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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: TNF

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just note, that if you amendment a section, I am going to require that you alter all the dependent lines affected (totals, subtotals, balances etc) in your amendment as well. Last time we did this, it turned out to be a complete mess that then had to be cleaned up.

[Maxwell]

I'll do the calculation again, but I got that spending was 3491.46B. Maybe something was forgotten, but I'll do the arithmetic again if anyone needs me to.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I very much encourage people to calculate the numbers independently to confirm their accuracy.

[tmthforu94]

I'll do the calculation again, but I got that spending was 3491.46B. Maybe something was forgotten, but I'll do the arithmetic again if anyone needs me to.

I came up with 3491.46B as well.

[Maxwell]

I will look through this budget more thoroughly later, but I like the way this is designed as is.

[Sbane]

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

[Maxwell]

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.

[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.

[Sec. of State Superique]

For the sake of comparison: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=153888.msg3370206#msg3370206

[Maxwell]

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.

[Napoleon]

There's no way the marijuana tax raises that much. Please show the math!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

$3491.46 billion is the correct figure for total spending, my apologies.

I made one minor adjustment this morning, but it seems that I forgot to save my final edit - I'm working on a smaller screen than what I'm used to. We can also adjust the stimulus upward to $15.03 billion. That should leave us with a mathematically coherent budget, although I encourage double-checking.

You'll also noted a few spending sections where the top line isn't underlined and the bottom line isn't in bold. This is an error. There's no significance to it.

I cannot locate the appropriate line where this is to be applied in the text, so that I can fix it.

[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?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When you start getting up above 50%  for a top rate you run into problems. Many people on the left love to point to the US in the 1950's and 1960's as evidence of how you can get away with it, but fail to account for the fact that weren't facing stiff competiton until the late part of the 1960's becuase of the destruction caused by WW2 and we were also in a situation where people were both buying and borrowing from us and therefore we were shielded from economic reality to a large extent during the period and we began to confront problems soon thereafter partially because we couldn't compete, not just in taxes, but also the technology was outdated stuff from the 30's and 40's. We want companies to be able to compete and we want them to be able to invest in new equipment.

Also the system of providing exemptions so that while few were actually paying that, you still had a situation that benefitted the special interests, and shielded companies from competition and shielded companies from any accountability save for that which was coming out of the government, that is a very bad model. A lot of people like to point to the fact that the Scandanavian countries are doing well in spite of their social welfare systems and a critical aspect that people love to forget in all that was reform of the tax code, that dropped the rates down to around 50% and eliminated a lot of the special deals the insiders had carved out for themselves. I think the best top rate is one around 50% and thus trying to maintain it or close to it, especially with our weak economy if we are truly serious about getting people back to work, is hardly unreasonable even from a perspective of someone concerned about the worker.

Now on the other side, we have a lot of spending that wasn't accounted for and that has to be dealt with, but I worry about the timing of such increases with such employment problems that we have now.

[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?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The budget is written in such a way that it is impossible to know. Under these broad headings, everything looks important, even if there actually are questionable programs underneath.

I doubt this budget will come to a vote while I'm still senator, but if it does, I will not vote "aye" as long as it includes tax rates that are higher than 50%. Especially if it's for such a broad tax bracket as $1 million plus.

[Maxwell]

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?

Merely doing the calculation

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think Atlasian governance period has more holes then Swiss cheese.


Do you guys have a theory as to what accounts for a $300 billion dollar lower spending level, with a much more expansive healthcare program? If costs were reduced by that much, then I shudder to think what the quality of such care in Atlasia has become.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There's no way the marijuana tax raises that much. Please show the math!

Has this issue been resolved yet?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why is the expense for the Elderly Insurance included in this, but not the revenue for it, or any other part of the programs established under the CSSRA budget? By law, the CSSRA is supposed to have it's own budget.  I regret not pushing the SoIA and the Senate to establish this budget when I was GM, but it either needs to be done or the law needs to be changed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why is the expense for the Elderly Insurance included in this, but not the revenue for it, or any other part of the programs established under the CSSRA budget? By law, the CSSRA is supposed to have it's own budget.  I regret not pushing the SoIA and the Senate to establish this budget when I was GM, but it either needs to be done or the law needs to be changed.

I've been asking people about this for a while, and I'm relieved to learn that the previous budget didn't just fail to account for Social Security. Does this  mean that there's another payroll tax out there that wasn't included in the last federal budget? (And, if not, where is the revenue coming from?)

Didn't I recommend asking shua, two weeks ago, Mr. President?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The CSSRA established taxes for unemployment insurance (section 5.4), "minor insurances" (7.3), and for the elderly insurance program retained the progressive income tax established by the Social Security Taxation Act of 2009 (6.3).  I believe the basic reason for the separate budget was so that any surplus would be kept for the solvency of the program rather than siphoned off for other uses.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, that was my understanding at the time.

[Sec. of State Superique]

I will check the CSSRA, it is time to do what it asks for. I know that is my own job, but I would love to see some support of Senators...