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

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I apologize for that blindspot. I should have defined what a child was. Thanks weatherboy.

If the proposed tax is not enough to cover it, I would like to raise taxes in other areas as well. I believe that this spending will be worth the tax increases because families with children tend to spend their money on wholesome goods and services

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

So, capping the money to only those below the poverty line is going to have to be a must.

No, I disagree. This program should absolutely be universal. Capping programs to people below the poverty line discourages people from getting out of poverty. It also is costly to means test people, and reduces support for the program among people who don't get it. Everyone should get the benefits of this program, no matter how rich they are. Giving $6,000 a year per child disproportionately benefits lower income people, while not directly removing incentives to work harder.

I would be fine with reducing the amount to $400 per month, putting a cap of 4 children, and increasing taxes in other places in order to make this program work. How about a 7% income tax on incomes above $50,000, as well as increased cigarette and alcohol taxes?

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I believe this amendment would be enough to pay for the bill, but correct me if I am wrong.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Aye

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

The amendment has been adopted, debate resumes.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Aye!!!