Office of Northeast Member of Assembly Senator Libertas!

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm genuinely curious about your positions regarding game reform. Do you have any plans of your own in that respect or have opinions on other proposals?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm genuinely curious about your positions regarding game reform. Do you have any plans of your own in that respect or have opinions on other proposals?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I definitely agree with you re: in-region state moves. We'll see what gets done though I suppose. Perhaps a reboot could be tuned to only eliminate legislation beyond a certain year. Ah well, speculation and what-iffery at that point. Good luck in the Senate.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Opposing taxing every single person who owns more than a SINGLE business location is apparently the equivalent of defending big business.

Despite the fact that, you know, I said you should include stronger tax rates against mega-businesses but free up people who have a handful of locations.

Stop playing these ridiculous disingenuous characters and throwing around bombs like that senselessly and open your mind to the idea that we may simply have alternative ideas directed to the same goal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Does this sound like someone who is a "reactionary voice" that is "a tool of big business" to anyone else here?

Get a grip.

Jeez, I miss less than 24 hours of debate and I miss a ton.

Sorry to throw cold water on this nascent agreement, but I have multiple concerns about this bill. I think I like the idea behind the bill, but the numbers proposed to apply here are WAY skewed towards actually harming small business, and I have questions about what these "credits" are to be used for.

First and foremost is to amplify the comments from Blue, Bacon, and others about this needlessly striking at the small businesses the bill purports to support in the name of attacking conglomerate chains. Simply put, in terms of concentration of economic power, competing against sole proprietors, and the effect on businesses and communities, just as BK pointed out there's little practical difference between a 5 store chain and a 10 store chain, likewise in reality there is no real difference between a business with a single store and one with half a dozen.

A business owner who is successful enough he or she opens a second, or third, or even fourth or fifth store in the area is in much the same boat as the sole proprietor vis-a-vis competing with the national chains. These small multi-store owners are small business incarnate. They suffer the same pressures on suppliers, price gouging, political clout, and economic clout wielded by the big chains as the owner of a single store. These multi-store owners do not begin to match the conglomerates anti-competetive practices and concentration of wealth that damages local businesses. For both multi-store owners and single store owners the primary competition is not with each other, but from huge national chains.

In historical practice the idyllic vision of the single mom and pop store was not the sole, or even primary arena for local commerce. Single businesses with several locations around the city or region were as common as single store operations, and the latter generally coexisted and prospered side by side with the former without undue pressure. The real economic watershed came when the mega-chains like Wal-Mart expanded to the point that both the single store outlet and the several store businesses were both similarly forced out of business, with identical consequences to local commerce and entrepreneurship.

I realize under the proposed amendment there is only a 1% or 3% tax on these small multi-store businesses compared to 7% for the true mega-chains, but for the reasons stated it is unconscionable to be at all treating such pillars of local community centered commerce as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I believe imposing any such tax on businesses with even 5-15 stores is counterproductive and badly misplaced, let alone those with merely 2-4 as proposed. Frankly, even lumping together a medium sized regional chain with around 50 stores in the same category as the Wal-Marts, McDonald's, etc. with thousands of locations nationwide is similarly misplaced, as the former simply does not, and historically has not, have the same damaging anti-competative domination of local commerce as the national conglomerates. I do generally support the idea here of discouraging such economic domination by national chains and encouraging small business entrepreneurs, but again the numbers here are way off the mark and hitting small local and regional businesses rather than the Wal-Marts of the world.

Secondly, I'm concerned about the bill's language requiring when a business reaches a certain number of stores the tax rate is increased on the entire business's profits rather than simply on the newest store's profits. It is neither economically sensible nor fair when a business opens their 16th store the tax on all 16 stores suddenly almost doubles from 3% to 5% rather than simply raising the tax rate on that 16th store alone.

This isn't a minor matter. If a 16th store increases taxes across the entire chain the incentive to expand to 16 stores and beyond is severely diminished, and much more so for any business considering opening a 46th store. It's hard to fathom any store location being so lucrative it warrants raising taxes 2% on 45 other stores. While some supporters of this bill may believe its a good thing to ensure few if any businesses grow beyond 45 outlets nationwide regardless of how efficient and skilled it's management is, but that is an unwise path to say the least and would do little to combat the Wal-Martization of local economies.

I would respectfully suggest amending this to apply the tax similar to income taxes. 1% for the first X stores, 3% on profits from stores X +1 through Y, 5% on stores Y +1 through Z, etc. To avoid letting stores pick and choose less profitable stores to apply the tax rate the taxes rate could be based on the chronological order in which the stores started business. For example applying the formula proposed in the amendment (which, again, I strongly oppose for the reasons previously stated) the oldest McDonald's still in operation (in Oak Park, IL I think?) would not be taxed. The 2nd-5th oldest McDonald's restaurants in operation would be taxed at 1%, and so on until every McDonald's from the 46th oldest to the newest one in the country would be taxed at 7%.

I'd also include a provision that any outlet closed then reopened on the same site only counts as a "new store" if it was closed for more than 30 days. Otherwise businesses would simply have less profitable stores "go out of business" for a weekend then reopen on Monday so it would be subject to the higher tax rate as a "new store" and more profitable stores would stay open and thus be subject to the lower tax rates for "older" stores.

This is slightly more complicated than the retroactive flat tax proposed, but still not all difficult to calculate, and I have no doubt businesses of all sizes would much rather make that easy calculation than be subject to a business wide tax increase for opening a new store that puts them in a higher bracket.

An additional relatively minor concern is this proposal lumps in all stores or outlets the same regardless of size. A hole in the wall sandwich shop with only a few employees is treated the same as a 500 employee independent department store. The sandwich shop owner might open a half dozen similarly tiny shops employing less than 30 people total and cumulatively doing a fraction of the business the department store does, but the sandwich operation is subject to a 3% tax to protect "small businesses"? That doesn't make sense. That said I'll admit I'm not sure either that its a fatal problem with the bill, nor do I have a solution to propose either. But I figure as long as this post already is I might as well point this out for discussion.

My last major concern is more of a question: What exactly is the role of these "credits" to small businesses and how would they be distributed? Are they solely for start-up capital for new businesses (presumably with only one location)? Are they to benefit existing single store businesses? If so, how and in what form? Tax credits? What if the business is already quite profitable? Would tax funds then be used to subsidize a business owner who already earns a lucrative living? Would we be directly subsidizing single store businesses with these funds? What if the single store business want to use the funds to expand their operation and, heaven forbid, open a second store?

These are hardly nitpicking questions. The proposed tax rates of several percent on any retail business with even a few stores will produce massive amounts of revenue, likely in the multiple tens of billions. IMHO the tax rates are too steep, even if its application to small and medium sized businesses were severely curtailed. If we're going to raise anywhere near this much tax revenue it's crucial to understand in advance exactly what it's going to be spent on.

All this said, its an interesting idea. If a reasonable explanation can be made as to what the revenue raised will be used for, and if the application to small and medium-sized businesses could be seriously limited, I would seriously consider supporting this measure.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Before you've even taken office, your administration has been fighting against 75% of my proposed legislation. Your vice president in particular has been responsible for creating an environment of negativity on the Senate floor.

So yes, it sure seems like obstructionism rooted in a personal vendetta against me.

Out of the things I saw of yours on the Senate floor, I commented on two, the Break the Chains bill, and the Fusion Voting bill. In the Fusion Voting thread, I said I opposed it because it seemed like a way to tilt the voting system in favor of something and I didn't like how it allowed party members to shove members aside by removing their party label when running for office, and it surprised me that you, champion of individual liberties as you are, seem to be spearheading such a bill.

In the Break The Chains thread however, I support the intent of the bill. This has been the most mindblowing thing; I am not disagreeing with what you're trying to do, simply how you're trying to do it, and both I and Badger have attempted to explain this to you in verbose and calm ways as to display how this hurts small businesses and doesn't burden big businesses enough.

In the Ludlow Amendment thread, I haven't said a word, though I support badger's efforts at toning it down, and for your other piece on the Senate floor, the state-moves Amendment, I have supported it during referendum, voting in favor of it and supporting similar efforts all throughout the Presidential Election campaign.

If supporting certain things, offering ideas on how to fix other things, and personally believing something is the wrong approach, is your definition of some form of systematic pattern of obstructionism, then you are being difficult on purpose. You have refused to think that any of us are offering legitimate ideas or commentary and refuse to think we could ever possibly genuinely disagree with something without being 'tools' or 'reactionaries.'

It's stunning to me that anyone could support your antics here because even though some of your legislation is decent, you refuse to kindly and substantively engage any of your criticism. You have been casting the worst possible light on these debates and I sincerely hope that you will change your approach.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that a threat?
[/quote]

Oh come on, dude. You are obviously being obtuse at this point. Your pointless dramatics are becoming absurd.

Your attitude, definitely, is getting you absolutely nowhere, because even though I enjoy picking fights once in awhile to get something passed, I always have the substance to back it up, and I don't pointless and absurdly throw around outrageously inaccurate names for people that make no sense. Anyone with half a brain knows I'm not a 'reactionary tool of big business' considering my history, and Purple State is a far cry away from a 'tool of the military industrial complex.'

You are just trying to start fights.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I was actually more surprised than interested in attacking you. Seemed like the definition of an "establishment" party-big-wig bill IMO.

(And fyi, I did explain my reasons about the bill there perfectly fine, since you're acting as if I didn't address the legislation at all.)

[Marokai Backbeat]

Alot of shaming against BK a few weeks ago for his inactivity, but Libertas misses countless votes and dodges any and all responsibilities (and ignores everything I say to him in the Antonio court case) and people trip all over each other to endorse their token radical because.. well.. you know.. opposing voices or.. something..

[Marokai Backbeat]

Endorsed from the IDS, for whatever it's worth in your campaign.

Hope you hold on, Senator. After Dallasfan's loss, it's starting to become clear to me what Atlasia - or perhaps more accurately, the JCP machine - thinks of people who are pro-liberty.

Yay right-wing inactivity!
Boo left-wing inactivity!