SENATE BILL: Napoleon Tax Cut Bill (Vetoed)

[Sbane]

Are we sure that is the Sbane proposal everyone is talking about?

Yes, that is my tax proposal.

I am fine with Matt's proposal, except I would keep the lowest bracket at 10% but increase the amount exempt from taxation. This will give us more of a cushion against going into the red. Another option is get rid of the tax hike on the 40% bracket and get rid of the tax cut on the 80-170k bracket in my proposal.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It is pretty clear in which direction the momentum seems to be flowing here. Matt's got everyone second preferences, but I wonder does he have enough first preferences to survive to when they can come in handy?


Sorry, couldn't resist that obvious joke, considering.

That said, we got three dueling proposals, two of which haven't been offered yet as amendments to the third one which is the current text (unless I missed something)? So is someone going to break the ice, procedurally speaking?

Also, I appreciate Matt's answer and concur in opposing an increast to the top bracket, especially after Duke and I succeeded in getting it lowered back in the good old days. How about the other two, with regards to your approach to the bottom bracket?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

hmm, decisions, decisions, decisions. I love variety.

Though it does become difficult when you like different aspects of all three options.

I don't much care for a $28 billion hike on a particular bracket, but on the flip side, I kind of like the idea of reducing or rather increasing the lowest income amount on the bottom bracket like sbane does.

Matt's incorporated hike is more tolerable.

And of course Nappy has no compensating hike, but on the other side doesn't touch the bottom bracket.

That is where I would like some reasons from all three. Why or why not regarding how you treat the lower bracket?

Like Hagrid- I prefer Napoleon's as it does not hike any one's taxes

Listen, not that I'm a fan of raising taxes on the rich, but I felt it was important to lower the rate of that bottom bracket, while still maintaining a decent surplus. I also didn't want to raise the $1 million + bracket, as I feel 50% is already pretty high. You go above that, and those people are now giving the majority of their income to the government. I feel though that we need to help Atlasians who aren't making much money, as much as we can, and I also wanted to lower the rate on those making 35K-170K so that's why I proposed the 3% hike, also I felt a 5% hike was too high.

I cannot in good faith call a small businessman who happened to have a good year "rich" if he falls into that bracket once

[Sopranos Republican]

hmm, decisions, decisions, decisions. I love variety.

Though it does become difficult when you like different aspects of all three options.

I don't much care for a $28 billion hike on a particular bracket, but on the flip side, I kind of like the idea of reducing or rather increasing the lowest income amount on the bottom bracket like sbane does.

Matt's incorporated hike is more tolerable.

And of course Nappy has no compensating hike, but on the other side doesn't touch the bottom bracket.

That is where I would like some reasons from all three. Why or why not regarding how you treat the lower bracket?

Like Hagrid- I prefer Napoleon's as it does not hike any one's taxes

Listen, not that I'm a fan of raising taxes on the rich, but I felt it was important to lower the rate of that bottom bracket, while still maintaining a decent surplus. I also didn't want to raise the $1 million + bracket, as I feel 50% is already pretty high. You go above that, and those people are now giving the majority of their income to the government. I feel though that we need to help Atlasians who aren't making much money, as much as we can, and I also wanted to lower the rate on those making 35K-170K so that's why I proposed the 3% hike, also I felt a 5% hike was too high.

I cannot in good faith call a small businessman who happened to have a good year "rich" if he falls into that bracket once

Okay I'll admit, "rich" probably wasn't the best term to use, more like just doing well for him/herself. And my intentions aren't to punish small business owners, I think our small businesses are one of the most important things in our country. Also I would argue that a high percentage of our small business owners fall into the 170K-368K income bracket. Which is unaffected by my proposal.

[Sbane]

I would support what Senator Sbane just proposed.

The part where I talked about modifying Matt's proposal or the second one with no tax cuts for the 80-170k bracket and no tax hike on anyone?

[Sbane]

I propose an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Unknown
Status: Waiting for Feedback

[Napoleon]

Sure, friendly I guess.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the situation here now?

[Sbane]

Well, I am fine with how it looks currently.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How about the bill sponsor himself?

[Napoleon]

I would like more input from others, but honestly, there's no reason for me to hold my breath. If no speaks up by tomorrow, we can proceed to a final vote.

[Sopranos Republican]

I'd be willing to support this. I mean, I don't think we are going to get a perfect proposal that maintains a surplus, so I would be inclined to vote for this.

[Sbane]

Interesting. I don't think we have the home mortgage deduction in our budget though.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'll be honest. The more I think about lowering taxes, the more I'm actually wondering if it's something we need to do right now. I don't want to blaspheme the conservative argument on tax cuts (especially because I generally subscribe to it), but cutting revenues could be dangerous right now, especially because we don't really need to do it. If we're going to spend and spend and spend (and let's be honest: We do more spending that cutting), I don't want to see us go further into debt.

So I'm torn. Just thought I'd be transparent. If I vote nay, now you'll know why. I'm not sure what I'll do, actually.

[Sopranos Republican]

I generally like Sbane's proposal. It's simple, but it looks like one proposal that will still leave us with a high surplus, and be able to make it a bit easier on middle class Atlasians. So I will probably vote for Senator Sbane's amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since people keep talking then I ask unanimous consent to waive the cloture requirement and proceed immediately to a final vote. Senators have 24 hours to object.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No objections were entered, though it no longer matters since the bill went quite for so long.


Senators, this bill is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nay

Hagrid is right.

[Napoleon]

aye

[Sbane]

Aye

[Sopranos Republican]

AYE

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay, I think Senator HagridOfTheDeep is right