Break the Chains Act (Take 2) [LAW'D]

[Franzl]

I've thought about this more....and I still believe this amendment is necessary to ensuring the overall fairness of this legislation. I sympathize with Libertas' position, but I won't be changing my vote here.

[Bacon King]

It's 4 to 4 with two abstentions; it's up to VP Marokai to break this tie.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's 4 to 4 with two abstentions; it's up to VP Marokai to break this tie.

VPs break ties even on amendments, not just votes on bills? An amendment should need a majority of the Senate to pass.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I've thought about this more....and I still believe this amendment is necessary to ensuring the overall fairness of this legislation. I sympathize with Libertas' position, but I won't be changing my vote here.

How so? I've pretty much destroyed all of Senator Badger's arguments, both here and in PM. This should be about the issues, not personalities or parties.

[Franzl]

I've thought about this more....and I still believe this amendment is necessary to ensuring the overall fairness of this legislation. I sympathize with Libertas' position, but I won't be changing my vote here.

How so? I've pretty much destroyed all of Senator Badger's arguments, both here and in PM. This should be about the issues, not personalities or parties.

And it certainly is. You will have noticed that I've never had a problem supporting bills and amendments that you wrote that I've found sensible.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I've thought about this more....and I still believe this amendment is necessary to ensuring the overall fairness of this legislation. I sympathize with Libertas' position, but I won't be changing my vote here.

How so? I've pretty much destroyed all of Senator Badger's arguments, both here and in PM. This should be about the issues, not personalities or parties.

And it certainly is. You will have noticed that I've never had a problem supporting bills and amendments that you wrote that I've found sensible.

Well it doesn't seem that way to me. You never responded to my last PM, and Badger gave up debating instead apparently hoping to just get this passed on weight of personality. I've been open to compromise and proposed a substantially weakened bill but apparently no matter what Badger was going to have a problem and demand that he get an amendment that he wrote somehow put into the bill, even if it further weakened and worsened the bill. I hope you and others who voted aye will reconsider holding up the bill for what is in my view a bill-killing amendment.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not entirely happy with the way the taxes have lowered. I don't like large chains of businesses, and how they were basically whittled to death to not have much of an impact unless the business has an obscene number of stores still irks me from the first bill.

However, in income taxes brackets, we have them set up to be marginal rates for a very good reason. People who make only a tiny bit over the line between one bracket and another aren't slammed with the tax rate of that bracket, their money is taxed as this amendment would make this tax be applied.

IMO, that's only fair, and Badger's very lengthy and reasonable explanations always give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside when I'm watching the debate. He goes to great lengths to pitch his amendments, and though I didn't agree with him when he watered down the taxes a bit too far in the first bill, I am in complete agreement with him here.

Therefore, on the amendment, I vote Aye.

[Badger]

I've thought about this more....and I still believe this amendment is necessary to ensuring the overall fairness of this legislation. I sympathize with Libertas' position, but I won't be changing my vote here.

How so? I've pretty much destroyed all of Senator Badger's arguments, both here and in PM. This should be about the issues, not personalities or parties.

And it certainly is. You will have noticed that I've never had a problem supporting bills and amendments that you wrote that I've found sensible.

Well it doesn't seem that way to me. You never responded to my last PM, and Badger gave up debating instead apparently hoping to just get this passed on weight of personality. I've been open to compromise and proposed a substantially weakened bill but apparently no matter what Badger was going to have a problem and demand that he get an amendment that he wrote somehow put into the bill, even if it further weakened and worsened the bill. I hope you and others who voted aye will reconsider holding up the bill for what is in my view a bill-killing amendment.

Oh boy....

Forgive me for continuing such back and forth, Senators, but this demands a response.

Dear Libertas:

1) I realize assessing points in a debate is very much in the eye of the beholder, but you have an interesting definition indeed of "destroying all of [my] arguments". You must've saved all your most cogent and "destructive" arguments for PMs rather than spend them on the Senate floor.

2) Kindly don't confuse not wanting to subject 8 other senators to a continued back and forth (again, sorry guys) and absolutely having to get the last word in as "giving up debating".

3) Let's get the record straight regarding willingness to compromise, shall we? I contacted you via PM and offered to compromise on this matter. A bill was passed by the Senate not too far off this version as amended. Now you talk about the amendment being a "bill-killer"? Please, quit being a zealot. If you think the tax rates are too low from the amendment then propose a reasonable raise! FWIW, I feel doubling the rates is definitely too much, but somewhere in between, especially on the larger corporation brackets, would probably be acceptable.

Bottom line: this bill is not far off from the one passed by the Senate, and even closer to the one you proposed the second time around. I sincerely hope you'll prove me wrong and vote for the final bill, even with reasonably raised tax rates, instead of taking your ball and going home.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'm not entirely happy with the way the taxes have lowered. I don't like large chains of businesses, and how they were basically whittled to death to not have much of an impact unless the business has an obscene number of stores still irks me from the first bill.

However, in income taxes brackets, we have them set up to be marginal rates for a very good reason. People who make only a tiny bit over the line between one bracket and another aren't slammed with the tax rate of that bracket, their money is taxed as this amendment would make this tax be applied.

As I've pointed out numerous times both here and in PM, that comparison doesn't apply here since the brackets aren't based on income. It's based on the number of stores a corporation has.

WalMart opening up even one new store can put twenty local businesses out of business. That's not at all comparable to someone working harder and earning more money. The latter is just increasing efficiency without a negative side effect. The former is concentrating wealth and property in the hands of the few and has a clear negative impact on the community.

Again, people would not have been penalized for making more money under the unamended version of this bill.

I think you should re-examine your decision in light of this realization.

[Purple State]

I support this bill as amended and intend to sign it into law if the Senate passes it.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I have an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Franzl]

It's not a deal breaker for me...but isn't that increase a little high compared to the bill that appears to have a majority?

(I also object to the amendment being accepted as friendly, as I would like to see a vote on it. There's no use amending this to something that won't be able to pass.)

[Badger]

It's not a deal breaker for me...but isn't that increase a little high compared to the bill that appears to have a majority?

(I also object to the amendment being accepted as friendly, as I would like to see a vote on it. There's no use amending this to something that won't be able to pass.)

I'd echo Franzl's sentiments. I worry these proposed increased rates might keep the bill from being passed.

IMHO, the jump in tax rates for the bottom 2 categories from 0.5% to 2.0% and 0.25% to 1.5% seem awfully dramatic. Maybe we could consider leaving such rates for smaller businesses at/closer to the original tax rates and instead raise similar revenue by increasing rates on the largest 2 categories of business to (e.g.) 4.5% and 5.5%? That would fit better with the underlying goals of this bill to discourage non-stop growth of national conglomerates while encouraging small business expansion, and also probably increase the likelihood of the bill passing.

It'd sure cement my aye vote anyway.

[Bacon King]

Alright Senators, we're voting on the amendment below. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

I have an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

Sorry, Libertas. While I'm OK with the proposed increased rates for larger businesses, increasing the proposed tax rates for smaller chains by 4 and 6 times the original proposal is just too much.

NAY.
 
I'll say up front though that, even though I oppose it, this amendment is not a deal breaker for my supporting this bill at final vote.

[Bacon King]

Abstain

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Abstain I guess.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Aye

With the last amendment's passage, this is the only thing that can save the bill.

[Franzl]

Aye

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[Bacon King]

3-1 with 2 abstentions, vote ongoing...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain

[Bacon King]

3-1 with 3 abstentions...

[bgwah]

[k-onmmunist]

The DoI dislikes this amendment, but recognizes it may be the only hope left for this bill.