The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Bacon King]

With the Convention rapidly approaching and a thread already open, I kindly ask that unless there are further questions, the Legislature that a vote be held soon We don't want our region to be the slowest!

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Ah, yes. That is a concern. Paging the Lt. Governor....

[Dancing with Myself]

The Vote is open

[Deldem]

First off, I'd like to thank both Senator Bacon King and Governor JBrase for their time. I felt that after these hearings, I'd be comfortable with both of you representing our region.

However, I feel that I must give my vote to Senator Bacon King.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I agree with Legislator Deldem that both candidates would make excellent delegates, & that it is a shame that we are restricted to one delegate per region.

     However, I will also vote for Senator Bacon King.

[CatoMinor]

Looks like Senator Bacon King shall be the delegate, I'm confident he will represent the SE well

[Bacon King]

I thank the legislature for my selection

[Deldem]

I'd like to add this as the next bill for consideration:

Southeastern Educational Incentive Act

1. The Southeast shall provide a $1,000 tax credit per student to all households who have a member enrolled in an institute of higher learning full-time, and a $500 tax credit to a member enrolled part-time.
2. The credit provided shall not exceed the total value of the income tax assessed. (i.e. taxation cannot be less than $0)
3. A full-time student shall be deemed any student who successfully completes a total of 24 credit hours per year, or completes 12 credit hours per semester.
4. A part-time student  shall be deemed any student who successfully completes at least 6, but no more than 23 credit hours per year, or who completes at least 3, but no more than 11, credit hours per semester.
5. This law shall take effect starting for students enrolled within institutes of higher learning during the semester starting in the Fall of 2010.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     There were already things in the queue, but they are not terribly important matters, so I will put this in the front of the queue, allowing it to come to the floor now.

     Looks good, but I suggest that we specify how we are going to pay for it. I am also not sure how specific "institute of higher learning" is in legal terms.

[John Dibble]

I'd like to add this as the next bill for consideration:

Southeastern Educational Incentive Act

1. The Southeast shall provide a $1,000 tax credit per student to all households who have a member enrolled in an institute of higher learning full-time, and a $500 tax credit to a member enrolled part-time.
2. The credit provided shall not exceed the total value of the income tax assessed. (i.e. taxation cannot be less than $0)
3. A full-time student shall be deemed any student who successfully completes a total of 24 credit hours per year, or completes 12 credit hours per semester.
4. A part-time student  shall be deemed any student who successfully completes at least 6, but no more than 23 credit hours per year, or who completes at least 3, but no more than 11, credit hours per semester.
5. This law shall take effect starting for students enrolled within institutes of higher learning during the semester starting in the Fall of 2010.

You dare put a bill about education before my bill to make the region more evil? Clearly you have a warped sense of priorities.

[CatoMinor]

     There were already things in the queue, but they are not terribly important matters, so I will put this in the front of the queue, allowing it to come to the floor now.

     Looks good, but I suggest that we specify how we are going to pay for it. I am also not sure how specific "institute of higher learning" is in legal terms.

I agree, the bill should elaborate on how it will be payed for. I am assuming "institute of higher learning" covers all community colleges, universities, trade schools ect.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     There were already things in the queue, but they are not terribly important matters, so I will put this in the front of the queue, allowing it to come to the floor now.

     Looks good, but I suggest that we specify how we are going to pay for it. I am also not sure how specific "institute of higher learning" is in legal terms.

I agree, the bill should elaborate on how it will be payed for. I am assuming "institute of higher learning" covers all community colleges, universities, trade schools ect.

     I know, but I am trying to think of its specificity. Someone might interpret high school as being an institute of higher learning.

[Deldem]

     There were already things in the queue, but they are not terribly important matters, so I will put this in the front of the queue, allowing it to come to the floor now.

     Looks good, but I suggest that we specify how we are going to pay for it. I am also not sure how specific "institute of higher learning" is in legal terms.

I guess we could define institute of higher learning as any accredited trade school, college or university?

And we do have a small surplus at this point, so I don't know that we need to specify anything besides that it has to do with an income tax. I guess if we had to we could divert some of the funds from the lottery scholarships over to this bill. Any other suggestions?

[Yelnoc]

Just add a bullet defining the term in the act its self.  For instance:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue of funding is very important, history has shown us that unfunded mandates in education can and will produce a head ache.  Of course, this isn't a problem if we have a budget surplus, as some of that surplus may be allocated towards this program.

[CatoMinor]

     There were already things in the queue, but they are not terribly important matters, so I will put this in the front of the queue, allowing it to come to the floor now.

     Looks good, but I suggest that we specify how we are going to pay for it. I am also not sure how specific "institute of higher learning" is in legal terms.

I guess we could define institute of higher learning as any accredited trade school, college or university?

And we do have a small surplus at this point, so I don't know that we need to specify anything besides that it has to do with an income tax. I guess if we had to we could divert some of the funds from the lottery scholarships over to this bill. Any other suggestions?

As much as I don't to discriminate based on income, how about it only apply to households making X amount or less every year? It would seem like a waste to give tax credits to people who can already afford college.

[Deldem]

     There were already things in the queue, but they are not terribly important matters, so I will put this in the front of the queue, allowing it to come to the floor now.

     Looks good, but I suggest that we specify how we are going to pay for it. I am also not sure how specific "institute of higher learning" is in legal terms.

I guess we could define institute of higher learning as any accredited trade school, college or university?

And we do have a small surplus at this point, so I don't know that we need to specify anything besides that it has to do with an income tax. I guess if we had to we could divert some of the funds from the lottery scholarships over to this bill. Any other suggestions?

As much as I don't to discriminate based on income, how about it only apply to households making X amount or less every year? It would seem like a waste to give tax credits to people who can already afford college.

How about those earning less than $250,000 per year, indexed to inflation? That would cover most everybody who actually applies for financial aid anyway.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just add a bullet defining the term in the act its self.  For instance:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue of funding is very important, history has shown us that unfunded mandates in education can and will produce a head ache.  Of course, this isn't a problem if we have a budget surplus, as some of that surplus may be allocated towards this program.

     According to the last estimate, the region is running a surplus of about $2 million. Granted that estimate is a few months old, but I do not think we can count on our budget surplus to fund this.

     There were already things in the queue, but they are not terribly important matters, so I will put this in the front of the queue, allowing it to come to the floor now.

     Looks good, but I suggest that we specify how we are going to pay for it. I am also not sure how specific "institute of higher learning" is in legal terms.

I guess we could define institute of higher learning as any accredited trade school, college or university?

And we do have a small surplus at this point, so I don't know that we need to specify anything besides that it has to do with an income tax. I guess if we had to we could divert some of the funds from the lottery scholarships over to this bill. Any other suggestions?

As much as I don't to discriminate based on income, how about it only apply to households making X amount or less every year? It would seem like a waste to give tax credits to people who can already afford college.

How about those earning less than $250,000 per year, indexed to inflation? That would cover most everybody who actually applies for financial aid anyway.

     Or alternatively, we could require that the student receives at least some Pell grant money in order to receive the tax credit. Maybe allow them to receive a larger tax credit if the student also receives an academic competitiveness grant.

[Deldem]

Just add a bullet defining the term in the act its self.  For instance:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue of funding is very important, history has shown us that unfunded mandates in education can and will produce a head ache.  Of course, this isn't a problem if we have a budget surplus, as some of that surplus may be allocated towards this program.

     According to the last estimate, the region is running a surplus of about $2 million. Granted that estimate is a few months old, but I do not think we can count on our budget surplus to fund this.

     There were already things in the queue, but they are not terribly important matters, so I will put this in the front of the queue, allowing it to come to the floor now.

     Looks good, but I suggest that we specify how we are going to pay for it. I am also not sure how specific "institute of higher learning" is in legal terms.

I guess we could define institute of higher learning as any accredited trade school, college or university?

And we do have a small surplus at this point, so I don't know that we need to specify anything besides that it has to do with an income tax. I guess if we had to we could divert some of the funds from the lottery scholarships over to this bill. Any other suggestions?

As much as I don't to discriminate based on income, how about it only apply to households making X amount or less every year? It would seem like a waste to give tax credits to people who can already afford college.

How about those earning less than $250,000 per year, indexed to inflation? That would cover most everybody who actually applies for financial aid anyway.

     Or alternatively, we could require that the student receives at least some Pell grant money in order to receive the tax credit. Maybe allow them to receive a larger tax credit if the student also receives an academic competitiveness grant.

First off, the surplus was $2 billion, not million.

And only allowing Pell Grant recipients effectively causes many of those in the middle class to be deprived of the tax credit. Consider also that the tax burden of those who are eligible for Pell Grants is almost negligible to begin with, meaning that this would barely help them anyway. I feel that if you're deemed eligible for financial aid from either the government or the institution that you need this tax credit, and the $250,000 threshold certainly covers those people.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just add a bullet defining the term in the act its self.  For instance:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue of funding is very important, history has shown us that unfunded mandates in education can and will produce a head ache.  Of course, this isn't a problem if we have a budget surplus, as some of that surplus may be allocated towards this program.

     According to the last estimate, the region is running a surplus of about $2 million. Granted that estimate is a few months old, but I do not think we can count on our budget surplus to fund this.

     There were already things in the queue, but they are not terribly important matters, so I will put this in the front of the queue, allowing it to come to the floor now.

     Looks good, but I suggest that we specify how we are going to pay for it. I am also not sure how specific "institute of higher learning" is in legal terms.

I guess we could define institute of higher learning as any accredited trade school, college or university?

And we do have a small surplus at this point, so I don't know that we need to specify anything besides that it has to do with an income tax. I guess if we had to we could divert some of the funds from the lottery scholarships over to this bill. Any other suggestions?

As much as I don't to discriminate based on income, how about it only apply to households making X amount or less every year? It would seem like a waste to give tax credits to people who can already afford college.

How about those earning less than $250,000 per year, indexed to inflation? That would cover most everybody who actually applies for financial aid anyway.

     Or alternatively, we could require that the student receives at least some Pell grant money in order to receive the tax credit. Maybe allow them to receive a larger tax credit if the student also receives an academic competitiveness grant.

First off, the surplus was $2 billion, not million.

And only allowing Pell Grant recipients effectively causes many of those in the middle class to be deprived of the tax credit. Consider also that the tax burden of those who are eligible for Pell Grants is almost negligible to begin with, meaning that this would barely help them anyway. I feel that if you're deemed eligible for financial aid from either the government or the institution that you need this tax credit, and the $250,000 threshold certainly covers those people.

     Might you have a link to the post where that was stated? I am not terribly keen on searching the Atlasia Dispatch-Herald thread for it, though I could always do that later.

     I am not familiar with Pell grant eligibility, so I suppose you are more knowledgeable about it than I am. How about we make it income not counting tax-deductible expenses, though? I think that if a couple makes $500,000 a year & donates $300,000 of it to charity, they deserve a tax credit for having a child in college.

[Deldem]

Here's the relevant link on the surplus. It'll be good to have it in here for reference later if we need it:

Regional News

Regional Budgets Released
Southeast: This region has revenue of $632 billion and expenses of $630 billion, resulting in a surplus of $2 billion. The surplus is mostly a result of increased taxation, in addition to crisis funds from the federal government. The Southeast has also had success curbing lavish expenditures that had been typical of the region before the creation of the Southeast Legislature. It is recommended that surplus revenue be used predominantly to help the continued troubled industries in the Southeast through a combination of tax cuts/credits and subsidies.

Previous budget report of the Mideast.

And I'll agree with you that income minus deductions is a fair deal.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I just realized how enormous the region's revenues & expenditures are. That's about 20x the size of the budget of California, yet it is composed of ten states, all of which are quite a bit smaller than California.

     So the question is, will $2 billion be enough to fund it? Google hasn't enabled me to find good numbers on the number of college students in the South. It also occurred to me that the wording is rather vague about the conditions of receiving a tax credit. Might the family of someone from out-of-region attending college here receive a tax credit?

[Dancing with Myself]

I would like to add that I support the bill, but I think the only way to make the way the bill work is to raise taxes, but if it must be done it should.

That's my opinion on the bill.

[Yelnoc]

It seems to me like we could shave a little off the two billion surplus to fund this.

[Deldem]

     I just realized how enormous the region's revenues & expenditures are. That's about 20x the size of the budget of California, yet it is composed of ten states, all of which are quite a bit smaller than California.

     So the question is, will $2 billion be enough to fund it? Google hasn't enabled me to find good numbers on the number of college students in the South. It also occurred to me that the wording is rather vague about the conditions of receiving a tax credit. Might the family of someone from out-of-region attending college here receive a tax credit?

I was thinking that since it's money from our taxpayers, they should be the only ones getting the credit. However, I do think that a family that pays taxes here should be eligible if their student is attending college out of region.

Though all the information I've found in Google is relatively vague, I do recall seeing a statistic that roughly 2.5-3 million enter into community college or a 4 year college as freshman each year, meaning probably 10-12 million are eligible in the United States as a whole. Divide that by 5, and the number ranges from 2 to 2.4 million students eligible each year. While I'm not sure exactly what the expense would be, or how many full versus part-time students that would entail, I'd calculate that at max, it'd cost 2.4 billion, assuming that every student is full time, and the high-end number is the actual number. However, due to there being I'm sure a large number of part-time students, it probably wouldn't take up the whole surplus.

[Dancing with Myself]

If it don't take away all of the surplus i will support it.