SENATE BILL: Basic Income Guarantee (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: None Given that I can tell
Status: A vote tomorrow if that doesn't change.


Included chart:
The described formula looks like this when plotted:

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have about forty minutes till I open a vote on that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: None Given that I can tell
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, pelase vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[TNF]

Nay.

Too many strings attached will make this thing effectively impotent.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

Comments are pending. I have something written up.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

Strings can also hold something together that would otherwise fall apart, you know.

[Napoleon]

Abstain

[Gass3268]

Aye, but I still need to be convinced.

[bore]

abstain

[Sbane]

Aye

[MaxQue]

Abstain, for now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 56:24 by TJ in Cleve

Aye (5): HagridoftheDeep, Gass3268, NC Yankee, sbane, TJ in Cleve
Nay (1): TNF
Abstain (3): bore, MaxQue, and Napoleon

Didn't Vote (0):

The amendment has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So we were talking improvements to the formula now that it has been added, what are those?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How many days are we talking about here, Mr. President?

[Sec. of State Superique]

Hi Guys! Sorry but I was traveling to Salvador and to the Praia do Forte, Bahia, Brasil.



Now, let's start my explanation. The approach that I pointed out for President Nix was an approach similar with the Negative Income Tax proposed with Milton Friedman. My proposal looks pretty bi-partisan and this is how it can look like.

People earning less than $ 15.000 will be exempt from Income Tax, that will be necessary in order to prevent the creation of overlapping systems (that would end up allowing people to opt to the basic deductions - if they earn higher than $9.500, other than then getting this benefit) and in order to provide more tax benefits for the poor.

Then, it will go pretty like Friedman's Proposal. Everyone that earns less than $15.000 will be eligible to a Basic Income Guarantee. This guarantee will be 50% of what it takes to feel fully the $15.000. Someone that doesn't get any dollar will receive from government $7.500 and it will have the same value of net income, someone that get's $1.000 will get $7.000 from government and it will have a net income of $8.000. The graph would go like this:



Furthermore, some benefits would have to go. There would be no reason for their existence, just like the TJ's proposal. The Earned Income Tax Credit would definitely go. However, the increase of the tax exemption is not really necessary and if you guys prefer to create a dual system for those who earn more than 9.500, no problem. =/

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think the mechanism makes sense.

So do we have a clearer idea of the Budgetary impact?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What about the EITC and those above $15,000. Wouldn't that increase their taxes if the EITC were eliminated?

[Sec. of State Superique]

Well, maybe the others tax deductions don't need to go. Yankee, although I wasn't clear, I was trying to saying that those tax deductions would eventually disappear for those who earn less than 15.000 but I don't inted to kill the other tax credits and deductions for those who earn more than 15.000. :/

Since my proposal looks a little bit cheaper than the others, I don't know how strongly should we cut the other Social Programs. If we raise the exemption to $20.000, then we are going to have the same Basic Income Guarantee of 10.000 for those who earn 0 dollars.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think this Bill should potentially be held-off until we have a clear idea of the President's Budget proposals.

If we're looking at what could be a whack to the Budget, we need to have a better idea of the savings/revenue changes.

[Napoleon]

I agree with Senator Polnut.

[TJ in Oregon]

I prefer Superique's formula to my own actually, mostly because his leaves more of a work incentive within the first $10k. I concur that a more exhaustive list of benefits should be included and that we need to take a holistic look at the budget. I also think it may be time for us to get a cost estimate from the GM of how much we would spend on the basic income and save on lower usage of the other benefits.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Bump

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My preference would be to retain the full benefit for married couples where the net income between the two does not exceed 2x the individual poverty line (for our purposes, we can use $30,000) and possibly other multi-earner households in the same situtation, in addition to a smaller sum (something in the neighborhood of $2000) for each dependent. As long as we can do so without hurting anyone else, I am all for doing all that we can to encourage two-parent families.

So you are saying yo uwould seek to take each one up to the minimum in a married couple situation? I agree with your intent to be sure, but I want to get a better feel of what that looks like.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Has such a determination or standard been adopted for atlasia?