SB 114-23: No Welfare For Me Act (At Final Vote)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Apologies for not discussing this proposal when it was introduced.

Is there a reason why the income tax %s have been lowered on incomes between 70k and 414k+?

Once again, my goal is to very steadily move from the distribution bracket to the taxation one. This would obviously affect people who are economically mobile but not to the extent that it would discourage work. The numbers themselves can be tweaked. That's why I introduced this amendment two weeks ago and asked for public scrutiny.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Motioning for final vote

[Pyro]

Motioning for final vote

Object. I think we need to amend this bill further to ensure we are not lowering taxes on the ultra-wealthy, and do not adversely impact the budget. I have not had time to work on this, but will try to have something ready soon.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

A vote on cloture is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[West_Midlander]

Nay to give Pyro a chance to ready his presumed amendment he is working on.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Nay

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Abstain

[PPT Spiral]

Nay

[Pyro]

Nay

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain

[Dr. MB]

Nay

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Cloture vote fails to pass by 0-6-2-10

Debate resumes

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Motioning for final vote

Object. I think we need to amend this bill further to ensure we are not lowering taxes on the ultra-wealthy, and do not adversely impact the budget. I have not had time to work on this, but will try to have something ready soon.

Care to introduce your amendment?

[Pyro]

I was working on amendment which would revert the income tax changes for $130K+ back to their original amounts. However, I'm struggling to see how this change to the tax code (which is a well-intentioned proposal) would not result in a significant blow to our budget and eventually force cuts in other areas.

For reference, the current income tax percentages in effect are 10% for 0-13K ($12.7B), 15% for 13K-50K ($297.2B), and 25% for 50K-130K ($812.9B). I believe if we move forward with the NIT proposal, the losses in tax revenue add up to far over a trillion. Even if we reduce these #s to null out each percentage in the above brackets, we will lose $1.1 Trillion. By comparison, CUBI presently costs $945B. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the benefits to creating the NIT, but I do wonder if we're better off just leaving the program as-is.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Math, unfortunately, has never been my strong suit. I appreciate Pyro taking the time to research and do the math. And the math suggests we're better off retaining the distribution model inherent to CUBI.

But like my friend Reactionary, I don't support welfare for rich people. A reasonable threshold should be negotiated.

[Pyro]

OK - If I'm understanding Scott's comment correctly, we are returning to the original reform as suggested. I therefore introduce the following amendment. This restores this bill to its CUBI reform measure with two alterations I've written.

One, this retains the "phase-out" sliding scale whilst keeping the original max income eligibility. This way, persons making less than $70K will still be eligible for CUBI funds, but as Senator R proposed, the amount will scale based on income. For example, a $49K filer will be eligible for the full $2,000 amount, but a $60K filer will only be eligible for $1000.

I have also been thinking of ways we can provide additional benefits for earners making less than $50K (so someone making $10K per year can receive more financial assistance than a $40K earner), but this is what I have so far. This is a more balanced scale with a wider scope of distribution, in my view.

Second, I've modified the effective date to January of next year to allow for beneficiaries and program administrators to prepare for the change.

NO WELFARE FOR ME ACT

1. The New Great Society Act is amended as follows:

...

Section 2. Monthly Universal Basic Income for Families with Children

1. Beginning in January of 2023 parents or legal guardians of persons under the age of 18 and have a disposable income of less than $70,000 for individuals or $140,000 for married joint-filers shall be entitled to up to $2,000 monthly checks. Incomes less than $50,000 for individuals or $100,000 for married joint-filers shall be entitled to the full payment and incomes greater than $50,000 receiving a proportionally phased-out amount of $0.50 of federal funds for each $5 of excess income up to the income limit of $70,000 or $140,000 respectively.

2. This act shall take effect January 1, 2024.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

24 hours to object to the Pyro amendment.

[West_Midlander]

I object.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

A vote on the Pyro Amendment is now open. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[Pyro]

Aye

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye

[Dr. MB]

abstain