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

[tmthforu94]

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.

Sponsor: DTC

Minimum 48 hours for debate. The sponsor is invited to advocate for the bill.

[tmthforu94]

24 hours for objections to WB's amendment.

[tmthforu94]

I'm thinking we may want to add language clarifying it as a dependent and that the guardian receives the money. Something like:

"i. The primary guardian will receive $500 for every dependent child at the beginning of every month."

Should there be a consideration for putting a cap on this, say 5-6? I'm uncertain if a program like this could be open for abuse, similar to the issues we've seen in the foster care program. I'd also like to look at a couple other safeguards, such as specifying that the money should be used for child-raising expenses, if proven to be using it for other reasons, audit and possible return of money or something else could happen.

Also, just doing some quick math. There is roughly 75 million children under 18 in the US, based on prior calculations, about 40% of the population is in the South. So we're looking at 30 million children. Multiplying that out to $6000/child, we'd be looking at a total annual cost of $180,000,000,000. So we're currently at about 10% funding, meaning we're going to have to make some adjustments somewhere. I think putting a cap on family income is something that should merit consideration to start.

[tmthforu94]

Gonna try to keep this moving to offer an amendment that gets this *closer* to being financially feasible.

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 $5400 per child at the beginning of every month ($6,0004,800 a year) for up to four dependents.
ii. This bill will be paid for by a 5% income tax on individual incomes above $100,000

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

24 hours for objections.

[tmthforu94]

The amendment is adopted, debate resumes.

[tmthforu94]

24 hours for objections to WB’s amendment.

[tmthforu94]

WB's amendment has been added to the bill, debate resumes.

[tmthforu94]

We've been operating on rough calculations to this point that Dip posted early on, at this point we are still above $100 billion total cost, we are still way off from making this pass PayGo so still some work to do before the CG would be required.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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

[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.

[tmthforu94]

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

[tmthforu94]

The amendment has been adopted, debate resumes.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[tmthforu94]

The amendment has been debated, debate resumes.

[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.

[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.

[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.