S.20.3-16: Family Opportunity Fund Act (Law'd)

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

yeah, also objecting to the amendment. Going down to 50,000 is far too low.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I understand that this bill makes it harder for people who do not have dependents. But it is important for society to invest in our children and families. Parents tend to engage in less risky behaviors (such as drug abuse) because they have an obligation to take care of their kids. It is very hard for low income families to raise kids between finding child care, housing them, feeding them, taking time off work to pick them up from school, entertaining them, etc. While many people who do not have kids are also struggling, they don't have the same issues that people taking care of kids have. Child care in particular is extremely expensive to cover. While some of the benefits will go to Donald Trump's kids, Trump would also be paying far more in income taxes than he receives from these benefits.

I'm willing to make the income tax 8% for incomes above 60,000, or adjust it further if needed. I do think it is worth establishing an income tax in exchange for a universal child dividend, though.

I'm also wondering if we could temporarily suspend PAYGO to pass this bill.


EDIT: Some other possible things we can do to help raise revenue is to increase excise taxes from 20% to 25%.

I also would like to institute a tax on sugary drinks similar to what the U.K does. This would help reduce obesity in kids (which is a big problem in the south) and I believe they would save money in the long run. I'm not sure how much revenue this would raise for this bill, though.

[tmthforu94]

DTC, are you going to withdraw this amendment and offer another one, or would you still like a vote on it?

[reagente]

I must rise in objection to this amendment as I perceive it to be unfair to many in the region. $50,000-$100,000 is still very middle class and increasing taxes during a time of economic uncertainty by 8% is not a reasonable action, in my view. A 2017 Census report shows 71% of Americans (assuming a very comparable percentage for Atlasian Southerners) are living without children in the home (myself included). I think people will especially take issue with having to pay a tax that then gets distributed to people in upper classes that make much more than them. Donald Trump will be getting a monthly check if this is enacted, but fresh out of college students with no kids and thousands of dollars in student loan debt won't receive a cent. I get that supporting childless people isn't the point of this bill, but that also is the point as to my concerns with it. If such a large tax increase is enacted, it should be for programs that can be beneficial to all Atlasians, such as improvements to education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc.

In terms of alternative funding, we're still waiting on updated funding from the CG on excise taxes which may help to an extent, between that and the initial proposal we'd potentially be at around $60B funded. This is an example of an idea that is very good in theory, but complications arise on how to fund it.


I will allow time for more feedback/discussion on the amendment and will open a vote tomorrow.

Donald Trump would also be paying significantly more in taxes than he gets from the check (as it stands, anyone making more than $290k/yr would be paying more no matter what), and nearly all fresh out of college students probably won't even be paying the tax, or if they are, it will be a very small amount.

Also support childrearing is something that helps all Atlasians, since it means future taxpayers will be able to contribute more to our budget.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

DTC, are you going to withdraw this amendment and offer another one, or would you still like a vote on it?

I would still like a vote, but I plan to offer another amendment soon.

[tmthforu94]

A vote has now started on the following amendment, please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.

AN ACT
to give families more security and opportunity

Section 1 (Title & Definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Family Opportunity Fund."
ii. The "beginning of a month" is the 1st
iii. "Child" is defined as a person aged 17 or younger.

Section 2 (Universal Child Dividend)
i. Every family will be mailed $400 per child at the beginning of every month ($4,800 a year) for up to four dependents.

ii. The Universal Child Dividend shall be withheld from families under CPS investigation until the investigation is complete. If the case is placed into Categories III, IV, or V, the Family shall be backpaid for any missed Dividend payments.

iii. This bill will be paid for by a 5% 8% income tax on individual incomes above $100,000 $50,000
Section 3 (Implementation)
i. This legislation shall come into effect immediately upon signature by the Governor.

Nay

[tmthforu94]

Donald Trump would also be paying significantly more in taxes than he gets from the check (as it stands, anyone making more than $290k/yr would be paying more no matter what), and nearly all fresh out of college students probably won't even be paying the tax, or if they are, it will be a very small amount.

Why pay him at all, though? To me, it makes sense to make this bill more fiscally responsible and affordable for our hardworking middle class. You're right, fresh college students won't be paying too much into this, at least at first, but the larger point is the unfairness of legislation that is giving an unneeded handout to the rich while childless folks in the middle and working class struggle. If we're going to impose such a hefty tax on our citizens in the midst of a worldwide pandemic, at least make it gradual and progressive and not flat.

Also support childrearing is something that helps all Atlasians, since it means future taxpayers will be able to contribute more to our budget.

I agree in supporting the future generations, which is why throughout my time I've always supported continuous investments in our education system - raising teacher pay, promoting school choice, college affordability, etc. Directly benefiting all children in the region.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Aye

[diptheriadan]

Abstain

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Aye

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Nay

[thumb21]

Aye

[reagente]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

This has enough votes to pass, delegates have 24 hours to change their votes.

[tmthforu94]

The amendment has been adopted, debate resumes.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

The amendment has been adopted, debate resumes.

I would like to proceed with a final vote on this bill

[tmthforu94]

The amendment has been adopted, debate resumes.

I would like to proceed with a final vote on this bill

I object, you had mentioned you were going to offer another amendment?

From a procedural standpoint, we also will need a CG report to ensure this passes PayGo under the current wording. We really don't have any sort of proven numbers that this is even financially attainable as it is currently written.

From a personal standpoint, to my knowledge, this is the largest single tax increase on the middle class in the history of Atlasia. That is something I can't get behind, especially in the midst of a global pandemic as our economy is starting to recover. I'm not sure why everyone else seems to be OK with that when there are better alternatives. This income tax is also higher than the RL numbers in every state, and only falls behind a handful of states. Our citizens are already dealing with high tax rates at the federal level.

I have requested an update from the CG on excise tax adjustments, which could potentially help cover a big portion of the costs of this. I'd be fine with raising the tax on some excise, as well as looking at possibly establishing a progressive tax on corporate rates and possibly making this tax more progressive. If this passes in current form, the middle class will be paying taxes at a higher rate than corporations. That is messed up to me, which is another reason why I am objecting and pleading with the Chamber to explore other alternatives.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

The amendment has been adopted, debate resumes.

I would like to proceed with a final vote on this bill

I object, you had mentioned you were going to offer another amendment?

From a procedural standpoint, we also will need a CG report to ensure this passes PayGo under the current wording. We really don't have any sort of proven numbers that this is even financially attainable as it is currently written.

From a personal standpoint, to my knowledge, this is the largest single tax increase on the middle class in the history of Atlasia. That is something I can't get behind, especially in the midst of a global pandemic as our economy is starting to recover. I'm not sure why everyone else seems to be OK with that when there are better alternatives. This income tax is also higher than the RL numbers in every state, and only falls behind a handful of states. Our citizens are already dealing with high tax rates at the federal level.

I have requested an update from the CG on excise tax adjustments, which could potentially help cover a big portion of the costs of this. I'd be fine with raising the tax on some excise, as well as looking at possibly establishing a progressive tax on corporate rates and possibly making this tax more progressive. If this passes in current form, the middle class will be paying taxes at a higher rate than corporations. That is messed up to me, which is another reason why I am objecting and pleading with the Chamber to explore other alternatives.

Corporate tax rates are inefficient and double taxation. Corporations will be paying the 8% income tax as well, just through their employees. There's a reason most countries have a corporate tax rate around ~24% or so. I could raise the corporate tax rate and lower the individual income tax rate if you want, but I believe that is less efficient than just raising the income tax rate.

I would be fine with raising some excise taxes, but I'm not sure how much that would really cover. Would appreciate if the CG would weigh in.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm also wondering if we could temporarily suspend PAYGO to pass this bill.

Debt and printing are indirect taxes too, and usually the most regressive of all. Also you guys cannot print.

I have waxxed long about the nature of why the "deficits don't matter" line is load of bs and largely the result of the IRL US cashing in on the nature of its global relationship but like with all things naturally, this resource can be exhausted and then you start to the feel the consequences of the fiscal insanity at a point in them when you have very difficult options to extricate yourself from the trap you find yourself in.

The best answer to avoiding austerity down the line, is solvency now.

I do applaud the decision to place substantial revenues into this bill, if for no other reason then to place a responsible consideration of the costs relative to a given proposal in appropriate context to avoid the trap of voting for the free lunch. Now from this basis an adequate conversation should and must be held as to the appropriate nature of the funding and alternatives, but frankly from the get go whether or not to have funding in the bill should not be up for debate and in a perfect world, unfunded proposals would not hit the floor but since we are in a game and accommodations are to be made, we don't go that far necessarily.

That said it is necessary for politicians to at minimum round out the proposal with honest levels of funding (presumably since I take it from the discussion no official report has been made as to this, definitely recommend someone like DM Blairite rather then pine ineffectually in a debate thread for his presence to manifest), and thus I appreciate DTC and Reagente supporting doing so, even if I disagree with the contents. The alternative is basically the California paradox some years back of the spending proposals being passed in initiative but the funding proposals rejected, not a good recipe for wise budgeting. Adequate funding should thus be contained with spending proposals, including even a well meaning tax credit such as this.

Now that said there are economic merits to moving to this model and this is on the whole a good policy proposal, as it would tend from my 20,000 foot view, to reduce spending in some other areas while making the costs of child raising more bearable. But that said indebting ourselves to hostile foreign powers should not be taken lightly, nor a large tax increase in these circumstances.

I strongly urge the CoD to take both considerations of ensuring adequate funding and minimizing the tax burden (but do note the burden originates from the proposal itself not the requirement that said proposal be funded).

[fhtagn]

I notice DTC never even bothered to make any post to speak for his own bill once it was introduced.

 I also notice that certain members of this Chamber are under the delusion that $50,000/year is a lot of money. Not only that, but it's pretty clear all this bill is doing is providing more reason for single, young people to never start a family, as they are now the target of unfair and unnecessary taxes that they cannot afford, especially during the pandemic, when they are already among millions of other Atlasians that were hit hard during the pandemic.

I can see why one might want to propose this as a very temporary fund to assist families during the pandemic, but there is absolutely no good reason this should be something that is implemented with no end date.


I sure hope those who vote in favor of this never plan to campaign on caring about working class people, because it's clear you guys obviously don't.

[reagente]

If we raised the marginal rate to 10%, how much would that allow us to raise the bracket threshold and still have the same amount of revenue?

[diptheriadan]

Honestly, unless we minimize who is getting this money, I don't even really see a point in debating it. I'm not comfortable taxing an incredible amount of money for one program that's mainly going to benefit people that don't even really need it.

[reagente]

Honestly, unless we minimize who is getting this money, I don't even really see a point in debating it. I'm not comfortable taxing an incredible amount of money for one program that's mainly going to benefit people that don't even really need it.

What do you mean by benefit people that don't even really need it? Childcare costs are growing significantly faster than inflation.

The allegation that the affluent benefit from this proposal is a Non sequitur since anyone who makes more than $290,000 is paying more than they receive even if they have four children, and that number will be lower for people with less children.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Honestly, unless we minimize who is getting this money, I don't even really see a point in debating it. I'm not comfortable taxing an incredible amount of money for one program that's mainly going to benefit people that don't even really need it.

People who have children have the most costs to take care of. It is far more expensive to feed, teach, shelter, and raise a child in addition to yourself than just taking care of yourself. It's a troubling trend in my opinion to see so many people opt out of raising children partially because of economic reasons. Raising children has many benefits to society, and we should be giving some help to our parents.

Also, anyone making $110,000 or more will pay more in taxes than they receive even if they have one child.

[tmthforu94]

I believe Dip is referring to people at the highest incomes. The bill as written (as opposed to what my below amendment will be) is certainly a benefit for them, it is not "non-sequiter." They're making back at least part of the money that they're paying in taxes to fund this, money they shouldn't need back at their high income levels.

I'm introducing this amendment in order to try and make this bill more fiscally responsible, it is still a high number but I'm trying to reach some sort of common ground. If the government is going to be giving handouts, it should only be going towards people who actually need the help. I expect an objection so will just plan to open an amendment vote tomorrow if it happens. I would like to follow this with an amendment that eliminates the drastic tax hike on the middle class, but would like to get information from the CG before fiddling with the funding portion too much.

AN ACT
to give families more security and opportunity

Section 1 (Title & Definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Family Opportunity Fund."
ii. The "beginning of a month" is the 1st
iii. "Child" is defined as a person aged 17 or younger.

Section 2 (Universal Child Dividend)
i. Every family will be mailed $400 per child at the beginning of every month ($4,800 a year) for up to four dependents.
ii. The Universal Child Dividend shall be withheld from families under CPS investigation until the investigation is complete. If the case is placed into Categories III, IV, or V, the Family shall be backpaid for any missed Dividend payments.
iii. This bill will be paid for by a 8% income tax on incomes above $50,000
iv. Individuals making in excess $125,000 in taxable income per year, or families making in excess of $250,000 per year shall be exempt from receiving this benefit.

Section 3 (Implementation)
i. This legislation shall come into effect immediately upon signature by the Governor.

As a side note, someone brought this up earlier but we still need to figure out wording on how this will work when the parents are divorced and there is split custody, which sadly is the case for many families across the region. That will be a separate amendment, though.