FY 2015 Budget (Passed)

[bore]

I sympathise with TNF a lot here. If we could fund all our programmes with, say, a 40% tax on people earning over 100 grand then I'd be all for that, but I just don't think we can.

If we actually want to provide the services that we do we have to have, however unpalatable it is, some tax on people earning a bit less.

[Maxwell]

Here's a question - why do we need three seperate brackets between 80k and 175K for 28%, 30%, and 32% respectively? Just giving that a 30% tax rate won't change much (if anything) on the revenue side of things or in the people's actual pocketbook!

Here's a proposal to make things simpler (as soon as you are done with this amendment):

35K-80K - 21%
80K-175K - 30%
175K-368K - 36%
368K-1M - 41%
1M-Upwards - 60%

Getting rid of two unnecessary brackets will make things easier, I promise you.

I'm trying to find a way to calculate tax revenues, but I'm having difficulty in that search.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is my Budget proposal. It sees the introduction of new higher-end tax brackets as well as a small expansion of the lowest bracket from 80-85k and a reduction of the rate from 22-20%. I think it addresses the very odd creation of that jump from 41-60% in the brackets which doesn't make a lot of sense. So this creates a much more gentle increase up $10m, from where the 60% tax rate kicks in.

I have also created a new upper bracket of corporate taxes for those corporations who earn above $25m - this is aligned with a small reduction for those smaller businesses, who are the primary employer in Atlasia. With other small excise increases.

On spending, there are small cuts in the military procurement Budget and the deferment of $5m of the Smart Grid spending into the next financial year. There are some adjustments to account for some recent legislative changes. There is a cut in funding for highways, and some of that directed toward high-speed rail, public transport and railways. It contains an increase in international humanitarian aid, with a reduction in foreign military aid.

I have held onto some of the other spending cuts from other Budget proposals as well as some administrative reductions.

I believe this strikes a balance of maintaining strong services, doing so in a responsive and responsible manner and not reducing our capacity in any field, including militarily.

[Barnes]

May I ask why the Northeast Community Health Partnership is third in overall funding even though it is second in population size, nearly tied with the Mideast, and larger than the other three regions by nearly ten voters each?

[Cranberry]

May I ask why the Northeast Community Health Partnership is third in overall funding even though it is second in population size, nearly tied with the Mideast, and larger than the other three regions by nearly ten voters each?

Probably relates to the actual population of the regions. It makes sense that then the Midwest has the lowest population=lowest funding sum; Pacific and Northeast with one big state/two states of about the same size (Califorina vs Penn and NY) the next highest; and so on and so on.
It would be interesting though to take 2014 Census Estimates for that, I'm sure the Pacific would get more then

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

This seems to be a good proposal.

[bore]

Looking over Senator Polnut's proposal, it keeps the important features of my proposal along with being somewhat tidier, so I'd like to withdraw my amendment.

Senators also have 36 hours to object to Senator Polnut's amendment.

[Barnes]

May I ask why the Northeast Community Health Partnership is third in overall funding even though it is second in population size, nearly tied with the Mideast, and larger than the other three regions by nearly ten voters each?

Probably relates to the actual population of the regions. It makes sense that then the Midwest has the lowest population=lowest funding sum; Pacific and Northeast with one big state/two states of about the same size (Califorina vs Penn and NY) the next highest; and so on and so on.
It would be interesting though to take 2014 Census Estimates for that, I'm sure the Pacific would get more then

Are you saying the allocations are based off of the US population estimates?

My concern is that in Atlasia, the Northeast has the second largest population, but comes in third with funding.

[Cranberry]

May I ask why the Northeast Community Health Partnership is third in overall funding even though it is second in population size, nearly tied with the Mideast, and larger than the other three regions by nearly ten voters each?

Probably relates to the actual population of the regions. It makes sense that then the Midwest has the lowest population=lowest funding sum; Pacific and Northeast with one big state/two states of about the same size (Califorina vs Penn and NY) the next highest; and so on and so on.
It would be interesting though to take 2014 Census Estimates for that, I'm sure the Pacific would get more then

Are you saying the allocations are based off of the US population estimates?

My concern is that in Atlasia, the Northeast has the second largest population, but comes in third with funding.

I would guess so. Otherwise, this seems not explainable to me.

[TNF]

Polnut's amendment is a step in the right direction, although I will admit I'm not fully satisfied with it, either. Nonetheless, I will hold off on objecting and present amendments after it is approved.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

More or less, yes, and most are made from the Nix budget. The exception would be transportation, which I believe was in my initial basic proposal.

I'm actually supportive of Bore's amendment, and I am happy to see most of the cuts retained. I'm not sure if I am the actual sponsor here since I'm not a Senator, but the amendment is mostly friendly for me.

That said, I would like to see the possibility of increasing the NASA budget (I believe it's far too low if we can to get more ambitious things done in that front), and, if the proposal raises enough revenue, reverting some of minor cuts in the international area. I'm not sure if Bore's proposal actuall raises the Healthcare Payroll tax back to 8%, but if that was the case then the situation may not be as nearly as complicated.

Okay thank you.

I too think that Senator bore's amendments are sensible, and likewise as Senator Polnut, I can not approve of Senator TNF's tax rates. It just makes no sense at all just starting to tax people making more than 100K, we can in no way fund our budget with such a tax structure. (I better not start talking about Senator JCL's proposal)

With all do respect I want to hear what you think about my proposal for a pro-growth tax structure.

I also object to Polnut's amendment in the basis of maintaining a bracket of taxing our wealthiest more than 40%.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

More or less, yes, and most are made from the Nix budget. The exception would be transportation, which I believe was in my initial basic proposal.

I'm actually supportive of Bore's amendment, and I am happy to see most of the cuts retained. I'm not sure if I am the actual sponsor here since I'm not a Senator, but the amendment is mostly friendly for me.

That said, I would like to see the possibility of increasing the NASA budget (I believe it's far too low if we can to get more ambitious things done in that front), and, if the proposal raises enough revenue, reverting some of minor cuts in the international area. I'm not sure if Bore's proposal actuall raises the Healthcare Payroll tax back to 8%, but if that was the case then the situation may not be as nearly as complicated.

Okay thank you.

I too think that Senator bore's amendments are sensible, and likewise as Senator Polnut, I can not approve of Senator TNF's tax rates. It just makes no sense at all just starting to tax people making more than 100K, we can in no way fund our budget with such a tax structure. (I better not start talking about Senator JCL's proposal)

With all do respect I want to hear what you think about my proposal for a pro-growth tax structure.

I also object to Polnut's amendment in the basis of maintaining a bracket of taxing our wealthiest more than 40%.

With all due respect to you - is there anything you use here except baseless strawmen?

[Lumine]

I must say I actually think Bore's proposal is better in some aspects, especially given that our Financial Transaction Tax is already high by OTL standards and increasing it might not be a good idea. Likewise, why does it say that spending is actually increased despite the cuts? Is that a typo?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I must say I actually Bore's proposal is better in some aspects, especially given that our Financial Transaction Tax is already high by OTL standards and increasing it might not be a good idea. Likewise, why does it say that spending is actually increased despite the cuts? Is that a typo?

There are cuts, but the Scott/Duke education stuff spending puts upward pressure on that side of the ledger.

I have no issue is putting the FTT back to 0.50... it's not going to make a lot of difference.

[Maxwell]

Polnut's proposal is a good start on the income tax side, and maybe the best we can get for the current year.

[Cranberry]

I'd actually rather see the FTT at 0.75% than 0.5%, as in the end, it does make a difference. Not necessarily that much on the revenue side, but such a tax can help combat speculating and stock market gambling.

Also, do we have an agreement with the EU and maybe also Japan/Singapore/China/Hongkong, that they have the same FTT as we have? Otherwise, this would just make no sense, instead of transacting then in New York, they'll do it in London or Frankfurt.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

More or less, yes, and most are made from the Nix budget. The exception would be transportation, which I believe was in my initial basic proposal.

I'm actually supportive of Bore's amendment, and I am happy to see most of the cuts retained. I'm not sure if I am the actual sponsor here since I'm not a Senator, but the amendment is mostly friendly for me.

That said, I would like to see the possibility of increasing the NASA budget (I believe it's far too low if we can to get more ambitious things done in that front), and, if the proposal raises enough revenue, reverting some of minor cuts in the international area. I'm not sure if Bore's proposal actuall raises the Healthcare Payroll tax back to 8%, but if that was the case then the situation may not be as nearly as complicated.

Okay thank you.

I too think that Senator bore's amendments are sensible, and likewise as Senator Polnut, I can not approve of Senator TNF's tax rates. It just makes no sense at all just starting to tax people making more than 100K, we can in no way fund our budget with such a tax structure. (I better not start talking about Senator JCL's proposal)

With all do respect I want to hear what you think about my proposal for a pro-growth tax structure.

I also object to Polnut's amendment in the basis of maintaining a bracket of taxing our wealthiest more than 40%.

With all due respect to you - is there anything you use here except baseless strawmen?

Are you familiar with the Laffer curve?

[bore]

Polnut's amendment has been adopted

[TNF]

An 18% tax on marijuana, a product less harmful than both tobacco and alcohol, seems pretty insane.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

More or less, yes, and most are made from the Nix budget. The exception would be transportation, which I believe was in my initial basic proposal.

I'm actually supportive of Bore's amendment, and I am happy to see most of the cuts retained. I'm not sure if I am the actual sponsor here since I'm not a Senator, but the amendment is mostly friendly for me.

That said, I would like to see the possibility of increasing the NASA budget (I believe it's far too low if we can to get more ambitious things done in that front), and, if the proposal raises enough revenue, reverting some of minor cuts in the international area. I'm not sure if Bore's proposal actuall raises the Healthcare Payroll tax back to 8%, but if that was the case then the situation may not be as nearly as complicated.

Okay thank you.

I too think that Senator bore's amendments are sensible, and likewise as Senator Polnut, I can not approve of Senator TNF's tax rates. It just makes no sense at all just starting to tax people making more than 100K, we can in no way fund our budget with such a tax structure. (I better not start talking about Senator JCL's proposal)

With all do respect I want to hear what you think about my proposal for a pro-growth tax structure.

I also object to Polnut's amendment in the basis of maintaining a bracket of taxing our wealthiest more than 40%.

With all due respect to you - is there anything you use here except baseless strawmen?

Are you familiar with the Laffer curve?

Indeed - the tax rates you seek will NEVER pass. My plan deals with some of the more extreme applications. I agree that higher and higher taxes deliver diminishing returns, but so do artificially low tax rates.

Our growth rates arent driven by superficial elements like personal income tax rates. Yet another strawman.

[windjammer]

An 18% tax on marijuana, a product less harmful than both tobacco and alcohol, seems pretty insane.

It should be raised, indeed.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I wanted to lower taxes during my presidency but we just can't afford to do it with all of the programs we have in atlasia.

My tax plan was pretty much dead on arrival, but I mainly introduced it for the debate more than anything. I couldn't let the senate stall on my watch.

And yeah, my education bill didn't help but I felt it implemented some necessary changes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am concerned about increasing the number of brackets and that it could add to the complexity of the tax code.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I am concerned about increasing the number of brackets and that it could add to the complexity of the tax code.

Trust me, so was I. But I don't see any other way to make the system more progressive without significant cuts to spending to account for lost revenues.