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

[YE]

What's the status of this?

Right now I'm looking through older budgets passed by other regions that we can use as a template.  This page provides some examples.  

Waiting for the unknowns to be solved. After that, we can make final adjustments that won't require the GM and add the new spending since then (as well as stuff that should have been included in past budgets).

[YE]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[YE]

Amendment:

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

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.

[YE]

Looking through older stuff, I stumble upon two bills that were signed prior to the signing of the FY2018 Budget yet not included in the final bill.

Warren Act: $618,750,000 - one time thing
Mann Act: $300,000,000,000 - one time thing

None of these were actually included in the FY2018 so I'm not sure if they're legally funded programs.

I also think I found an error in the math of the FY2018 budget (not counting for the above two items). I am getting $804,529,005,200 in revenue, $426,628,500,000 in spending,  leading to a surplus of $377,900,505,200.

This still is unresolved:

Other bills that also go in this category:
Preventing Atlasian Anti-Choice Act: $600,000,000

This I'd assume would come directly out of the infrastructure fund:
Fremont Railway and Pan-Regional Transport Act: $4,618,000,000

All except for the one above should have been included in FY2018 but were not explicitly mentioned in the 2018 bill so not sure if these are valid.

So yeah, this is why I've been skeptical of too much spending as it is as we could have a surplus of about $75 billion or something much greater than that. I was intending to take care of this at the end of the budget process but seeing as I did the budget framework months ago and know the ins and outs and my term as FM as ending in a few weeks, we need to settle this now.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

I can weigh in here, since I did the FY2018 analysis.

The error in the math arises because of a rounding error; Truman used my rounded estimate (285.467 billion) as the revenue generated, when the exact value, adding up the individual contributions, was 287.5360052 billion. In any case, the error on most of these budgetary analyses is much higher than any rounding discrepancy.

I don't think The Mann Act and the Warren Act are invalid. They can simply be added to the FY2019 budget, since neither one makes any specification about when the funds should be appropriated.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Also, I see some discussion about the Carbon Tax in this thread, and I believe I've found the problem with it.

HenryWallace used this paper for his revenue estimate (which is worked into the text of FT 2-14), which I then transplanted into the FY2018 budget. The issue was not with the revenue estimate, which is technically correct, but with the bill itself, which lifts the tax described in the paper, but does not lower the corporate tax rate from 35 to 28 percent or allocate 161 billion for low-income individuals (both of which are elements of the carbon tax described in the paper). If those elements had been included in the legislation, the 10-year revenue would add up to less than 200 billion.

[YE]

Also, I see some discussion about the Carbon Tax in this thread, and I believe I've found the problem with it.

HenryWallace used this paper for his revenue estimate (which is worked into the text of FT 2-14), which I then transplanted into the FY2018 budget. The issue was not with the revenue estimate, which is technically correct, but with the bill itself, which lifts the tax described in the paper, but does not lower the corporate tax rate from 35 to 28 percent or allocate 161 billion for low-income individuals (both of which are elements of the carbon tax described in the paper). If those elements had been included in the legislation, the 10-year revenue would add up to less than 200 billion.

The carbon tax rate was changed this year and cut by 40% FWIW since the revenues were literally greater than spending levels. Corporate taxes are a federal issue though in this case so that should have been left out but the funding of low income individuals should have been included. Of course, not sure what to do about it now.

[YE]

Also do we want to fund this? Nothing has been enacted on that I’m aware of.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Also, I see some discussion about the Carbon Tax in this thread, and I believe I've found the problem with it.

HenryWallace used this paper for his revenue estimate (which is worked into the text of FT 2-14), which I then transplanted into the FY2018 budget. The issue was not with the revenue estimate, which is technically correct, but with the bill itself, which lifts the tax described in the paper, but does not lower the corporate tax rate from 35 to 28 percent or allocate 161 billion for low-income individuals (both of which are elements of the carbon tax described in the paper). If those elements had been included in the legislation, the 10-year revenue would add up to less than 200 billion.

The carbon tax rate was changed this year and cut by 40% FWIW since the revenues were literally greater than spending levels. Corporate taxes are a federal issue though in this case so that should have been left out but the funding of low income individuals should have been included. Of course, not sure what to do about it now.

So this has just drawn my attention to another issue: the figure that HenryWallace used in the original act (FT 2-14) is actually wrong (even disregarding the low income funding and other things) because it was not corrected for regional population. I'm partially at fault for this because Wallace asked me to check the brookings paper to make sure that his numbers were right, and I completely overlooked the fact that the paper, of course, was for a federal carbon tax.

So the value reported in FY2018 is wrong by roughly a factor of three. At this point it doesn't make much of a difference because of the huge surplus from the previous year, so it wasn't like we were spending money that we didn't have. But that is definitely an issue that I'll fix in this year's budget.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Also this law is in effect

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Preventing_Atlasian_Anti-Choice_Coercion_Act

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Also this law is in effect

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Preventing_Atlasian_Anti-Choice_Coercion_Act

Yes, YE addressed that:

Looking through older stuff, I stumble upon two bills that were signed prior to the signing of the FY2018 Budget yet not included in the final bill.

Warren Act: $618,750,000 - one time thing
Mann Act: $300,000,000,000 - one time thing

None of these were actually included in the FY2018 so I'm not sure if they're legally funded programs.

I also think I found an error in the math of the FY2018 budget (not counting for the above two items). I am getting $804,529,005,200 in revenue, $426,628,500,000 in spending,  leading to a surplus of $377,900,505,200.

This still is unresolved:

Other bills that also go in this category:
Preventing Atlasian Anti-Choice Act: $600,000,000

This I'd assume would come directly out of the infrastructure fund:
Fremont Railway and Pan-Regional Transport Act: $4,618,000,000

All except for the one above should have been included in FY2018 but were not explicitly mentioned in the 2018 bill so not sure if these are valid.

So yeah, this is why I've been skeptical of too much spending as it is as we could have a surplus of about $75 billion or something much greater than that. I was intending to take care of this at the end of the budget process but seeing as I did the budget framework months ago and know the ins and outs and my term as FM as ending in a few weeks, we need to settle this now.

[YE]

Also, I see some discussion about the Carbon Tax in this thread, and I believe I've found the problem with it.

HenryWallace used this paper for his revenue estimate (which is worked into the text of FT 2-14), which I then transplanted into the FY2018 budget. The issue was not with the revenue estimate, which is technically correct, but with the bill itself, which lifts the tax described in the paper, but does not lower the corporate tax rate from 35 to 28 percent or allocate 161 billion for low-income individuals (both of which are elements of the carbon tax described in the paper). If those elements had been included in the legislation, the 10-year revenue would add up to less than 200 billion.

The carbon tax rate was changed this year and cut by 40% FWIW since the revenues were literally greater than spending levels. Corporate taxes are a federal issue though in this case so that should have been left out but the funding of low income individuals should have been included. Of course, not sure what to do about it now.

So this has just drawn my attention to another issue: the figure that HenryWallace used in the original act (FT 2-14) is actually wrong (even disregarding the low income funding and other things) because it was not corrected for regional population. I'm partially at fault for this because Wallace asked me to check the brookings paper to make sure that his numbers were right, and I completely overlooked the fact that the paper, of course, was for a federal carbon tax.

So the value reported in FY2018 is wrong by roughly a factor of three. At this point it doesn't make much of a difference because of the huge surplus from the previous year, so it wasn't like we were spending money that we didn't have. But that is definitely an issue that I'll fix in this year's budget.

Okay thanks for letting me know.

Seeing that my rationale for me cutting the rate last year was generating more revenue than the budget and thus feared that'd wreck the economy, I'm going to push to repeal it and go back to what we did in FY2017.

[YE]

Also this law is in effect

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Preventing_Atlasian_Anti-Choice_Coercion_Act

Yea it's been in the back of my mind for months. I'd personally be in favor of gutting it since it's knee jerk but I have reservations I could find the votes to do so.

[YE]

I introduced a bill to re-appeal the 2018 carbon tax seeing lack of commentary.

[Galaxie]

Just realized this has been debated so long it started in my last tenure in Parliament!

Have there been any major changes other than lowering the taxes? I know YE has been leading this process but I'd love to at the very least stay informed of what's going on!

[YE]

Just realized this has been debated so long it started in my last tenure in Parliament!

Have there been any major changes other than lowering the taxes? I know YE has been leading this process but I'd love to at the very least stay informed of what's going on!

A few smaller spending programs have been added that were passed shortly, and I plan to undo one of my carbon tax cuts, but otherwise, the GM department just needs to fill out the numbers.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Just wanted to say that I am working on the Fremont budget now. It should be done in a few days.

[YE]

Just wanted to say that I am working on the Fremont budget now. It should be done in a few days.

Did you hear that everyone?

Thanks Encke for helping make my afternoon.

[Galaxie]

Just wanted to say that I am working on the Fremont budget now. It should be done in a few days.

Did you hear that everyone?

Thanks Encke for helping make my afternoon.

Seconded, thanks Encke!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Thank you, Encke.

[ON Progressive]

Thank you, Encke.

[YE]

Ok so here's the deal.

Once we get final numbers, I'll move to reappeal the carbon tax cut from 2018 (suspending the rules to allow the carbon tax bill that should be in the queue on the noticeboard to be moved to the floor for a quick up and down vote and then once that gets the votes to pass, we'll suspend the rules to have an up and down vote here.)

Is that good everyone?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ok so here's the deal.

Once we get final numbers, I'll move to reappeal the carbon tax cut from 2018 (suspending the rules to allow the carbon tax bill that should be in the queue on the noticeboard to be moved to the floor for a quick up and down vote and then once that gets the votes to pass, we'll suspend the rules to have an up and down vote here.)

Is that good everyone?

Sounds good to me.  Glad to see we'll have a budget by the end of the session.

[YE]

Looking through older stuff, I stumble upon two bills that were signed prior to the signing of the FY2018 Budget yet not included in the final bill.

Warren Act: $618,750,000 - one time thing
Mann Act: $300,000,000,000 - one time thing

None of these were actually included in the FY2018 so I'm not sure if they're legally funded programs.

I also think I found an error in the math of the FY2018 budget (not counting for the above two items). I am getting $804,529,005,200 in revenue, $426,628,500,000 in spending,  leading to a surplus of $377,900,505,200.

This still is unresolved:

Other bills that also go in this category:
Preventing Atlasian Anti-Choice Act: $600,000,000

While we wait, we should decide whether to fund those 3 programs listed above. Personally, I’m fine with funding the Warren Act, undecided on the Mann Act, and against the “anti-choice prevention act”.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Alright, I've done the lion's share of the budget and I should be done/have the results posted by tomorrow (or at the very latest, Saturday). Some bits were rather frustrating to find good statistics for so they took longer than expected.

I've also learned that I shouldn't trust cost estimates presented by MPs when advocating for their bills. For the Green Vehicle Promotion Act of 2017, I used the information that Tirnam presented in his advocacy for the bill, and didn't realize that, as usual, the regional population multiplier had been neglected. So, the revenue for that, like the Carbon Tax, was reported as between 3 and 4 times what it should have been in the FY2018 budget. These errors will have to be subtracted from the FY2018 surplus in the 2019 budget.