SB 105-11: TMTH Act (Passed)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Thrusting More ATlasians Into Homeownership Act (TMTH Act)

Section 1 - Eligibility
1. Any individual in Atlasia may open an account with a financial institution and designate the account as a first-time home buyer savings account.
2. This account shall be used to cover eligible expenses for the purchase or construction of a primary residence located within Atlasia.
3. The designated beneficiary must be a first-time homeowner who has not been the primary owner of a residence previously.

Section 2 - Tax Benefit
1. The following limits shall apply:
a. The maximum contribution to an account in any tax year shall be $3,000 for an individual and $6,000 for a married couple filing a joint return.
b. the maximum amount of all contributions into an account in all tax years shall be $24,000 for an individual and $48,000 for a married couple filing a joint return.
c. the maximum total amount in an account shall be $50,000.
2. Individuals or married couples may claim a tax deduction for the total amount each year. The money may remain in the account for an unlimited duration.
3. Should the individual choose not to apply the funds of this account towards the purchase or construction of a home, the current income tax rate shall be applied to the account and a 10% penalty.

Section 3 - Implementation
1. The act shall go into effect beginning with the 2023 fiscal year.

Sponsors: Weatherboy and Scott

The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.

(also, if I may, I would like to request cosponsorship)

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

So this is nearly a carbon copy of the Supporting First-time Homeowners Act, allowing people to create a fund that can go towards purchasing a home if they're a first-time homeowner, and list it as a tax deduction. I think tmth said it well when he introduced his own bill into the CoD.

This would be a great incentive to encourage home buying and making smart financial decisions for our citizens.

Something to note is that since the South already has a law on this, it would allow for double-deductions for citizens there, being deductions on their regional and national taxes. That means that if, say, Lincoln did another bill like this, there could be a similar situation there.

I kept the same numbers from the original bill as well, but I'd be open to changing them.

Overall this bill would help many people, especially young and poor folks, get a house. Many would be able to get some more financial autonomy from this act passing, and I think just about everyone here would agree.

Also, I'm happy to have Scott on as a cosponsor.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Senators have 24 hours to object to my cosponsorship.

So this is a bill I had the pleasure working with Senator Weatherboy on prior to its introduction. Essentially, this bill would create what can be aptly compared to Health Savings Accounts, except that the tax incentives will apply solely to first-time homeowners. I believe that homeownership (and frankly, more personal ownership of property in general, as opposed to the never-ending rent-and-borrow culture that has burdened so many young people with tremendous debt) is something absolutely worth encouraging and incentivizing. This program will provide long-term investment opportunities for millions of individuals and families, at a fraction of the cost for first-time buyers.

[AGA]

Why is the cap on the size of the account so low?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Why is the cap on the size of the account so low?

This is WB's (and Tmth's) baby, but I for one am not opposed to raising it.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Why is the cap on the size of the account so low?

as I said before there numbers were copied over from the other bill. As I said before I am good with changing the numbers.

[SevenEleven]

I would also support raising the cap, after all, homes can be very expensive.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Do we want to set a fixed cap or index it to housing prices?

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Do we want to set a fixed cap or index it to housing prices?

indexing it would probably lead to some confusion because if prices are high, someone maxes out the account, then prices suddenly drop, what exactly happens to the money above the new cap?

I think it's better to have a fixed cap and potentially increase it periodically in the future if prices rise accordingly.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Any suggestions on exactly how high we should make the account cap be? I'm not entirely sure myself.

[Joseph Cao]

Do we want to set a fixed cap or index it to housing prices?

indexing it would probably lead to some confusion because if prices are high, someone maxes out the account, then prices suddenly drop, what exactly happens to the money above the new cap?

I think it's better to have a fixed cap and potentially increase it periodically in the future if prices rise accordingly.

Since this was brought over from the regional bill, who is setting the price caps here?

It seems to me that increasing prices manually also has the same potential for people getting caught on the wrong side of the price change, but the assumption I'm working with in both cases is that the excess amount is blocked off from use until external conditions change (prices return to their original levels, space is freed up in the account, and so on).

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Do we want to set a fixed cap or index it to housing prices?

indexing it would probably lead to some confusion because if prices are high, someone maxes out the account, then prices suddenly drop, what exactly happens to the money above the new cap?

I think it's better to have a fixed cap and potentially increase it periodically in the future if prices rise accordingly.

Since this was brought over from the regional bill, who is setting the price caps here?

It seems to me that increasing prices manually also has the same potential for people getting caught on the wrong side of the price change, but the assumption I'm working with in both cases is that the excess amount is blocked off from use until external conditions change (prices return to their original levels, space is freed up in the account, and so on).

I had originally considered just not being able to lower the cap but your idea also sounds good. Just not sure how to say that in the bill.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

We also need to keep in mind that, even without accounting for market fluctuations, obviously the tax incentive is going to give people more buying power in cities with lower costs of living, like Oklahoma City, than high-COL cities like New York or Los Angeles. So a county-by-county index might be something to consider as well. That $3K or $6K is going to help everyone regardless, but once we start getting into the more expensive places (which are mostly the ones that have more job opportunities and therefore draw more people in) the benefits have a progressively smaller impact.

If we have run into problems codifying this all into the bill, then I think that a fixed rate of $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for couples would be a fair route. Or perhaps something like $12,500 for individuals and $25,000 for couples.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Also, hearing no objection, I am recognized as cosponsor.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

We also need to keep in mind that, even without accounting for market fluctuations, obviously the tax incentive is going to give people more buying power in cities with lower costs of living, like Oklahoma City, than high-COL cities like New York or Los Angeles. So a county-by-county index might be something to consider as well. That $3K or $6K is going to help everyone regardless, but once we start getting into the more expensive places (which are mostly the ones that have more job opportunities and therefore draw more people in) the benefits have a progressively smaller impact.

If we have run into problems codifying this all into the bill, then I think that a fixed rate of $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for couples would be a fair route. Or perhaps something like $12,500 for individuals and $25,000 for couples.

How would we go about a county-by-county index? I originally thought maybe having just a simple function that scales the COL and potential benefits but that could lead to a similar situation as before where the COL decreases and may lock people out of benefits they thought they had.

I get what you're saying and I agree, it's just hard to find a way to make this work near-perfectly.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

We also need to keep in mind that, even without accounting for market fluctuations, obviously the tax incentive is going to give people more buying power in cities with lower costs of living, like Oklahoma City, than high-COL cities like New York or Los Angeles. So a county-by-county index might be something to consider as well. That $3K or $6K is going to help everyone regardless, but once we start getting into the more expensive places (which are mostly the ones that have more job opportunities and therefore draw more people in) the benefits have a progressively smaller impact.

If we have run into problems codifying this all into the bill, then I think that a fixed rate of $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for couples would be a fair route. Or perhaps something like $12,500 for individuals and $25,000 for couples.

How would we go about a county-by-county index? I originally thought maybe having just a simple function that scales the COL and potential benefits but that could lead to a similar situation as before where the COL decreases and may lock people out of benefits they thought they had.

I get what you're saying and I agree, it's just hard to find a way to make this work near-perfectly.

Yeah, the problem is likely that we would need to hand those decisions to the bureaucracy, because obviously we can't set a fixed rate for every county in the nation.

But that would also lead to budget problems.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We also need to keep in mind that, even without accounting for market fluctuations, obviously the tax incentive is going to give people more buying power in cities with lower costs of living, like Oklahoma City, than high-COL cities like New York or Los Angeles. So a county-by-county index might be something to consider as well. That $3K or $6K is going to help everyone regardless, but once we start getting into the more expensive places (which are mostly the ones that have more job opportunities and therefore draw more people in) the benefits have a progressively smaller impact.

If we have run into problems codifying this all into the bill, then I think that a fixed rate of $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for couples would be a fair route. Or perhaps something like $12,500 for individuals and $25,000 for couples.

How would we go about a county-by-county index? I originally thought maybe having just a simple function that scales the COL and potential benefits but that could lead to a similar situation as before where the COL decreases and may lock people out of benefits they thought they had.

I get what you're saying and I agree, it's just hard to find a way to make this work near-perfectly.

Yeah, the problem is likely that we would need to hand those decisions to the bureaucracy, because obviously we can't set a fixed rate for every county in the nation.

But that would also lead to budget problems.

Sometimes you just have to say a certain level of complexity is beyond the practical realities of the game and just take some things for granted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I of course support the underlying bill as I have long condemned the situation we have now with a culture based on a fee-for-service model, no ownership of property or assets and complete dependence in an near serf like condition that leaves people exploited and financially dependent on an international investor class.

Of course this also being a program built around savings means that it doesn't rely on historical efforts to achieve this same result that involved predatory lending and financial schemes to the extent that they crashed the whole economy and allowed for even more concentrations of wealth into even fewer hands globally.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

We also need to keep in mind that, even without accounting for market fluctuations, obviously the tax incentive is going to give people more buying power in cities with lower costs of living, like Oklahoma City, than high-COL cities like New York or Los Angeles. So a county-by-county index might be something to consider as well. That $3K or $6K is going to help everyone regardless, but once we start getting into the more expensive places (which are mostly the ones that have more job opportunities and therefore draw more people in) the benefits have a progressively smaller impact.

If we have run into problems codifying this all into the bill, then I think that a fixed rate of $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for couples would be a fair route. Or perhaps something like $12,500 for individuals and $25,000 for couples.

How would we go about a county-by-county index? I originally thought maybe having just a simple function that scales the COL and potential benefits but that could lead to a similar situation as before where the COL decreases and may lock people out of benefits they thought they had.

I get what you're saying and I agree, it's just hard to find a way to make this work near-perfectly.

Yeah, the problem is likely that we would need to hand those decisions to the bureaucracy, because obviously we can't set a fixed rate for every county in the nation.

But that would also lead to budget problems.

Sometimes you just have to say a certain level of complexity is beyond the practical realities of the game and just take some things for granted.

So with this in mind, would the author prefer a fixed rate for all counties or should we leave those decisions to the 'Deep State'?

[Joseph Cao]

We also need to keep in mind that, even without accounting for market fluctuations, obviously the tax incentive is going to give people more buying power in cities with lower costs of living, like Oklahoma City, than high-COL cities like New York or Los Angeles. So a county-by-county index might be something to consider as well. That $3K or $6K is going to help everyone regardless, but once we start getting into the more expensive places (which are mostly the ones that have more job opportunities and therefore draw more people in) the benefits have a progressively smaller impact.

If we have run into problems codifying this all into the bill, then I think that a fixed rate of $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for couples would be a fair route. Or perhaps something like $12,500 for individuals and $25,000 for couples.

How would we go about a county-by-county index? I originally thought maybe having just a simple function that scales the COL and potential benefits but that could lead to a similar situation as before where the COL decreases and may lock people out of benefits they thought they had.

I get what you're saying and I agree, it's just hard to find a way to make this work near-perfectly.

Yeah, the problem is likely that we would need to hand those decisions to the bureaucracy, because obviously we can't set a fixed rate for every county in the nation.

But that would also lead to budget problems.

Sometimes you just have to say a certain level of complexity is beyond the practical realities of the game and just take some things for granted.

So with this in mind, would the author prefer a fixed rate for all counties or should we leave those decisions to the 'Deep State'?

Hasn't the "Deep State"'s involvement in handling the difficult calculations in the past been basically a handwave by us here in Congress to punt the calculations to them and hope they're better at it than us? It seems better (and more transparent, and easier to identify and fix problems if they arise) to have a fixed rate.

I'm sure Scott's figures are in the rough ballpark we need but checking to see if they actually do the trick would also be a good idea.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I think it may be simpler to just do flat rates. I'm still open to scott's idea though.

Thrusting More ATlasians Into Homeownership Act (TMTH Act)

Section 1 - Eligibility
1. Any individual in Atlasia may open an account with a financial institution and designate the account as a first-time home buyer savings account.
2. This account shall be used to cover eligible expenses for the purchase or construction of a primary residence located within Atlasia.
3. The designated beneficiary must be a first-time homeowner who has not been the primary owner of a residence previously.

Section 2 - Tax Benefit
1. The following limits shall apply:
a. The maximum contribution to an account in any tax year shall be $3,000 $12,500 for an individual and $6,000 $25,000 for a married couple filing a joint return.
b. the maximum amount of all contributions into an account in all tax years shall be $24,000 $96,000for an individual and $48,000 $192,000 for a married couple filing a joint return.
c. the maximum total amount in an account shall be $50,000 $200,000.
2. Individuals or married couples may claim a tax deduction for the total amount each year. The money may remain in the account for an unlimited duration.
3. Should the individual choose not to apply the funds of this account towards the purchase or construction of a home, the current income tax rate shall be applied to the account and a 10% penalty.

Section 3 - Implementation
1. The act shall go into effect beginning with the 2023 fiscal year.

I believe this works well still, correct?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think it may be simpler to just do flat rates. I'm still open to scott's idea though.

Thrusting More ATlasians Into Homeownership Act (TMTH Act)

Section 1 - Eligibility
1. Any individual in Atlasia may open an account with a financial institution and designate the account as a first-time home buyer savings account.
2. This account shall be used to cover eligible expenses for the purchase or construction of a primary residence located within Atlasia.
3. The designated beneficiary must be a first-time homeowner who has not been the primary owner of a residence previously.

Section 2 - Tax Benefit
1. The following limits shall apply:
a. The maximum contribution to an account in any tax year shall be $3,000 $12,500 for an individual and $6,000 $25,000 for a married couple filing a joint return.
b. the maximum amount of all contributions into an account in all tax years shall be $24,000 $96,000for an individual and $48,000 $192,000 for a married couple filing a joint return.
c. the maximum total amount in an account shall be $50,000 $200,000.
2. Individuals or married couples may claim a tax deduction for the total amount each year. The money may remain in the account for an unlimited duration.
3. Should the individual choose not to apply the funds of this account towards the purchase or construction of a home, the current income tax rate shall be applied to the account and a 10% penalty.

Section 3 - Implementation
1. The act shall go into effect beginning with the 2023 fiscal year.

I believe this works well still, correct?

If indexes or county benefits are too complex to calculate or make fair for people, this seems reasonable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is it realistic to formulate a county index? Considering our limitations I think the fixed rate is probably the best route.

While leaving open ended stuff for agencies to fill in the blanks has been an escape in the past it also makes any attempt at scoring impact that much more complicated for the GM team as well.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I am formally proposing Senator Weatherboy's changes as an amendment, and as co-sponsor I deem the amendment friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Is it realistic to formulate a county index? Considering our limitations I think the fixed rate is probably the best route.

While leaving open ended stuff for agencies to fill in the blanks has been an escape in the past it also makes any attempt at scoring impact that much more complicated for the GM team as well.

this was my thinking as well. It takes exponentially more work to try and make this very slightly more effective.