Mideast Assembly Thread

[Badger]

   Re: Analysis of Funding and Economic Impact Reques
« Sent to: Badger on: November 10, 2009, 10:19:20 pm »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Badger on November 09, 2009, 01:49:39 pm
Hi Purple State:

I'm forwarding this partial portion of a draft for the Mideast economic redevelopment bill. Other portions will address a proposal for cutting the regional corporate tax. For now though we're looking for at least a rough CBO/GAO analysis of this portion regarding both whether there is adequate stimulus or other budget funding for these spending increases (it's tough to measure % increases in dollar terms without knowing the previous year's budget), and the estimated economic growth--both short and long term--from such increased spending.

Much thanks!

Section II: The Assembly proposes that a number of 10 billion dollars be used in programs designed to extend and repair the region's infrastructure, such as building new roads, bridges, tunnels and railroad, increasing and promoting train activity, and renovate decayed roads.

Section III: The funding for public schools and universities will be increased with 7 % the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 5 %.   

Section V: The funding for the initiatives in Section II, III, and IV will be drawn from the 32 billions handed to the Mideast Region through the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act.



Goodness, the lawyer in you really shows with these analyses.

This would probably cost about $17-22 billion over two years, with the bulk of that coming in the first year. The first and third portions would create the most jobs (in construction, R&D, etc.). The second portion would create fewer jobs, mostly focused in education, but would be successful in making the Mideast more competitive in the long-run.

[Badger]

The Mideast Save the Sinking Ship That Is Our Economy Act

Section I: The Assembly recognises the need for a lower regional corporate tax, in order to stimulate our economy and help boost employment. We therefore will offer tax cuts to businesses that are successful in creating new jobs in the region.   
Definitions: "Workforce compensation" is the value of benefits paid to employees, both full and part time, whether in form of salaries/wages or the dollar value of fringe benefits such as health insurance, etc.

1)   Effective 1/1/10, every Mideast business, company, and corporation that is successful in increasing their overall workforce compensation, regardless of whether said increase is due to additional employees being hired or increased compensation to current employees or a combination thereof in this region with at least 5 will get a 25 % tax cut reduction equivalent to double the percentage increase for employee compensation in their corporate tax rate for 2010, up to a maximum reduction of 50%. (i.e. A 3.5% increase in employment/compensation will result in a 7% reduction in corporate taxes. 5% increase will result in a 10% tax cut, etc.)
2)   Every Mideast business, company, and corporation that is successful in increasing their overall workforce in this region with at least 10 % will get a 50 % tax cut.
2) Any increase of total compensation for individual employees salary and/or benefits above $100,000 per year is excluded from calculating any reduction of corporate taxes pursuant to Section 1 above.



Hi Purple State:

Same deal as before re: seeking your economic and budgetary prognosis here. The idea is that any reduction in the regional tax on corporation profits will be directly tied to increases in that company's employment and/or compensation paid to employees. The plan is designed to reward companies for rewarding their employees for productivity and profits, as any increase in the compensation of current employees encourages economic growth the same as increased compensation paid for new hires.

Let me give an example: A small incorporated business employs 10 people at $10k/yr (including the value of benefits such as medical insurance, etc) equalling a total of $100,000 paid in compensation every year, which the employees spend or invest throughout the year thus supporting other businesses. Business has been decent, but the operation really doesn't need an 11th employee. So the boss decides to increase employee's wages and benefits by 10% to $11k/yr each, or adds a health insurance benefit annually costing him $1k per employee, thus raising the total compensation paid by the business, and therefore the amount spent/invested in the regional economy by the employees, to $110,000/yr. This is an equally beneficial impact on the regional economy then if the business had instead foregone the raises and hired an 11th employee at $10k/yr---the total compensation paid and channeled back into the regional economy either way is $110,000, so the tax break should reward these businesses similarly to encourage economic growth in any form and allow businesses the flexability to achieve that growth.

Please note it equally rewards new hiring as well as increased compensation for current employees, and profitable companies are more likely to hire more people to expand production than to grant current employees vast raises, so the end goal of encouraging economic growth and fighting unemployment is served just as well.

As an additional example, assume the above business hired an 11th employee, but also cut wages and benefits by about 10% (I'm rounding here) so that the total compensation paid by the business remained $100k/yr. Yes, another guy now has a job, but 10 current employees now have to cut back on spending which in turn hurts local Mideast businesses who rely on those employees. Net economic growth in this scenario: zero. I'm sure you'll agree there should accordingly be no special tax benefits granted in this situation.

A final note (long-winded, aren't I?) ;-) : We set a maximum level of yearly compensation per employee eligible for this tax break of $100k/yr. Otherwise a company with 100 employees with a total combined compensation of $10 million could see the CEO grant himself a raise from $1mil a year to $2 mill while not granting the rest of the company raises and making no new hires, yet his raise would otherwise be subject for a tax break under this proposal! That is the exact opposite of what is needed to spur economic growth in the region, and we certainly don't want to subsidize that kind of corporate greed with taxpayer dollars.

Your insight, along with any analysis regarding economic and budgetary impact from the Mideast Assembly Budget Office and/or Mideast General Accounting Office, is strongly invited! ;-)

Okay, on this I cannot give you exact numbers. Assume this will cost $15-20 billion. It will most definitely boost the economy of the region and increase consumption and demand. It will also decrease unemployment, thereby saving the region some money from reduced unemployment insurance.

My one recommendation is to set an expiration date for this. Perhaps the end of the year is feasible.

Great work to you and SC on these bills.

A quick note that I sbsequently pointed out to Purple State the bill addresses only 2010 corporate taxes (unless the Assembly later decides to renew it after next year).

[Purple State]

For the record, I provide Badger with permission to post my private analyses of the economic package.

Is this like a CBO score, or just your opinion?

You can now see them, but essentially it is as close to a cost estimation and impact analysis as I, in my limited wisdom, could muster.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Oups, I haven't seen our Governor's objection on my first amendment.

Sorry to put more mess, but, even if I think the word "removed" implies a notion of intent and will that is not in self-defense, I think our Governor's remark should be taken into account.

I'm deeply sorry, Mr. Speaker, but could you submit again the first proposal with my own and -last...- amendment, written as follows ?


Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except in case of self-defense, by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."

What happened to "This is the last version of this I'm writting no matter what."?

Don't worry. I'm not sure I'm actually allowed to do this... but oh well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 ^^^ Unless Badger has any objections, this proposal is temporarely withdrawn from voting on request of it's sponsor to be further amended. The voting however continues on the other two amendments.

Unless it is further debated, I will be able to open a vote on the new last version, around 14.00 today Central European Time.

[big bad fab]

Protection of Private Property Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

II. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."


AYE


Right to Education Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."


AYE

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Protection of Private Property Amendment

   Nay

Right to Education Amendment

   Aye


With one vote in favour and two votes against, the Protection of Private Property Amendment fails.

With two votes in favour, and one against, the Right to Education Amendment pass. Inks you know what to do.

[Badger]

Protection of Private Property Amendment

   Nay

Right to Education Amendment

   Aye


With one vote in favour and two votes against, the Protection of Private Property Amendment fails.

With two votes in favour, and one against, the Right to Education Amendment pass. Inks you know what to do.

I'm sorry, I did not realize that we were voting on these three proposals separately. Otherwise I would have voted for the Right to Education Amendment. No matter as it passed anyway, but I want to state my support of the measure for the record.

[Badger]

Oups, I haven't seen our Governor's objection on my first amendment.

Sorry to put more mess, but, even if I think the word "removed" implies a notion of intent and will that is not in self-defense, I think our Governor's remark should be taken into account.

I'm deeply sorry, Mr. Speaker, but could you submit again the first proposal with my own and -last...- amendment, written as follows ?


Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except in case of self-defense, by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."

What happened to "This is the last version of this I'm writting no matter what."?

Don't worry. I'm not sure I'm actually allowed to do this... but oh well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 ^^^ Unless Badger has any objections, this proposal is temporarely withdrawn from voting on request of it's sponsor to be further amended. The voting however continues on the other two amendments.

Unless it is further debated, I will be able to open a vote on the new last version, around 14.00 today Central European Time.

No objection, though I would still oppose this amended version for previously stated reasons.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since Badger didn't have any objections, I move to a vote on this amended version of the Protection of Human Life Amendment.

[big bad fab]

Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except in case of self-defense, by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."


AYE

[Badger]

Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except in case of self-defense, by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."


AYE

NAY.

[Badger]

I just realized something. This constitutional provision allows exceptions for SELF-defense, and use of deadly force to protect others by police officers, but does NOT permit the taking of life in defense of third parties! If some criminal attacked my wife and baby with a weapon and I killed him to protect my family members from harm, I would have no defense under this constitutional provision. I think we can all agree this is a fatal oversight.

And, yes, I'm sorry but I have to object to the matter being redrafted for even further debate at this point, at least until we get the economic development bill passed. After that I have no objection to it being resubmitted. But for now I would suggest the matter be tabled.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Considering that we don't have a certified vote, and I have a lot of stuff to do tomorrow, I'm not going to put the amendments on the ballot.  I commend the Assembly for trying, but let's not rush this - let's get it right.

[big bad fab]

And, yes, I'm sorry but I have to object to the matter being redrafted for even further debate at this point, at least until we get the economic development bill passed. After that I have no objection to it being resubmitted. But for now I would suggest the matter be tabled.

I understand your objection, as the debate on this has been chaotic and mostly because of me.
That's up to our Speaker now and I would understand if he votes "nay" or if he eventually decides to stop the voting due to your procedural objection.

So, my fellow Assemblymen, don't worry, I wouldn't protest against any final decision.


As for your first objection, well, in French, "légitime défense" legally includes defense of your own family, of those whom you are legally responsible for;
but, if "self-defense" hasn't the same meaning in English, I'm sorry again that my bad legal English weakens again my proposals here...

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

As for your first objection, well, in French, "légitime défense" legally includes defense of your own family, of those whom you are legally responsible for;
but, if "self-defense" hasn't the same meaning in English, I'm sorry again that my bad legal English weakens again my proposals here...

English is a bloody comlicated language. I too assumed self-defense included defense of a third party as well, otherwise I'd have pointed it out earlier.

I think it might be wise to table this amendment and return to it once we've dealt with the Economy Act, as well as your other bill, so that we can work on this in debth. I would for example like to explorse how this proposal would affect current euthonesia legislation.

However since it is unlikely to happen before the next Assembly, I'll leave the final decission to you, as that Assembly might very well be more negative to such legislation.   

 

[big bad fab]

As for your first objection, well, in French, "légitime défense" legally includes defense of your own family, of those whom you are legally responsible for;
but, if "self-defense" hasn't the same meaning in English, I'm sorry again that my bad legal English weakens again my proposals here...

English is a bloody comlicated language. I too assumed self-defense included defense of a third party as well, otherwise I'd have pointed it out earlier.

I think it might be wise to table this amendment and return to it once we've dealt with the Economy Act, as well as your other bill, so that we can work on this in debth. I would for example like to explorse how this proposal would affect current euthonesia legislation.

However since it is unlikely to happen before the next Assembly, I'll leave the final decission to you, as that Assembly might very well be more negative to such legislation.   

I'm a reasonable guy: I've tried to push this amendment but with no success so far.
So I agree with your proposal. Let's table this amendment and we'll discuss it later, i.e. after your economy proposal and after my "constant assessment" proposal.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution is withdrawn from voting and temporarely tabled to be discussed further after we've dealt with the other matters currently debated by the assembly.

   

Unless Badger and Big Bad Fab, has any more concerns that have yet to be adressed about the Save the Sinking Ship That Is Our Economy, I'd like to proceed with that bill.

[big bad fab]

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I'm still waiting for numbers from our dear Badger, after the GM has allowed him to give them to the Assembly.

[Purple State]

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I'm still waiting for numbers from our dear Badger, after the GM has allowed him to give them to the Assembly.

Alrighty, I'll just post here, rather than use Badger or SC as middlemen on this.

It is terribly difficult to know exactly how much each region spends annually on specific items, mainly because the regions have no clear budgets. That said, the region does currently spend quite a bit on education, much more so than it spends on environmental matters.

The one reason I would caution against reductions in the education stimulus is that the fall in tax revenue has made it extremely difficult for the region to pay teachers, forcing layoffs and pay cuts. The 7% apportioned by this bill would help the government properly pay its teachers, as well as continue to improve the system. Also, bear in mind that infrastructure spending can be used to weatherize buildings, improve energy efficiency, etc.

[big bad fab]

Well....

As nobody can give numbers (and I don't blame anyone, as I have no numbers myself), I can give you the French situation:

for public schools and universities, it's 85 bn Euros
but without the buildings of degrees before the Baccalaureat, at 18 years old and without the technical, cooking and cleaning staff, 2 areas where the local public entities are competent,
so the total is: 115 bn Euros.

Now, public support for science and research in green energy (and even in all green technical processes, including green car, for example):
at most (I include all "green" research...), 1.5 bn Euros....

And, what is more, in France, public support for R&D and science is huge (it is the private financing which is weak, contrary to the US).

See what I meant ?

5% of 1.5 bn Euros is ridiculous,
7% of 115 bn Euros is massive.

I'm not saying that we should cut the 7%. I'm saying 5% in for "green" science and research is far too small to be effective.

So, maybe we can set the increase at, at least, 30% and cut the sums for infrastructure a bit... (by 1 bn $ for example)

Maybe our Speaker can make a new proposal on these numbers. Or may he prefer that I introduce a friendly amendment ?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Have we had certification on any of the votes yet?  What's passed and what hasn't?  It's my understanding that 2 votes have succeeded, we're just waiting on the Speaker to announce those results.

[Badger]

Well....

As nobody can give numbers (and I don't blame anyone, as I have no numbers myself), I can give you the French situation:

for public schools and universities, it's 85 bn Euros
but without the buildings of degrees before the Baccalaureat, at 18 years old and without the technical, cooking and cleaning staff, 2 areas where the local public entities are competent,
so the total is: 115 bn Euros.

Now, public support for science and research in green energy (and even in all green technical processes, including green car, for example):
at most (I include all "green" research...), 1.5 bn Euros....

And, what is more, in France, public support for R&D and science is huge (it is the private financing which is weak, contrary to the US).

See what I meant ?

5% of 1.5 bn Euros is ridiculous,
7% of 115 bn Euros is massive.

I'm not saying that we should cut the 7%. I'm saying 5% in for "green" science and research is far too small to be effective.

So, maybe we can set the increase at, at least, 30% and cut the sums for infrastructure a bit... (by 1 bn $ for example)

Maybe our Speaker can make a new proposal on these numbers. Or may he prefer that I introduce a friendly amendment ?

I agree with your general analysis here, Fab: A minor difference in the rate of education spending will be much greater than a change in the rate of green energy research as the former has SOOO much larger a baseline figure. That said, I still worry whether we would flood the green enercy market with more money than its infrastructure can handle so soon. However, it seems that there is a consensus for the need to rapidly exand green energy tehcnology funding in the coming years for both environmental and economic reasons.

Think about it: Why can't the Mideast region be the center of developing solar, wind, geothermal, safe nuclear energy not only for Atlasia, but the entire world?

I'll meet you far more than halfway: How's this amendment guys?

So after a very long period of waiting, with some appreciated help from my good friend Badger and our Game Moderator's analysing and advice, I can finally introduce to you ... drumroll please...

The Mideast Save the Sinking Ship That Is Our Economy Act

Section I: The Assembly recognises the need for a lower regional corporate tax, in order to stimulate our economy and help boost employment. We therefore will offer tax cuts to businesses that are successful in creating new jobs in the region. 
Definitions: "Workforce compensation" is the value of benefits paid to employees, both full and part time, whether in form of salaries/wages or the dollar value of fringe benefits such as health insurance, etc.
   1)   Effective 1/1/10, every Mideast business, company, and corporation that is successful in increasing their overall workforce compensation, regardless of whether said increase is due to additional employees being hired or increased compensation to current employees or a combination thereof in this region with at least 5 will get a 25 % tax cut reduction equivalent to double the percentage increase for employee compensation in their corporate tax rate for 2010, up to a maximum reduction of 50%. (i.e. A 3.5% increase in employment/compensation will result in a 7% reduction in corporate taxes. 5% increase will result in a 10% tax cut, etc.)
   2) Any increase of total compensation for individual employees salary and/or benefits above $100,000 per year is excluded from calculating any reduction of corporate taxes pursuant to Section 1 above.

Section II: The Assembly proposes that a number of 10 9 billion dollars be used in programs designed to extend and repair the region's infrastructure, such as building new roads, bridges, tunnels and railroad, increasing and promoting train activity, and renovate decayed roads.

Section III: The funding for public schools and universities will be increased by 7% the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 5 % 25%.   

Section V: The funding for the initiatives in Section II, III, and IV will be drawn from the 32 billions handed to the Mideast Region through the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act.

Whaddya think guys? Time for a vote maybe?

[big bad fab]

Dear Assemblyman Badger, your amendment is perfect for me.

Of course, I let the last word to our dear Speaker.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Since Big Bad Fab didn't have any objections, the amendment is accepted as friendly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm ready when you guys are ready.

[big bad fab]

Since Big Bad Fab didn't have any objections, the amendment is accepted as friendly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm ready when you guys are ready.

Ready. Steady. Go, Mr Speaker.