SENATE BILL: Fiscal Year 2014 White House Budget Proposal (Law'd)

[Sbane]

How much of an impact would there be if the top rate was only raised to 55% instead of 60%?

[Sbane]

How much of an impact would there be if the top rate was only raised to 55% instead of 60%?

I'm curious of that too. If we are running a small deficit in a time of bad economy, it's probably a good thing.

And getting rid of most tax expenditures is actually a big tax increase on many people, so that should be taken into account. Of course, this is the best way to increase taxes. Still, maybe we should think about what tax expenditures we should perhaps keep. Such as the Nuclear waste reprocessing credit for example.

[Sbane]

By my estimate, we lose about 56 Billion in revenue if we go to a top rate of 55%, leading to a budget deficit of about 40 Billion.

The Federalist Rich Man's Party: Creating deficits so that the rich can pay less in taxes. So much for fiscal conservatism, eh, boys?

Fair enough. What should we cut?

[Sbane]

Here is an amendment with some changes to the income tax structure laid out by the President:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is another amendment with some changes to the Excise taxes and the Financial transaction tax.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The new tax rates need to be scored by the GM to find out what the new revenue figures would be.

          




Here is another amendment I am proposing with some spending cuts:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sbane]

Why do you oppose raising the financial services tax? And why shouldn't the tax on a pack of cigarettes and Marijuana be the same?

What is atomic energy defense activities? If it's maintenance of atomic weapons, then I say we reduce that spending and scrap a lot of those weapons.

And why should we provide assistance to farmers, many of whom are large agrobusinesses? If there is any good place to cut in the budget, it's there. The remaining funding can go towards small farms.

Also, if anything law enforcement in this country is overfunded. I am willing to listen to arguments that it isn't the case at the federal level, but I doubt that. We need to lower the amount of police on the street looking for non violent crime and release prisoners from jail who are there for non-violent crimes. Of course we have taken care of a lot of it in Atlasia, but have we accounted for that with lower costs from law enforcement?

[Sbane]

Also, I am not offering them as formal amendments at the moment. Let's discuss them a little more and then go from there.

[Sbane]

Why do you oppose raising the financial services tax?

I'm concerned that raising the tax further will just push transactions offshore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Generally, users of marijuana consume less product than users of cigarettes. A higher tax on marijuana cigarettes also encourages more healthful alternative methods of consumption (e.g. vaporizers and baked goods). I would be willing to compromise on this by reducing the rate for all products but maintaining a higher tax on marijuana cigarettes and rolling supplies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Atomic energy defense activities" includes a mess of Department of Science and Technology functions (Department of Energy in RL):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link

If there are specific programs within this that you would like to cut, I am open to suggestions. I would also support reducing our stockpile of nuclear weapons. However, an open-ended cut to the program that's responsible for keeping nuclear weapons and reactors safe, clean, and secure seems ill-advised.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We've already cut farm subsidies and reduced crop insurance subsidies in Atlasia relative to RL levels. What we do subsidize already goes to the smallest farms per the somewhat-misleadingly titled Farm Subsidies Abolition Act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Take a look at the RL federal budget and you'll see just how much lower these requested funding levels are than their RL equivalents. ($23 billion for the DoJ vcompared 37 billion, and $30 billion for the CIA compared to $53 billion in Obama's FY2013 request). Granted, our expenses should be significantly lower considering our policies, but I'm wary of cutting too deeply in the absence of evidence suggesting that doing so would be safe.

I looked up the financial transactions tax for other countries, and I agree with you now. Our rate right now is a little high. We shouldn't push it further up.

I also agree with you on Marijuana but I still think we should lower the tax on edibles. I agree that we should incentivize people to use non-smokeable products.

I will be standing firm on the cuts to farm subsidies and law enforcement. Farmers are not in trouble today and if we need to cut, it should be from them and not poor people. I also don't think law enforcement needs that much funding, even if it is reduced from RL levels.

[Sbane]

Here is an amendment with some changes to the income tax structure laid out by the President:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is another amendment with some changes to the Excise taxes and the Financial transaction tax.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The new tax rates need to be scored by the GM to find out what the new revenue figures would be.

           




Here is another amendment I am proposing with some spending cuts:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is what I am proposing now (not formally, don't have a heart attack Yankee). I also forgot to mention in my previous post that I am reversing the cuts to the Atomic Energy defense activities.

[Sbane]

Ok, I am formally proposing these amendments now. I would have liked some feedback from the GM on the revenue changes due to the income tax and other tax changes but we can't wait forever. I am breaking them up into 3 separate amendments.

First amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Second Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

           


Third amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sbane]

Well, my amendments are there. We can deal with them when we get an estimate. I have no problems with waiting.

[Sbane]

I guess I will offer my amendment with all changes and final figures once we vote on Maxwell's?

[Sbane]

Nay

While we need to live within our means, cutting education is not the way to do it, especially in this setting. I would be all for some sort of reform, perhaps clamping down on the unions, but even then I would not be in favor of reducing funding, just using the money in a smarter way.

[Sbane]

Hostile, for the record.

And Nay.

Nay

While we need to live within our means, cutting education is not the way to do it, especially in this setting. I would be all for some sort of reform, perhaps clamping down on the unions, but even then I would not be in favor of reducing funding, just using the money in a smarter way.

Gimmick alert.

Haha what? Obviously you haven't been reading my posts about the teachers unions closely.

[Sbane]

Yes, clamping down on unions means exactly what it sounds like. I know this may be hard for you to believe, but there are many out there who believe the teachers union is an impediment to reforming our education system. This is not a gimmick, this is something I have felt for a while now. Also, being nice to people usually works better than being a dick.

[Sbane]

Yes, clamping down on unions means exactly what it sounds like. I know this may be hard for you to believe, but there are many out there who believe the teachers union is an impediment to reforming our education system. This is not a gimmick, this is something I have felt for a while now. Also, being nice to people usually works better than being a dick.

I wasn't born yesterday, but thank you for insulting my intelligence. And yes, I called it a gimmick because that's exactly what it is. No serious person can argue that teachers' unions are to blame for America's education woes. It's just another round of scapegoating from the right-wing who'd rather ignore the issues of educational funding and go after the underpaid, overworked teachers of this country.

Not sure why everyone seems to be jumping on me for "being a dick" when all I did here was call out what we all know is an obvious right-wing gimmick as far as education is concerned. Unlike the vast majority of my colleagues, which would rather pretend to be friendly one another in public while stabbing each other in the back behind closed doors, I see no reason to continue this phony pretense of agreeableness when some of the policies being proposed by certain members of the Senate (the Federalists in particular) are inhumane and would hurt the poorest of the poor while allowing the rich and well-born a free ride.

I thought it was a personal jab at me when you said "gimmick", which is why I said it was a dickish thing for you to do.

I understand your point of view, and since I graduated out of public schools not that long ago, I understand it is a very complicated issue. When I say the teachers union, I mean the union, not all teachers. There are many hardworking teachers who don't get paid squat. While there are other teachers who have been there for a long time, don't provide much value, but get paid very well. There needs to be some sort of merit pay, and higher pay for high school science and math teachers in particular. The union will not allow anything even close to that. Also, this is why I said that even though going after the unions might be a good idea, it is still not a good idea to cut funding to education because some teachers need to be paid more, while some need to be either paid less or fired.

[Sbane]

How many people actually earn 2.5 million a year?

There aren't a lot of people in that range, but they do earn a lot of the money though.

[Sbane]

I am offering this all as one amendment to save time. Encouraging to see that this is actually increasing the surplus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sbane]

BTW, Sjoyce, how much revenue would we lose if we got rid of the 60% bracket and just had a 50% tax rate on income $1 M and above? My guess would be around $11 B. Is that correct? If so, we would still have a surplus with a 50% top rate and the cuts I am proposing....

[Sbane]

Nay

[Sbane]

Keeping the tax rate at 50% and some more tax cuts at the bottom is something I could support. I don't really think deficit spending will work. What did you have in mind, TNF?

[Sbane]

Aye

[Sbane]

Does anyone find it funny that people talk about robbing the people blind government surpluses like they are positive things?

Well, I support lowering the top rate to 50%. Do you support that?

[Sbane]

Yeah, let's not forget that the current rate is 50%. This is a tax hike. Even what I am proposing would be a tax hike.

[Sbane]

Looks like my goals have been met. Final vote?

[Sbane]

Well, let's wait and see what Maxwell wanted to offer.