SENATE BILL: The Duke Corporate Tax Reform Act of 2013 (Amendment at Vote) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 12, 2024, 07:43:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: The Duke Corporate Tax Reform Act of 2013 (Amendment at Vote) (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: The Duke Corporate Tax Reform Act of 2013 (Amendment at Vote)  (Read 8052 times)
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« on: November 27, 2013, 09:40:10 PM »

Hm, do we have a GM analysis?

I'm not a fan of cutting corporate taxation, but there are perfectly reasonable times to cut taxes. Especially with the BIG, I'm not incredibly worried that workers will be disadvantaged.

In other words, if we can afford it, then I'd consider it.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2013, 06:07:46 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but I think this is a HUGE problem. Essentially, any income earned anywhere is taxable by the Atlasian government, but there's no check on the time period. Does that mean that immigrants would owe back taxes for the time before they immigrated?
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2013, 06:59:11 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but I think this is a HUGE problem. Essentially, any income earned anywhere is taxable by the Atlasian government, but there's no check on the time period. Does that mean that immigrants would owe back taxes for the time before they immigrated?

This is only for corporate income. Immigrants pay personal income taxes. This bill only concerns corporate taxation.

Well, I'll introduce an amendment to clarify that.

The problem still kind of stands, though. This essentially means that ALL corporations worldwide would owe taxes to the Atlasian government. Let's say a corporation repatriates some services; in doing so, the corporation would owe back taxes for the services while they were expatriated. That's a major issue.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2013, 08:27:29 PM »

We need to just clarify that only corporations incorporated in Atlasia are subject to it. To clarify.

I'll introduce the amendment once Maxwell's is through.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2013, 09:26:42 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this amendment acceptable? I'm not entirely sure about the language.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2013, 06:36:03 AM »

Are there any good synonyms for the words corporation, corporate, or incorporated? Section 1, Clause 2 now has 8 mentions of those "corp" words in some form, and it's annoying the crap out of me (even though it's my fault to begin with).
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2013, 01:03:37 AM »


I guess, but it still has corporate in it.

Whatever, I'd rather have a good bill with silly language than a silly bill with good language.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2013, 04:01:09 AM »

Yay, much better
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2013, 12:43:11 AM »


Well, as long as the wording is clear that we're not changing the tax code for the businesses, but just introducing all forms of income as taxable within the current structure of the tax code, then we'd be good to go.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2013, 05:09:12 PM »

The amendment doesn't change rates, just renders them subject to the present tax code and if it is so in the code, then they shouldn't be taxed differently than what the present code stipulates.

That's what I thought, too.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2013, 07:18:07 PM »

Housekeeping in Section 1, and removing a loophole from Section 2.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2013, 08:04:52 PM »

I tried to clarify the capital gains section. I don't know if Duke meant "securities" or "security" in that section, but I changed it to the latter because I won't support the former. I would be willing to make investment into securities tax deferred, however.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2013, 08:28:08 PM »

So, that means we're taxing things at the point of earning and upon repatriation? I could support doing away with one face of double taxation, in such a case.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2013, 08:40:04 PM »

The way the current code is set up is we tax repatriated money after it has already been taxes by whatever overseas country it was earned in. Hence, why so many companies hoard money offshore. 80% of countries only tax corporate earnings on income earned within the country's borders.

What I want to do is allow us to tax income from anything earned within our borders but not money made and taxed overseas. We are just subjecting our companies to double taxation when they bring money back.

Doesn't that just incentivize corporations to work overseas? They can take advantage of a softer tax rate elsewhere and repatriate the income freely.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2013, 05:10:35 AM »

The way the current code is set up is we tax repatriated money after it has already been taxes by whatever overseas country it was earned in. Hence, why so many companies hoard money offshore. 80% of countries only tax corporate earnings on income earned within the country's borders.

What I want to do is allow us to tax income from anything earned within our borders but not money made and taxed overseas. We are just subjecting our companies to double taxation when they bring money back.

Doesn't that just incentivize corporations to work overseas? They can take advantage of a softer tax rate elsewhere and repatriate the income freely.

No.

Under the system most of the industrialized world uses these days, you pay the rate rate in whichever country you make the sale in, so it doesn't matter where you incorporate.

If corp X makes $100 of sales in country A with a 15% rate, they pay 15% rate on $100 of sales and if they make $50 worth of sales in country Y with a 20% rate, they pay 20% of $50.

Right now, corp X would pay 15% on the $100 in country A and then pays an additional 25% on the $100 if they repatriate. This only hurts us given so few countries actually bring capital back to Atlasia.

Make sense?

Hm, I suppose if the expressed goal were to be to maximize capital onshoring, as opposed to tax revenue, that makes sense.

As for whether or not we should make that policy decision, I'll consider it Tongue
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2013, 04:58:50 AM »

Changing the wording slightly, so as to avoid the usage of loopholes

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2013, 10:18:59 PM »

I would be fine with Spiral's amendment, but I am somewhat worried that we might be cutting into our tax base too much. With that said, our revenues are good right now, and our estimated current deficit doesn't phase me.

I'm also going to oppose TNF's tax hikes. I think they're too high, and I'd rather support Nix's more moderate tax structure.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2014, 01:38:28 AM »

Nay
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2014, 07:29:14 PM »

Hm, well we might want to consider making the capital gains break proportional. The current wording would indicate that a dollar investment in one of those things would yield a complete corporate capital gains tax break, which would be a disaster.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2014, 07:17:11 PM »

That's a step in the right direction, but that still doesn't solve the problem that company might make such an investment totaling one dollar to get such a break.

Perhaps we could add something like "provided the tax break does not exceed the value of the investment."
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2014, 05:10:13 PM »

Abstain for now
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2014, 05:24:20 PM »

Aye on Duke's amendment, if that is what we are voting on.

No, it's not. We're voting on Spiral's amendment to make the maximum tax break 5% instead of 3% and have it last for 7 years instead of 5.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2014, 07:42:46 PM »

Changing my vote to Nay for now.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2014, 04:57:26 PM »

I think Shua's amendment is the right way to go and I made a mistake in introducing my amendment the way it was worded.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2014, 07:36:03 PM »

The amendment at vote accidentally cuts out this phrase from the clause. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it needs to be there:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

We should add it in after the fact, then.

AYE on the amendment at vote
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.038 seconds with 10 queries.