Break the Chains Act (Take 2) [LAW'D]

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Libertas
Bill Slot: 2

I offer the following amendment (we can renumber paragraphs if/when passed). Tiny mini-chains are part of the solution, not the problem. See my early remarks in the Senate record. I really don't like even paragraph 2 as such small regional chains are more competition against the mammoth national conglomerates like McDonald's and Wal-Mart.

HOWEVER, as Senator Libertas has clearly made an effort to compromise in reintroducing this legislation, and the Senate has spent plenty of time on this already, I'll grit my teeth--hard--and offer only the amendment to eliminate the truly overreaching first paragraph.

The only remaining question is whether this new version, particularly the last paragraph, is acceptable to the Administration. If you could please chime in here soon, Mr. President....

We're close. Methinks I see a light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm not sure whether it's accurate to call 15+ stores a "tiny mini-chain". I mean even these so-called 'regional chains' are part of the problem, not the solution. My goal was to empower individual small business owners. We're talking here about generic chains found across many states that still have inherent advantages in out-competing unique local businesses.

A corporation with 15-39 stores will be able to get cheaper bulk wholesale goods and be in a stronger negotiating position than a local family business of 1 or 2 locations.

0.25% is such an infinitesimally small tax to place upon profits; is it really a deal-breaker for you?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Libertas
Bill Slot: 2

I offer the following amendment (we can renumber paragraphs if/when passed). Tiny mini-chains are part of the solution, not the problem. See my early remarks in the Senate record. I really don't like even paragraph 2 as such small regional chains are more competition against the mammoth national conglomerates like McDonald's and Wal-Mart.

HOWEVER, as Senator Libertas has clearly made an effort to compromise in reintroducing this legislation, and the Senate has spent plenty of time on this already, I'll grit my teeth--hard--and offer only the amendment to eliminate the truly overreaching first paragraph.

The only remaining question is whether this new version, particularly the last paragraph, is acceptable to the Administration. If you could please chime in here soon, Mr. President....

We're close. Methinks I see a light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm not sure whether it's accurate to call 15+ stores a "tiny mini-chain". I mean even these so-called 'regional chains' are part of the problem, not the solution. My goal was to empower individual small business owners. We're talking here about generic chains found across many states that still have inherent advantages in out-competing unique local businesses.

A corporation with 15-39 stores will be able to get cheaper bulk wholesale goods and be in a stronger negotiating position than a local family business of 1 or 2 locations.

0.25% is such an infinitesimally small tax to place upon profits; is it really a deal-breaker for you?

To be honest under normal circumstances imposing any tax on businesses with under 100 stores would be a deal breaker, and if I had my druthers I'd propose an amendment eliminating lines 1 and 2. But given you'd likely find that going too far despite your efforts at reaching middle ground, and  considering the time the Senate has already burned here, as said I'm willing to grit my teeth and only propose striking line 1.

BTW: You never answered my early query as to whether "differential tax" was a more concise way of imposing the relevant tax rates on a per store basis, as was the case with the amended version passed. For the reasons I previously stated (and supported by other senators) that is a very important issue here.

To answer your question, yes, either one of those changes would likely cause me to vote nay. In good faith I'm already stretching past the point of what I feel comfortable supporting already. If I was in full poker playing, horse trading, deal making mode I may've proposed striking lines 1 & 2 but ultimately grudgingly probably accept striking 1 only (plus ensuring the tax was imposed on a per store basis and PS would accept the last paragraph's restriction on uses of revenue). But I believe the Senate's getting tired of dealing with this proposal so I skipped the gamesmanship and went straight to the bottom line.

I am willing to negotiate on the numbers, but not on the return of the pointless and destructive 'on the most recent' clauses. I've never seen a compelling reason in favor of that proposal, but plenty of arguments against it. It accomplishes nothing but to weaken the entire bill. It was the real deal-killer for me on the previous version.

This is not a stimulus package for bureaucrats, accountants, and the paper mill industry.


As for your view on chains in the 15-39 range, you never addressed the fact that they do in fact have advantages over local family businesses just like their larger siblings do. It's fair to thus apply the same tax to them, just at a smaller rate (in this case a minuscule quarter of a percent of their profits).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I support Badger's amendment and think it's a fair compromise. Stores of 15-39 chains are still mostly competing with larger companies. It's worth noting that those size companies don't really get SBA assistance, so with Badger's amendment the situation becomes this:

A: Small companies that receive active assistance from the SBA.
B: "Medium-sized" companies that don't receive SBA assistance but are not taxed to provide the SBA with funds.
C: Large companies that are taxed to provide the SBA with funds, with larger firms being taxed more.

I think it's important to have that middle step there, so growing companies don't lose their assistance and have to start paying a new tax in a single step.

Stores of 15-39 are chain corporations. They're not small businesses. If they're competing with larger chains, it's because they've put local individual businesses out of business.

C'mon, a tax of 0.25% on profits is not a serious burden for a regional chain corporation with more than 15 locations.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I like this bill, actually. You have me on board whether  you like it or not!

Well thank you, I am glad you have on board actually.


I hope people here remember that this bill is already a substantial compromise on my part compared to the original Break the Chains Act, which would have put a 7% tax on any chain with more than 10 locations.

I'm starting off here from an extremely compromised negotiating position already, so it's almost a bit offensive that I'm still being badgered over what little I'd still like to see left of the bill I proposed...

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Eh, fair enough. The tax is minuscule and I suppose a "Group B" like I specified above does exist in the 5-15 range anyway...

Exactly. There is plenty of allowance for growth.

What this would encourage is economic growth that is horizontal rather than vertical: a wider distribution of wealth rather than increased concentration in the hands of the few.


I am glad you are considering supporting the compromise bill as is; I hope Badger will reconsider his objections as well.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

To be honest under normal circumstances imposing any tax on businesses with under 100 stores would be a deal breaker, and if I had my druthers I'd propose an amendment eliminating lines 1 and 2. But given you'd likely find that going too far despite your efforts at reaching middle ground, and  considering the time the Senate has already burned here, as said I'm willing to grit my teeth and only propose striking line 1.

BTW: You never answered my early query as to whether "differential tax" was a more concise way of imposing the relevant tax rates on a per store basis, as was the case with the amended version passed. For the reasons I previously stated (and supported by other senators) that is a very important issue here.

To answer your question, yes, either one of those changes would likely cause me to vote nay. In good faith I'm already stretching past the point of what I feel comfortable supporting already. If I was in full poker playing, horse trading, deal making mode I may've proposed striking lines 1 & 2 but ultimately grudgingly probably accept striking 1 only (plus ensuring the tax was imposed on a per store basis and PS would accept the last paragraph's restriction on uses of revenue). But I believe the Senate's getting tired of dealing with this proposal so I skipped the gamesmanship and went straight to the bottom line.

I am willing to negotiate on the numbers, but not on the return of the pointless and destructive 'on the most recent' clauses. I've never seen a compelling reason in favor of that proposal, but plenty of arguments against it. It accomplishes nothing but to weaken the entire bill. It was the real deal-killer for me on the previous version.

This is not a stimulus package for bureaucrats, accountants, and the paper mill industry.


As for your view on chains in the 15-39 range, you never addressed the fact that they do in fact have advantages over local family businesses just like their larger siblings do. It's fair to thus apply the same tax to them, just at a smaller rate (in this case a minuscule quarter of a percent of their profits).

I'm also willing to compromise on the numbers in line one, but not on the applying the tax on a per store basis. Do you really think any business this size doesn't already watch like a hawk the exact yearly profit each store produces? Their accountant could produce those numbers up on the company's bookkeeping program within 30 seconds.

Amendment proposal coming momentarily.

This is supposed to be a tax on owners, not on individual stores.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Sorry, Badger, you still haven't given me a good reason to support this seemingly horrible idea of applying the tax to individual stores. The only thing that would accomplish is to further weaken the bill. The rates are already so low as to make the argument used here in its favor laughable.

The proposed amendment will kill the bill again. I strongly urge my fellow senators to reject it.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This wouldn't kill the bill, though I dunno if it's neccessary. If we are structuring it like the income tax, wouldn't it make more sense to use the location's profitability instead of the location's age?

I'm not sure I understand your question, BK. Just to be clear, the taxes are being imposed on a store's profits. The applicable tax bracket (i.e. what "number" the store is for determining its tax rate) is determined by the store's age.

But yes, it makes perfect sense to base rates of stores on the order in which they opened. Assessing the tax rate retroactively to an entire business when they cross a threshold number of stores is unfair and needlessly anti economic growth. Again, simply ask your yourselves before voting if you would want the same standard implemented for personal income taxes? Of course not. So can anyone explain why doing so here isn't an equally bad idea?

No, it doesn't make sense; you keep repeating the same things without ever backing them up.


And your comparison to personal income tax is disingenuous for several reasons:

A) You are talking about a personal income tax on individuals. This is a tax on corporations.

B) You are talking about a tax on income. This is a tax on profit.

C) You are talking about tax brackets where the rate of taxation on income leaps up from 15 to 25% from one bracket to the next.

Here we are talking about a tax on profit that increases by a measly quarter or half of a percent from one bracket to the next, with a maximum rate of just 3.0%.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This wouldn't kill the bill, though I dunno if it's neccessary. If we are structuring it like the income tax, wouldn't it make more sense to use the location's profitability instead of the location's age?

I'm not sure I understand your question, BK. Just to be clear, the taxes are being imposed on a store's profits. The applicable tax bracket (i.e. what "number" the store is for determining its tax rate) is determined by the store's age.

But yes, it makes perfect sense to base rates of stores on the order in which they opened. Assessing the tax rate retroactively to an entire business when they cross a threshold number of stores is unfair and needlessly anti economic growth. Again, simply ask your yourselves before voting if you would want the same standard implemented for personal income taxes? Of course not. So can anyone explain why doing so here isn't an equally bad idea?

No, it doesn't make sense; you keep repeating the same things without ever backing them up.


And your comparison to personal income tax is disingenuous for several reasons:

A) You are talking about a personal income tax on individuals. This is a tax on corporations.

B) You are talking about a tax on income. This is a tax on profit.

C) You are talking about tax brackets where the rate of taxation on income leaps up from 15 to 25% from one bracket to the next.

Here we are talking about a tax on profit that increases by a measly quarter or half of a percent from one bracket to the next, with a maximum rate of just 3.0%.

A) Utterly irrelevent distinction.

B) Ditto.

C) Yes, its a relatively small graduation compared to income tax rates, but so what? Are you telling me if under the tax system you propose you earned a dollar over the threshold level to the next highest tax bracket you wouldn't feel cheated because that single dollar cost you "only" an entire half percent of your yearly earnings? You wouldn't mind that earning $100,000 instead of $99,999 cost you an extra $500 in taxes?

We obviously won't agree so the Senate can decide on these 2 amendments offered.

The first two points are very relevant. By your refusal to address them, I assume you've conceded.


As for your third claim, that is another disingenuous argument. Moving up in one of these tax brackets is not based upon the money a company brings in. Going through the process of buying out entire new chain locations is not like earning an extra dollar. There will be no cases of companies accidentally falling into a higher tax bracket. Nor will there be any disincentive to financial efficiency.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

NAY

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh c'mon, does Badger ever give up trying to destroy this bill? Talk about obstructionism...

Senator Badger has never given a compelling reason to support this sort of thing, and I've thoroughly demolished his attempts to do so earlier by making a disingenuous comparison to the personal income tax. All this amendment would do is substantially weaken an already weakened-bill, while creating a lot more work for accountants and bureaucrats, plus a lot more dead trees.


A resounding NAY!

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh c'mon, does Badger ever give up trying to destroy this bill? Talk about obstructionism...

Senator Badger has never given a compelling reason to support this sort of thing, and I've thoroughly demolished his attempts to do so earlier by making a disingenuous comparison to the personal income tax. All this amendment would do is substantially weaken an already weakened-bill, while creating a lot more work for accountants and bureaucrats, plus a lot more dead trees.


A resounding NAY!

Oh Libertas.

My "obstructionist" measures have helped to take what was intially (in Take 1) a bill opposed by a vast majority of the Senate and transform it into one that has already passed once, and may likely do so again if this amendment is approved. For that matter isn't it a bit disingenuous for you to level accusations of "obstructionism"? When the Take 1 version of this bill only needed modifications making it quite similar to this current proposal in order to earn Purple State's signature, you instead withdrew the bill altogether.

Uh, no, that's a blatant lie. This bill in a respectable form would have passed the Senate a long time ago were it not for your relentless grandstanding to pass stupid, pointless, and destructive amendments just because you want to leave your fingerprints on everything.

From the beginning, you've done nothing but try to obstruct, water-down and destroy this bill, and I won't forget it. One amendment fails, and you start pushing another one right away rather than ever let the Senate vote on the bill as it was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again you manage to make a long post entirely devoid of content. Give a single reason why this amendment is necessary. You can't. I asked you to do so during the earlier debate session and you couldn't do so then either.

So, people who are voting Aye, I invite you do to same thing. Tell me why this bill needs to be weakened further than it already is. Or does personal loyalty to Badger trump reason and logic?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's 4 to 4 with two abstentions; it's up to VP Marokai to break this tie.

VPs break ties even on amendments, not just votes on bills? An amendment should need a majority of the Senate to pass.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I've thought about this more....and I still believe this amendment is necessary to ensuring the overall fairness of this legislation. I sympathize with Libertas' position, but I won't be changing my vote here.

How so? I've pretty much destroyed all of Senator Badger's arguments, both here and in PM. This should be about the issues, not personalities or parties.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I've thought about this more....and I still believe this amendment is necessary to ensuring the overall fairness of this legislation. I sympathize with Libertas' position, but I won't be changing my vote here.

How so? I've pretty much destroyed all of Senator Badger's arguments, both here and in PM. This should be about the issues, not personalities or parties.

And it certainly is. You will have noticed that I've never had a problem supporting bills and amendments that you wrote that I've found sensible.

Well it doesn't seem that way to me. You never responded to my last PM, and Badger gave up debating instead apparently hoping to just get this passed on weight of personality. I've been open to compromise and proposed a substantially weakened bill but apparently no matter what Badger was going to have a problem and demand that he get an amendment that he wrote somehow put into the bill, even if it further weakened and worsened the bill. I hope you and others who voted aye will reconsider holding up the bill for what is in my view a bill-killing amendment.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'm not entirely happy with the way the taxes have lowered. I don't like large chains of businesses, and how they were basically whittled to death to not have much of an impact unless the business has an obscene number of stores still irks me from the first bill.

However, in income taxes brackets, we have them set up to be marginal rates for a very good reason. People who make only a tiny bit over the line between one bracket and another aren't slammed with the tax rate of that bracket, their money is taxed as this amendment would make this tax be applied.

As I've pointed out numerous times both here and in PM, that comparison doesn't apply here since the brackets aren't based on income. It's based on the number of stores a corporation has.

WalMart opening up even one new store can put twenty local businesses out of business. That's not at all comparable to someone working harder and earning more money. The latter is just increasing efficiency without a negative side effect. The former is concentrating wealth and property in the hands of the few and has a clear negative impact on the community.

Again, people would not have been penalized for making more money under the unamended version of this bill.

I think you should re-examine your decision in light of this realization.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I have an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Aye

With the last amendment's passage, this is the only thing that can save the bill.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Aye