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

[TNF]

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?

[TNF]

I am opposed to any and all attempt to provide the rich with tax relief by modifying the 60% rate.

[TNF]

If anything, I think we need to invest more in our small farms, not less.  In the Northeast, we passed legislation that allows small farms to apply for grants for them to grow.  I wanted to introduce similar legislation in the Senate, but I never got to it.

Why? Why should we continue to subsidize farming, of any stripe, when it is becoming cheaper and cheaper to grow artificial meat in labs?

[TNF]

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.

[TNF]

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.

Senator TNF doesn't like to miss an opportunity to throw a jab at one of his colleagues.

As opposed to Senator Tmthforu94, who simply thinks pretension is more important than making good policy?

[TNF]

Can we not do this in every single thread?

It wouldn't be necessary if Senator TNF wouldn't insist on spreading false information about others over and over and over again.

I'm sorry that you would rather concern yourself with my behavior than debate what is being proposed here. Correct me if I am wrong, Senator Sbane, but "clamping own unions" means exactly what it says, does it not? I'm willing to debate this issue until the cows come home, but it's quite obvious that some people are more interested in my choice of words than they are actually writing good legislation.

[TNF]

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.

[TNF]

I'm proposing the "Let's not f**k over teachers amendment"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I understand the level of vindictiveness towards my proposal. However, surely a 75% tax rate would raise far more revenue than we are possibly needing, especially with your cuts to the military (which I support). I know you like sticking it to rich people, and sticking it to them hard, but come on dude, tax rates should be as low as they can while being able to fund the government, and we are doing that properly.

I respectfully disagree, Senator. Tax rates should be a means by which to redistribute the wealth of society from those who profit from others' hard work to those who created that wealth in the first place, i.e. Atlasian workers.

[TNF]

TNF, if you want to split it we can proceed with the spending side now but I don't feel comfortable allowing an amendment that replaces a number in the budget with a letter. If things go sideways and we are forced to vote on the budget itself for some reason, it would be on the highway to the trash can.

Joyce was just confirmed and I plan on contacting him before I go off. Hopefully we can get the numbers we need rather swiftly and then we can proceed with changes to the revenue section.

I am fine with splitting it.

[TNF]

Which budget estimates do you need specifically? The last several posts of debate seem to just be the same things from a dozen other threads. Do you need a revenue estimate for the new tax bracket or...?

Revenue estimate for the new tax bracket, I think. I mean the other numbers I crunched myself, so far as military and education spending are concerned.

[TNF]

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.

No person "earns" $2.5 million and upwards of it. That money is basically expropriated surplus value from their workforce. Taxing that money at 75% would give the Republic of Atlasia plenty of dollars with which we could invest in our communities, expand social programs, and build a much more fair and just society.

[TNF]

An additional $111.38 B would mean an additional $111.38 B we could spend on schools, health care, etc. This isn't just about 'sticking it to rich people', Maxwell, it's about raising revenue for vitally underfunded programs that already exist – plus, make no mistake about it, it would give us a lot of leeway to expand or create new programs that would be far more economically beneficial than rich people hoarding all that dough. If they refuse to invest that cash, we have a moral imperative to do so ourselves through the levers of taxation and spending accorded to us.

[TNF]

Sbane's proposal creates enough more revenue as it is, also considering we have a surplus.

Why not create more that can be spent on those who need it most? If you're making over $2.5 M you can pay a bit more. I won't shed a tear over any rich kid who misses out on a new yacht if it means we can double or triple education funding.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

Aye.

Soak the rich and save the nation.

[TNF]

Forgive me for dragging this debate out, but wouldn't it be a good idea for us *not* to run a surplus during an economic crisis? Atlasia is in recession and deficit spending might be necessary to take us out of the hole. I'd be willing to withdraw my amendment if we can come to a solution that increases useful spending that could serve as a means for reviving the economy. Deficit spending is our way out.

[TNF]

Deficit spending during a recession isn't terrible, but we have a bill on the way that will cost a lot (the basic income guarantee), and the worry is that it will already put us in a deficit, which is why there is a current surplus.

Bigger deficit = bigger recovery

[TNF]

Deficit spending during a recession isn't terrible, but we have a bill on the way that will cost a lot (the basic income guarantee), and the worry is that it will already put us in a deficit, which is why there is a current surplus.

Bigger deficit = bigger recovery

This is not a simple equation and you know that. Why don't you ask the Italians, the Spanish, the Greek and the Irish to see if they agree with your equation? All of those countries that I mentioned have spent more than they should. Now take a look at their situation....

Except those countries were forced into austerity by arbitrary and insane limits set by the EU. Not the same situation in the least.

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?

I would be in favor of keeping the top rate at 60% and cutting taxes for those at the bottom of the economic spectrum.

[TNF]

TNF, I'm not a proud supporter of austerity and I think that what the Europeans are doing is insane. But they would not have been facing that situation if they never irresponsably spent like they did after all. Furthemore, the crisis in Atlasia doesn't require a deficit, we can handle it within our means...

Deficit spending is the key to increasing demand and bringing back the economy. We need stimulus.

[TNF]

Nay

[TNF]

While it's true that this would not actually be a tax hike for the rich, what I meant was if I were to vote yes I would be lowering the tax rate from what it would be if I were to vote no.

Senator,

If my interpretation of what you're saying is correct, do you believe that, regardless of the rate, it should never be appropriate to lower taxes on the rich?

I won't speak for Bore, but I that's my position, just to interject. The rich should not receive tax relief, period. They receive enough 'relief' as a result of owning the means by which the economy operates.

[TNF]

If the President is ready for a final vote, I too, am ready for a final vote.

[TNF]

I, too, am in favor of a final vote.

[TNF]

AYE.

The tax code isn't as progressive as I'd have liked, but the top rate of 60% is a definite improvement.