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

[reagente]

A few questions: How is "family" defined here? Is it just anyone with kids as a dependent?

Also how does this work for divorced parents? Does one parent receive it, or does each parent receive a cut? Related to that, will this impact existing child support obligations at all?

[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.

[reagente]

Aye

[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?

[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.

[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.

[reagente]

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

[reagente]

Aye