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

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Libertas
Bill Slot: 2

[Badger]

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.

[Franzl]

I will support this with or without Badger's amendment.

[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?

[Badger]

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.

[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).

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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

[Bacon King]

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.

[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...

[Bacon King]

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...

[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.

[k-onmmunist]

The DoI supports this bill, as it did the last time.

[Badger]

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.

[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.

[Badger]

Break the Chains Act (Take 2)

1. Companies or individuals which possess 15-39 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 0.25% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 40-85 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 0.5% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 86-175 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1.0% on their annual profits.

4. Companies or individuals which possess 176-300 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1.5% on their annual profits.

5. Companies or individuals which possess 301-450 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 2.0% on their annual profits.

6. Companies or individuals which possess 451-999 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 2.5% on their annual profits.

7. Companies or individuals which possess 1000 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 3.0% on their annual profits.

7. 8. Funds collected from these taxes shall be appropriated to the Atlasian Small Business Administration for expansion of current SBA programs for offering and/or guaranteeing small business loans to existing and new small businesses, unless and only if otherwise allocated by subsequent legislation.

9. All taxes on profits will be assessed on a per store basis, with the applicable tax bracket determined by the chronological date the store/outlet opened for business to the public.

This is no different then the current income tax system where different tax rates apply to income earned within that tax bracket. Think about it senators: What would each of you say to a tax system that instead of taxing personal income between $30-$50k at 15% and income over $50k at 25%, rather when someone earned $50,001 in a year resulted in their entire income being taxed at 25%, while their neighbor who managed to earn only $49999 that same year only paid 15% tax? What would you say about that system's fairness? About its impact on incentives to earn more and be more productive?

Well, that's the exact same bass-ackwards system proposed here, and all the cogent arguments for opposing such an "all or nothing" application of tax brackets to personal income apply equally well here. And this amendment fixes that problem.

(My apologies if the first version seemed too wordy, but as a lawyer I abhor poorly crafted loophole ridden laws, and real life has PLENTY. Fortunately, the very, very very extensive legislative history here should leave no doubt to the courts as to the intent of this abbreviated version )

[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.

[Bacon King]

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?

[Badger]

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?

[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%.

[Badger]

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.

[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.

[Badger]

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.

Sure, Libertas. And night is day, up is down, black is white....

[Franzl]

Can we start a vote on the amendments?

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators, there is now a vote on the following amendment to this bill. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.