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

[reagente]

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.

I object to this amendment. This creates a welfare cliff where it will pay more to make $231,000 per year rather than $250,000 for families with four children. The advantage of allowing everyone to receive the benefit is that the net benefit gradually phases out towards the upper end, and I want to keep  that.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Yeah, welfare cliffs are not good policy because they punish you for making more money. If you guys want, I could change the bill to 7% tax rate on incomes above 60,000, and a 12% tax rate on incomes above 100,000.

[tmthforu94]

That would be a step in the right direction, but it is still a steep tax increase for the middle class.

The point on an income “Cliff” is noted. I am going to withdraw my amendment for the time being and will be introducing one that gradually would phase it out. I am opposed to providing any handouts to the richest class, as small as it may be in their eyes, with funds that are being provided by the middle class.

[tmthforu94]

As I've been researching and looking around on tax law, I also found this interesting article:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/expanding-child-tax-credit-and-earned-income-tax-credit-would-benefit-more-than

Would folks be open to incorporating this into the child tax credit? As opposed to having the checks sent out, that seems like it would cut down on a lot of bureaucracy/red tape (which lowers costs) and a provision could easily be added to allow folks (or even require) to receive it as a monthly payment instead of lump sum. I think it would also solve our divorce parent situation, as the parent claiming the child as a dependent for that year would be the one eligible. There would need to be a discussion if this applies to foster children as well, since they can be claimed as dependents I believe.

The federal credit IRL is $2,000, I'm actually not sure if we have one in Atlasia so will have to look closer into that, but this could essentially become a regional child tax credit. Also if there isn't one federally, provides an opportunity for us to advocate to the federal government on this to provide support for working families in their next budget.

[tmthforu94]

Bump

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

100% behind the idea of expanding the tax credit. It would mean less bureaucracy than a whole new program while having the intended effect, especially if we allow that to be paid out over the course of the year instead of all at once.

[tmthforu94]

Breaking ideas up into separate amendments, here is the suggestion for a tax credit I made a couple days ago:

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 each month" is the 1st
iii. "Child" is defined as a person aged 17 or younger.

Section 2 (Universal Child Dividend Tax Credit)
i. Every family will be mailed $400 per child at the beginning of every month ($4,800 a year) for up to four dependents. Each person with a dependent child shall be eligible for an annual child tax credit of $4,800 per dependent, up to four. The credit shall be divided and dispersed at the beginning of each month ($400 per month).
ii. The Universal Child Dividend Tax Credit 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 tax credit payments.
iii. This bill will be paid for by a 8% income tax on incomes above $50,000

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

24 hours for objections.

[reagente]

I think the tax credit structure makes sense administratively. This amendment has my support.

[tmthforu94]

The amendment has been debated, debate resumes.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

The current wording is thorough and leaves little to interpretation. I like the wording, I like the contents, the whole nine yards. I support the bill in its current form.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I see no reason to object to the bill in its current form.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

actually, is this even fully funded? I'd be in favor of changing the tax to lessen the burden on the middle class and to ensure this is funded.

[tmthforu94]

We really need Blairitie’s input on the tax code, as I’m fairly certain if we add excise in, the extra surplus from previous years would fully pay for this for at least the first year, then we could probably be looking at lower tax rates for the rest. I just don’t have the analytical capabilities to do all those calculations.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

We really need Blairitie’s input on the tax code, as I’m fairly certain if we add excise in, the extra surplus from previous years would fully pay for this for at least the first year, then we could probably be looking at lower tax rates for the rest. I just don’t have the analytical capabilities to do all those calculations.

What is the present state of the bill in regards to this?

[tmthforu94]

We really need Blairitie’s input on the tax code, as I’m fairly certain if we add excise in, the extra surplus from previous years would fully pay for this for at least the first year, then we could probably be looking at lower tax rates for the rest. I just don’t have the analytical capabilities to do all those calculations.

What is the present state of the bill in regards to this?

The current version still has a flat tax of 8% on incomes above $50,000. I've messaged the CG 3 times (and a Discord message) and haven't gotten a response in weeks, I know DTC has sent a couple times as well. If there were RL we'd certainly have to wait, but seeing this is just a game, I think there comes a point where we just have to make a guess and then vote. If we end up on the low end, we've already approved a COVID deficit and it can be fixed during the next budget discussion, assuming and hoping we're able to get accurate numbers by then.

There is still an amendment I'd like to make to add in the excise tax (and then lowering the income tax for middle class), then open it up to any late amendments before proceeding to a final vote.

[tmthforu94]

Sorry, this has been a busy week for me. I will have more time tomorrow so will be offering an amendment then. Unless people have objections, at this point I'm fine with proceeding without a CG analysis.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Sorry, this has been a busy week for me. I will have more time tomorrow so will be offering an amendment then. Unless people have objections, at this point I'm fine with proceeding without a CG analysis.

Understood.

[tmthforu94]

After discussions with DTC, I am proposing the following amendment:

Section II, Clause iii is amended to read:

This bill will be paid for with the regional excise taxes and an progressive income tax as follows:
$0 - $75,000: 0%
$75,001 - $125,000: 3.5%
$125,001 - $1,000,000: 7%
%1,000,001+: 9.5%

We're really shooting in the dark here but I think this is much better for our middle class and with the mistakes in excise calculations, I believe this would get us at least close to full funding. If we are off I don't think it will be too significant of an amount, which can be covered by reserves and a future Chamber can adjust during the budget debate.

I still am extremely wary of raising taxes during a pandemic, however, what relieves me is when I compare our taxes to the other two regions, our region is far better for economic growth (something I hope will be reflected in future reports). For example the top income rates in Fremont is literally above 100% (not even sure how that would work?) and 73.6% in Lincoln, compared to 50.1% in the South. With this amendment, this bill will have my vote for final passage as it sets up our region economically for the future.

24 hours for objections.

[tmthforu94]

The amendment has been adopted, debate resumes.

I am calling for a final vote on this landmark bill. Delegates have 24 hours for objections.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

AYE, we should definitely go ahead and vote on this bill

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

With those changes, I'm 100% in support of this.

[tmthforu94]

A final vote has started on the following legislation, 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 each month" is the 1st
iii. "Child" is defined as a person aged 17 or younger.

Section 2 (Universal Child Dividend)
i. Each person with a dependent child shall be eligible for an annual child tax credit of $4,800 per dependent, up to four. The credit shall be divided and dispersed at the beginning of each month ($400 per month).
ii. The Universal Child Tax Credit 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 tax credit payments.
iii. This bill will be paid for with the regional excise taxes and an progressive income tax as follows:
$0 - $75,000: 0%
$75,001 - $125,000: 3.5%
$125,001 - $1,000,000: 7%
%1,000,001+: 9.5%

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

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Aye

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

AYE!

[thumb21]

Aye