2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Law'd)

[afleitch]

Goodness. What on earth is this bill? And why do you make me read through pages and pages of it

[afleitch]

Perhaps if we get to a point where all Atlasian automakers are likely to be liquated....but to be perfectly honest, I don't think it should be our responsibility to make sure every one survives, that's not how the market is supposed to work. I'm not convinced that it would even be a terrible thing for total supply on the American auto market to go down a bit....

I think that is an appropriate attitude. Car sales reflect consumer choice and attitude to the market more than any other 'one purchase' indicator. I see no reason to support struggling makers who are struggling due to their own complacency. I would be more willing to bail out the company investing in cleaner energy use and dual energy use in cars than those who stubbornly stick to oil and churn out unsustainable 'mini tanks' as family cars.

[afleitch]

I support helping Atlasian automakers because many workers would lose their jobs if the automaker collaspes. Not because I think than those businesses should survive.

I empathise with that strongly, however far too often we have fought to save 'jobs' as straightjackets rather than target retraining and reskilling of workers. The Modified Welfare Reform Act adds some protection there but this too could be amended.

I would prefer to see workers reskilled and moved on to new jobs etc than simply propping up their industry. As the workforce ages and few new workers take their place it makes that industry more precarious particularly if it does not attract inward investment. It is suprising how many industries have failed due to demographic changes in the avaliable workforce rather than due to the economic climate or government policy.

[afleitch]

Aye

[afleitch]

Aye, belatedly, FTR.

My god this bill is boring the hell out of me. I know that's not very Senator like to say but there you go

[afleitch]

I'm pretty sure we do have a Fed (granfathered in from the United States) unless the Senate passed a bill getting rid of it or something. It's just not something we model in the game.

Id say we do based on how we've legislated in the past.

[afleitch]

Aye

[afleitch]

I will have to take some time to look over this bill; see if I can run the figures through to see how much everything is going to cost; same goes for any tax reduction. If it's not too laborious (!) i'll post a calculation here. Hopefully I can get access to a good economic simulation program.

[afleitch]

Can the current amended bill as it stands be pieced together for reference?

[afleitch]

Thank you NCY

[afleitch]

Earned Income Tax Credit probably needs to be looked at. A blanket increase for a credit that some 25% (?) of those entitled to it do not claim doesn't really expand the depth of the scheme or help those most at need. I'll pick through it at the weekend.

[afleitch]

So the amendment takes any rejected stimulus money and reallocates it to federal projects and equally among the remaining regions that have accepted the money? Sounds good.

Also, one last amendment from me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seconded.

[afleitch]

Right I've had time to pick through this

$30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits

Over 10% of Atlasians claim food stamps, mostly the unemployed and those on very very low wages with large households. Anyone know the income limits for food stamps?

$20 billion to fund additional Pell Grants, which shall be increased to $6,000 per individual

I had to look this one up Surely this can be decreased given the steps taken to open up tertiary education through the Help Atlasia Study Act of 2009?

e. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers
   f. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments
   g. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs

Would have been easy to attach to the provision detailed within the Modified Welfare Reform Act. However this was overturned. We are effectively 'policyless.' I have however introduced a replacement bill.

a. $25 billion to exempt the first $5000 collected through unemployment compensation from taxation until December 31, 2010

How is this taxed? Is it treated as income and taxed or is it taxed seperately? I ask because the 2007 tax bill could mean that this already goes untaxed.

c. $6 billion to provide a voluntary annual $700 tax credit to home-owners who make use of solar, wind, or hydroelectric sources of energy (To qualify for the tax credit, home-owners must have at least 25% of their electricity generated from the aforementioned sources.)

Not liking this on reflection. First of all you have to be a homeowner. Then you have to 'make use' of renewables; is this by choice as in generating this within the home? To set up the facilities to generate 25% of your power from home made renewables is expensive. Only the well to do will benefit. Secondly if by 'making use' of means simply plugging into the national grid, then are we to reward those who through luck and geography live close to a major renewable power supplier?

[afleitch]

I propose a further amendment.

Section 1: Direct Aid to Struggling Atlasians ($256 billion)

   a. $100 billion for Medicaid
   b. $70 billion to extend unemployment benefits for eighteen months, individual unemployment compensation checks will be increased by $50
   c. $30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits
   d. $20 billion to fund additional Pell Grants, which shall be increased to $6,000 per individual
   e. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers
   f. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments
   g. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs
   h. $2 billion for food program funding, including free school lunch programs, food banks, and meals programs for seniors (General food banks shall recieve priority funding)
   i. $2 billion to replenish the federal "Crisis" program's funds.


---

I believe that because of the steps taken through the Help Atlasia Study Act, extra funding for Pell Grants is unneccesary.

I would appreciate Senators comments on the matter.

[afleitch]

An unnecessary cut, in my opinion, especially since we were winding down. I'll support it if it will get this freaking process moving and have a final vote called sooner.

I wasn't trying to be obtuse about it and I certainly don't want to hold things up too much! But the Help Atlasia Study Act will raise sufficient funds to subsidy tertiary education from the 0.5% top rate tax hike; I don't see why it should be given a further $20bn.

[afleitch]

a. $25 billion to exempt the first $5000 collected through unemployment compensation from taxation until December 31, 2010

How is this taxed? Is it treated as income and taxed or is it taxed seperately? I ask because the 2007 tax bill could mean that this already goes untaxed.

I've looked this up but could do with a little help. It seems to be taxed as income. Which means in Atlasia the first $5000 and indeed more, is already untaxed (or rather subject to an effective 0% tax rate)

[afleitch]

Geez guys, we have, what, two weeks until the end of the session? We will get this passed. Calm down and let's finish this on a high note. There are two pending amendments, with Marokai accepting afleitch's as friendly. That isn't a lot and we have plenty of time.

I am calm

I am just concerned we may be allocating $25bn for a tax cut on unemployment compensation that we already have , $20bn on funding for tertiary education that has already been secured through another act and we may be give 700 bucks to those who switch to renewable sources when it's not clear what 'sources' we are counting.

[afleitch]

Aye

[afleitch]

Thanks Jedi.

The idea behind the amendment is the same as it was when this body passed the Help Atlasia Study Act. While certain money can be apportioned beyond the regions (such as Medicare), much funding is region specific, meaning it is up to the regional legislatures/people to choose if and how to spend the money. If we apportion the money to the regions, but the regions never act to use it, can we assume it was ever spent at all?

This amendment fills that gap, saying that if they don't actively accept or reject it after two months, it is automatically accepted and apportioned.

So basically, we'd just be giving money to each region, which they get to decide how to spend? Personally, I think if the region is silent about it after 2 months, it should be stripped from the region, and distributed to the other 4 regions.

No. There is money in the bill that gives the regions leeway in how to spend it.

Also, some regions are simply not active enough to "accept" or "reject" the funding, so it is better that it just be considered accepted if a region does not act.

I would consider it most unusual for a region to reject 'free money' allocated to it by federal government; in rejecting it they do not gain anything in return as I am assuming funding is comeing from fairly uniform federal taxation. For example we do not say 'don't want $50bn?, here have a $50bn tax cut'; we simply claim it back and divide up amongst the rest.

In a sense we aren't really giving regions a choice are we? They don't 'gain' anything by rejecting funding.

[afleitch]

I agree with President Lief, surprisingly.

As do I. As I mentioned, there is nothing granted in 'return' (like lower taxes or a lower contribution to the 'federal pot') for a region rejecting all or some of the funding; so why would they? I think that makes the amendment unnecessary.

[afleitch]

Bloody hell that was quick! I was only on for a few minutes last night and I come back and find it all signed sealed and delivered Can I even do a FTR vote?

[afleitch]

Aye ftr.

This bill is not perfect, this bill takes huge gambles with our money and I was on the fence through most of it; but there is a sense of where it is going and what is trying to achieve. There is also come micromanagement of the money.