SENATE BILL: Napoleon Tax Cut Bill (Vetoed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

             

Sponsor: Napoleon

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to begin advocating for this bill.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

What are the current rates?

[Sbane]

We also need an estimate of what this will do to revenue and how that impacts our budget.

[Napoleon]

What are the current rates again? That would more or less determine whether I'd support this or not.

             
 9.5K-35K     10%                       
 35K-80K      22%                       
 80K-170K    28%                       
 170K-368K  35%                       
 368K-1M     40%                       
 1M+    50%                             

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I prefer to set tax rates based on the amount of revenue that we need to collect to pay for the programs that we agree are necessary. I'll support a tax cut only if we're A) running a surplus B) in need of stimulus (and in that case it'd have to be a temporary cut) or C) able to agree on how we should cut spending to pay for it.

While I agree with your standards, I disagree with the philosophy you state at the beginning- I believe we ought to determine our expenditures based on revenue, not the other way around...

However- I echo the standards Nix sets out. While I support Napoleon's idea here- especially because I believe it hits where needed most- we need to be sure we can afford it

[Napoleon]

We have a surplus under the most recent budget.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

My concerns are the same as Nix's.  Could the GM give us an idea of how we're doing budget wise?

[Napoleon]

The last budget was passed in July, maybe August. We also passed many cost-cutting and savings initiatives since than as well.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Just fyi, I'll be introducing my own proposal, creating some additional brackets.  Roughly, it'll look like this (with numbers to come from the GM:

[quote=Ben Tax Cut]
9.5K-35K      10%      0% (-10%)             
35K-80K      22%       18% (-4%) 
80K-170K    28%       25% (-3%)
170K-350K  35%       
350K-1M     40%             
1M-10M      50%
10M+         60%

[Sbane]

I have a proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Napoleon]

Apparently the Napoleon part of the Napoleon Tax Cut Bill flew over the heads of some Senators. Just kidding.

But I would appreciate it next time that I be allowed to advocated for my bill before I get amendments thrown at me like darts. And I understand that we all have ideas, and we can listen and learn what we as a legislature think will work best but for now I am going to talk about why I proposed a tax cut.

The basics are simple- Atlasians pay too much. In federal taxes, in regional taxes, in other taxes, sometimes hidden...there are many costs involved in providing the supportive social programs we offer, and I am happy we provide those services but at the same time, if the government is taking more than we need, we are better off putting these excesses back into the economy to generate growth at the lower levels.

President Polnut encouraged regions to lower their income tax burdens and that simply hasn't happened. When you combine taxes at the regional level with taxes at the federal level, its an enormous chunk of every pay check. That excludes our other payroll taxes, health care taxes, the gasoline tax, excise taxes and so on.

There are many expenses for families beyond what the government is able to provide. We can make this easier on them without seriously impacting government operations. I targeted these proposed tax reductions toward families, specifically, working families likely to have children. I am hopeful that the Senate can agree with me that this is an effective approach.

With that said, if any one has anything else to say, I am happy to listen.

Thanks

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

However, this doesn't account for economic growth over the past year and changes in spending. For instance, we've mandated that nearly $60 billion be spent on relief for Hurricane Sandy and disaster preparedness. None of that has been accounted for. Obviously other bills have increased and decreased government spending, but I'm skeptical that we've saved enough that this proposal would leave us anywhere near running a surplus in 2013.

Before I left the GM office, I posted budget figures up to date (through the end of 2012).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Out of the proposals I've seen, I like the original version of the bill the best. I think the cuts hit in exactly the right place to help stimulate the economy.

Also, just so I'm transparent about my stance upfront, under no conditions will I ever support a tax rate that's greater than 50%. The state has no right to take away the majority of a person's income in one unitary swoop. I believe there'd be economic ramifications, but mostly it's just the principle of it. Our current circumstances do not warrant such a high rate.

[Adam Griffin]

The starting point from which I am providing these estimates was shua's last update in January. At that time, the federal budget looked as such:

 
             
SUMMARY: Current Projected Figures for 2013              
              
Direct Spending                 $2,638.16 billion  
Tax Credits                           $301.6 billion  
TOTAL Expenditures           $2,939.76 billion  
              
REVENUE               $3005.9 Billion              
EXPENDITURES    -$2,939.76 billion              
BALANCE                   $66.14 Billion

I've taken into account all legislation passed by the Senate since this time and combined it with our economic indicators (which will be formally released Friday) to bring an up-to-date forecast for the budget. While there were a few pieces of legislation that will have significant budgetary effects in the months and years to come, their effects have been felt only minimally as of now. Since the last forecast, there's been very little deviation overall:


             
SUMMARY: Current Projected Figures for 2013              
              
Direct Spending                 $2,654.19 billion  
Tax Credits                           $302.28 billion  
TOTAL Expenditures           $2,956.47 billion  
              
REVENUE               $3020.81 Billion              
EXPENDITURES    -$2,956.47 billion              
BALANCE                   $64.34 Billion


In regards to proposals:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

             

[Marokai Backbeat]

I do not subscribe to the notion that, because we are in surplus, we should immediately cut taxes. I've never understood that idea, and it strikes me as a remarkably irresponsible thing to do, really.

On a related note, when did we decide to exclude Social Security from the budget? Oh well, that's neither here nor there, I just had a weird moment trying to match up where the hell Shua got the numbers for overall spending since they made no sense to me at first.

Anyway, because we had a 60 billion surplus projected for an entire year, we're talking about cutting revenue? A bit antsy to jump the gun on tax cut demagoguery, aren't we? We have massive debts to pay down, we have potential recessions to prepare for in the future, we have to be ready for disasters like Sandy that could strike any time and require immediate national responses, we should create a national rainy day fund and set money aside. Having a 60 billion dollar buffer each year is already modest; cutting it lower than that just to tinker with the tax rates and have something to brag about strikes me as incredibly short sighted.

Especially if it's meant as stimulus; if so, cutting taxes permanently seems like a silly way to do it, especially at most of the rates proposed here. Nix's proposal would be the most stimulative, but it is also costly. There would be a dozen other ways we could achieve greater economic stimulus at a much longer long-term cost.

Being in surplus is a good thing. It's not somehow a problem that needs to be corrected. Just because we now have money doesn't mean we should immediately blow it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

While I do not feel the need to always start cutting taxes the instant there is a surplus, I am open to both Senator Napoleon and Senator Averroes Nix's proposals.  I could see myself supporting either, though I prefer Senator Nix's proposal and do worry that Senator Napoleon's may leave too small a surplus.  Unfortunately, Senator Ben's proposal is a non-starter for me since we'd be tax-cutting our way into a deficit. 

While I agree with what I assume was the thinking behind Senator Sbane's proposal (I assume it is that the rich should pay more and that the poor and middle class are the ones most in need of a tax cut), I am reluctant to support it.  Like Senator HagridOfTheDeep, the idea of taking away over half of a person's income with a single tax makes me more than a little uncomfortable on principle.  While Senator Sbane's proposal doesn't raise any rates to over 50%, it does raise one from 40% to 45% and that's close enough to make me a bit uncomfortable.  That said, I am not going to entirely rule out voting for the proposal.  However, for the time-being I'm not sold on it.

I would also like to hear more from Senator Napoleon, Senator Sbane, and Senator Ben about both the issues I've raised and the concerned expressed by Senator Nix in the first paragraph of the post before this one (concerns which I share, although I am more flexible about what I could support).

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think I would rather have some sort of very modest cut for the lowest bracket (~3% of a cut) and then setting up a national rainy day fund and putting 40% of all surplus funds into it every year, and sending the rest to pay down the debt.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I will not be offering my version, due to its effect on the surplus.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

For my information- do we have a national debt here?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I beleive in the Budget Restart Process, we determined that it was about $9 Trillion or so and that was back in 2010. It shouldn't be much different now.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I beleive in the Budget Restart Process, we determined that it was about $9 Trillion or so and that was back in 2010. It shouldn't be much different now.

Thank you...

Is paying down the debt in our current budget?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Doesn't a surplus by definition go to paying down the debt?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

A $6 billion surplus isn't that much, and it does make me slightly uncomfortable. Still, I think even a little bit of tax relief is a good thing. Senator Napoleon's cuts were, if I'm remembering correctly, 2%, 3%, and 2%. What if we changed it to 1%, 1.5%, and 1%? We'd be running a surplus but there's still be more money in people's pockets.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

On a related note, when did we decide to exclude Social Security from the budget?

With the passage of the CSSRA.