FT 8-06: Commonwealth Budget for FY2019 (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:19:24 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  FT 8-06: Commonwealth Budget for FY2019 (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Author Topic: FT 8-06: Commonwealth Budget for FY2019 (Passed)  (Read 7345 times)
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: January 11, 2019, 01:20:57 AM »

Also, I found an issue with FT 8-18 (2018 Royalties). This bill uses

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

as a basis for amendment. However, the original bill, here, had an amendment adopted, quoted below:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So the 2018 act amended a version of the original act that was never passed.
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: January 11, 2019, 01:28:26 AM »

That’s my fault for not looking at the wiki and assuming the speaker updated the OP for amendments. Technically though the 2018 bill overrides it anyway though, correct?
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: January 11, 2019, 01:31:58 AM »

That’s my fault for not looking at the wiki and assuming the speaker updated the OP for amendments. Technically though the 2018 bill overrides it anyway though, correct?

Yeah. The issue doesn't really affect the budget too much (and in fact the 2018 act makes my life a lot easier because I don't have to deal with percentages), it's just that the act was passed based on a false premise and I thought y'all should be aware.
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: January 11, 2019, 01:45:54 AM »
« Edited: January 11, 2019, 01:49:40 AM by Deputy GM Encke »

Upon closer inspection, the 2018 Royalties Act does probably need a modification. The FE-3 amendment to the 2016 Royalties Act changed the tax to 10% per THOUSAND cubic feet. With natural gas prices hovering around $4.00/thousand cubic feet, this would amount to roughly a $0.40 tax per thousand cubic feet.

However, a $2.50 tax per cubic foot, as described in FT 8-18, would be a $2500!!!! tax per thousand cubic feet.

Hmmmm...
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: January 11, 2019, 01:50:46 AM »

Upon closer inspection, the 2018 Royalties Act does probably needs a modification. The FE-3 amendment to the 2016 Royalties Act changed the tax to 10% per THOUSAND cubic feet. With natural gas prices hovering around $4.00/thousand cubic feet, this would amount to roughly a $0.40 tax per thousand cubic feet.

However, a $2.50 tax per cubic foot, as described in FT 8-18, would be a $2500!!!! tax per thousand cubic feet.

Hmmmm...

Ok, will reduce that (and suspend the rules to do so) by a bit since that’s obviously ridiculous.
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: January 11, 2019, 02:05:49 AM »
« Edited: January 11, 2019, 02:10:58 AM by Deputy GM Encke »

Upon closer inspection, the 2018 Royalties Act does probably needs a modification. The FE-3 amendment to the 2016 Royalties Act changed the tax to 10% per THOUSAND cubic feet. With natural gas prices hovering around $4.00/thousand cubic feet, this would amount to roughly a $0.40 tax per thousand cubic feet.

However, a $2.50 tax per cubic foot, as described in FT 8-18, would be a $2500!!!! tax per thousand cubic feet.

Hmmmm...

Ok, will reduce that (and suspend the rules to do so) by a bit since that’s obviously ridiculous.

Yeah, probably a good idea, since a straight calculation of the revenue for a $2500/1000 m^3 tax results in a figure of 12 trillion dollars. Tongue

Also going to add that the Coal tax was supposed to be a reduction from 110$ to 50$, but since the actual 2016 Royalties Act had a 50% per ton tax, the 'reduction' in the 2018 act actually increased the tax (since the price per ton of coal is around 40$). This will need to be fixed as well.

(Meanwhile, the oil tax is all right, with the revenue numbers being roughly double those of last year, which follows the intention of FT 8-18)
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: January 11, 2019, 02:19:33 AM »

Upon closer inspection, the 2018 Royalties Act does probably needs a modification. The FE-3 amendment to the 2016 Royalties Act changed the tax to 10% per THOUSAND cubic feet. With natural gas prices hovering around $4.00/thousand cubic feet, this would amount to roughly a $0.40 tax per thousand cubic feet.

However, a $2.50 tax per cubic foot, as described in FT 8-18, would be a $2500!!!! tax per thousand cubic feet.

Hmmmm...

Ok, will reduce that (and suspend the rules to do so) by a bit since that’s obviously ridiculous.

Yeah, probably a good idea, since a straight calculation of the revenue for a $2500/1000 m^3 tax results in a figure of 12 trillion dollars. Tongue

Also going to add that the Coal tax was supposed to be a reduction from 110$ to 50$, but since the actual 2016 Royalties Act had a 50% per ton tax, the 'reduction' in the 2018 act actually increased the tax (since the price per ton of coal is around 40$). This will need to be fixed as well.

(Meanwhile, the oil tax is all right, with the revenue numbers being roughly double those of last year, which follows the intention of FT 8-18)

Introduced appropriate legislation - thanks again for the effort you put into this!
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: January 11, 2019, 02:46:24 AM »
« Edited: January 11, 2019, 02:56:37 AM by FM YE »

Alright, pending any last second surprises, here's the plan.

I will officially be suspending Article II Section 3 (to increase the number of slots) and the entirety of Article III as of now (so we can knock this out). Out of fairness to the speaker, since I torture him enough as it is, I will administer the two extra slots.

After the 24 hour objection period is over, I will move the two tax adjustment bills to the floor (not breaking the standings orders as it's per FM request).

I will allow 24 hours of debate and then a 72 hour voting period unless there are any amendments on those two bills.

In the meantime, debate here can continue and hopefully we'll discuss our views on the 3 un-allocated spending proposals I mentioned above.

Once those 2 tax bills have the votes to pass, I will add those 2 bills that are being modified to this thread as an amendment. ON Progressive will be in charge of administrating everything else on this thread, (and Scott, please update the headers) as usual, though I'd prefer to see a final vote 24 hours after I update the bills in this thread. All other bills on the floor (so up to 4 non-budget related slots) can be administered as normal up to the discretion of speaker ON Progressive.

Is that clear everybody? Any questions or problems ask me now.

I am not trying to rush this process and I realize there's been a lot of turnover in this body so some of this may not be familiar with all the laws yet but at the same time, I quite frankly don't want my successor to have to deal with the FY2019 budget seeing this has been on the floor for now six months. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: January 11, 2019, 06:43:29 PM »
« Edited: January 11, 2019, 06:47:47 PM by Deputy GM Encke »

Now a comment on FT 7-17 (the Fremont Drug Tolerance and Prevention Act):

From the Act:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3 mentions possession, use and sale only. Doesn't this mean that manufacture is still illegal? As such, I don't see how it would be possible to tax retailers for a product that they are obtaining illegally. If the intention was to decriminalize the drugs outlined in Section 2, then sale should be removed, and if the intention was to legalize them, then 'manufacture' should be added.

Anyhow, a cost analysis of this will be extremely difficult anyway either way.

Also (and I may be mistaken  about this), but the other, one-time portions of FT 7-17 were not added to the expenditures portion of the budget:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: January 11, 2019, 07:08:59 PM »

I'll add the FT 7-17 at the next amendment.

I introduced a bill to fix said error. There was a last moment debate on just decriminalizing or outright legalization so this error is understandable.
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: January 11, 2019, 10:03:41 PM »
« Edited: January 11, 2019, 10:19:22 PM by Deputy GM Encke »

Alright, I've done everything except the Drug Tax (there isn't really a good way to do an estimate for this since we don't know how legalization will affect consumption) and the Gaming Tax (I'm working on this one, but it might take a while).

Here's the spreadsheet with some details and sources:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ls1tNRgYMFqwRDdPF_MwyMc5CHOOrqzNi5FDlPWEwb4/edit?usp=sharing


Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: January 11, 2019, 10:10:23 PM »
« Edited: January 11, 2019, 10:16:29 PM by Deputy GM Encke »

Amendment:

Amendment (just adding the new taxes in - basically a procedural amendment):

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bumping this because I'm about to introduce an amendment.

Actually there's only one bill for sure that I needed to add lol since everything else more recent counts for FY2020.

Edit: I missed a few bills in the Truman ministry holy sh*t. Added.
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: January 11, 2019, 10:36:52 PM »

Eckne, do the carbon tax numbers account for the re-appeal of the 2018 tax hike, which was based on misinformation, or no?
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: January 11, 2019, 10:43:43 PM »

Eckne, do the carbon tax numbers account for the re-appeal of the 2018 tax hike, which was based on misinformation, or no?

Yes. I used the original 2017 bill. (also, the 2018 tax hike wasn't a hike, the original bill had $20 per ton of carbon, while the 2018 bill dropped that to $12 after an amendment)
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: January 11, 2019, 10:47:00 PM »

Although it might be beneficial to amend the 2017 bill as well, since there is a section that explicitly provides an incorrect revenue estimate that wasn't population-corrected at the time.
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: January 11, 2019, 11:02:52 PM »

Okay, thanks.

First off, going to add the drug research stuff I forgot to add earlier, and fix the TILE act, as only $405M is appropriated annually. I will also add funding for the Mann and Warren Act, which will be spent via the infrastructure and subsides fund in the 2018 budget until that is used up, with the left overs being spent on this budget.
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: January 11, 2019, 11:05:03 PM »

Although it might be beneficial to amend the 2017 bill as well, since there is a section that explicitly provides an incorrect revenue estimate that wasn't population-corrected at the time.


That's probably a good idea for record keeping purposes. Post the necessary corrections and I'll introduce a bill although I won't suspend the rules since it's not something that needs to be done now.
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: January 11, 2019, 11:22:38 PM »

Okay, thanks.

First off, going to add the drug research stuff I forgot to add earlier, and fix the TILE act, as only $405M is appropriated annually. I will also add funding for the Mann and Warren Act, which will be spent via the infrastructure and subsides fund in the 2018 budget until that is used up, with the left overs being spent on this budget.

Just found an additional mistake. The GREEN ACT allocates 80,000,000,000 over four years, so the amount in the budget should be 20,000,000,000.
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: January 11, 2019, 11:26:50 PM »

Okay, thanks.

First off, going to add the drug research stuff I forgot to add earlier, and fix the TILE act, as only $405M is appropriated annually. I will also add funding for the Mann and Warren Act, which will be spent via the infrastructure and subsides fund in the 2018 budget until that is used up, with the left overs being spent on this budget.

Just found an additional mistake. The GREEN ACT allocates 80,000,000,000 over four years, so the amount in the budget should be 20,000,000,000.

I'll fix that in the next amendment; I misread the bill when introduced it in the levels of spending in the previous amendment.
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: January 11, 2019, 11:31:20 PM »
« Edited: January 11, 2019, 11:38:15 PM by FM YE »

Amendment (just adding the new revenues in - explanation given a few posts above and changing format to match FY2018):

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: January 11, 2019, 11:52:09 PM »

Alright, pending any last second surprises, here's the plan.

I will officially be suspending Article II Section 3 (to increase the number of slots) and the entirety of Article III as of now (so we can knock this out). Out of fairness to the speaker, since I torture him enough as it is, I will administer the two extra slots.

After the 24 hour objection period is over, I will move the two tax adjustment bills to the floor (not breaking the standings orders as it's per FM request).

I will allow 24 hours of debate and then a 72 hour voting period unless there are any amendments on those two bills.

In the meantime, debate here can continue and hopefully we'll discuss our views on the 3 un-allocated spending proposals I mentioned above.

Once those 2 tax bills have the votes to pass, I will add those 2 bills that are being modified to this thread as an amendment. ON Progressive will be in charge of administrating everything else on this thread, (and Scott, please update the headers) as usual, though I'd prefer to see a final vote 24 hours after I update the bills in this thread. All other bills on the floor (so up to 4 non-budget related slots) can be administered as normal up to the discretion of speaker ON Progressive.

Is that clear everybody? Any questions or problems ask me now.

I am not trying to rush this process and I realize there's been a lot of turnover in this body so some of this may not be familiar with all the laws yet but at the same time, I quite frankly don't want my successor to have to deal with the FY2019 budget seeing this has been on the floor for now six months. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Update: there will now be 3 bills on the floor to correct past mistakes, not 2 but otherwise, in pertains to suspending the rules and the use of extra slots, everything is going as plan. Also seeing that the Deputy GM factored in the mistakes in the above analysis and given I figured out a way to save us the full cost of the Warren and Mann Acts on this year's budget, I just introduced an amendment now with his analysis, correcting a few mistakes, and including 2 of the 3 un-funded bills from last time. One more amendment will be offered before a final vote to fill in the last 2 unknowns (to be down by Eckne) and to update a few links once those 3 bills pass.

Please let me know if you have any input. I feel lonely giving pecking orders and sound like a dictator Tongue
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: January 12, 2019, 12:25:32 AM »

Alright, finished the gaming tax numbers. These can be found in detail on the spreadsheet. Revenue is $5,100,495,700.
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: January 12, 2019, 01:17:04 AM »

Finished drug act cost analysis for the marijuana tax. Revenue is 2,946,083,796. The post in the GM's office will be updated accordingly.

Unfortunately, I will be unable to do a detailed cost analysis for the other drugs, as there are practically no statistics about their cost or consumption per capita. However, it will clearly produce far less revenue than the marijuana tax, and based off of some survey numbers that I've found, the revenue generated would probably be under less than one fifth the marijuana numbers. This will probably be a statistic that the GM department will have to 'make up' in the future, so I'll just throw out a figure of 500,000,000 (willing to listen to any objections to that number).
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: January 12, 2019, 05:45:09 PM »

Although it might be beneficial to amend the 2017 bill as well, since there is a section that explicitly provides an incorrect revenue estimate that wasn't population-corrected at the time.


That's probably a good idea for record keeping purposes. Post the necessary corrections and I'll introduce a bill although I won't suspend the rules since it's not something that needs to be done now.

Sorry, didn't see this.

The original bill specified an initial 112.5 billion dollar revenue.
Correcting for regional population, the initial revenue should be almost exactly 30 billion dollars.

So:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
YE
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,648


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: January 14, 2019, 12:55:06 AM »
« Edited: January 14, 2019, 01:17:04 AM by FM YE »

This should be the final amendment. 24 hours to object. This amendment is subject to math errors that will be edited as they arise.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Preventing_Atlasian_Anti-Choice_Coercion_Act is the only spending bill I'm leaving out.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 12 queries.