Pac. council: The Taxes should be flatter act of 2014.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

The Taxes should be flatter Act of 2014.
1. In order to encourage economic growth, and further development the Pac. Region will cut income taxes at all levels.
2.Proposed rates: 0% 0-$49,999
1.5% $50,000-$99,999
3.5% $100,000-$249,999
5.5% $250,000-$999,999
7.5% $1,000,000-

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

The Taxes should be flatter Act of 2014.
1. In order to encourage economic growth, and further development the Pac. Region will cut income taxes at all levels.
2.Proposed rates: 0% 0-$49,999
1.5% $50,000-$99,999
3.5% $100,000-$249,999
5.5% $250,000-$999,999
7.5% $1,000,000-

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Should I move this to a final vote?

[Cranberry]

Sorry, I didn't see this before

No, first you (the sponsor) have to advocate for your bill, then maybe someone will speak against/for/anything, and then you can move to a final vote. But first start advocating for it.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

This is pretty cut and dry. It simply tries to do what Estonia did in the late 90's and encourage more job creators to move here. It worked pretty well to, their GDP nearly doubled over the next decade.

[Never]

This proposal seems like it would work very well for our region. Before I take a further position on this, I have two questions:

1) Do revenue issues preclude the taxes from being any lower?
2) Could the taxes be any flatter? Is five brackets the lowest feasible amount?

[Cranberry]

Let me answer those two questions:

1) Yes, in a way. We just passed our budget, and we got a surplus. This surplus will be away though with this tax rates. I mean, our current tax rates are very low, low enough, I'd say. To show you the difference between the revenues, let me allow to give you the following calculation with our current, and the ones proposed by Devin: here[url] (Hope you can open the Google Doc, if not, please tell me)
As you ca (hopefully) see, we would transform a Surplus of a billion into a deficit of 30 Billions. And what for? This half percent won't help anything, at least in comparison to the 30 billion deficit. No, Devin, I won't support this and should this pass I'll veto it.

2) See anwer 1)...

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Honestly you can veto it all you want, I can override it easily. Besides, the extra half percent would produce a benefit. The latest study IRL showed the States with the lowest, or with out an income tax had the highest growth. Also did we ever privatize our transport? If we did, ill cut more spending next budget, if we are still running a deficit.

[Cranberry]

The privatization is already in the current budget. So we would again have to cut 30B to get rid of our deficit....

I will not argue with you that lower tax rates do not produce an economical growth. But, I will argue with you that this growth does not neccesarily produce new jobs - IRL the economy is growing again, everywhere on the world, but where are the new jobs? Tax deductions to first and foremost profit the rich, and then, slowly, maybe - and that's not a neccesity, see to what the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and "trickle-down economics" led us - new workplaces are created. We have already cut our tax rates (that were high in the first place) to a reasonable amount, a new decrease would just threaten our budget, and that more that it would eventually in the future create one or two new jobs. We already did great progress on this field, we have the Stimuluses, we already have the lowest tax rates after the Mideast, and we surely will do other things for economic development. This however I'm sure of, won't help...

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

The privatization is already in the current budget. So we would again have to cut 30B to get rid of our deficit....

I will not argue with you that lower tax rates do not produce an economical growth. But, I will argue with you that this growth does not neccesarily produce new jobs - IRL the economy is growing again, everywhere on the world, but where are the new jobs? Tax deductions to first and foremost profit the rich, and then, slowly, maybe - and that's not a neccesity, see to what the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and "trickle-down economics" led us - new workplaces are created. We have already cut our tax rates (that were high in the first place) to a reasonable amount, a new decrease would just threaten our budget, and that more that it would eventually in the future create one or two new jobs. We already did great progress on this field, we have the Stimuluses, we already have the lowest tax rates after the Mideast, and we surely will do other things for economic development. This however I'm sure of, won't help...

The Bush tax cuts did we work, we had 6 straight years of job growth. Anyway Ill wait until we can afford it.

[Cranberry]

6 steady years of job growth followed by the biggest recession since the 30ies because of this tax cuts, but okay...
Thank you for waiting though. I guess you can post a motion to table, that needs to be seconded by another councillor.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

6 steady years of job growth followed by the biggest recession since the 30ies because of this tax cuts, but okay...
Thank you for waiting though. I guess you can post a motion to table, that needs to be seconded by another councillor.

Tax cuts did not cause the recession. The crash was caused by Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac giving mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. One people started defaulting, the banks lost confidence and stopped loaning money. (You can thank Democrats for that. There are dozens of videos of Bush trying to warn them what would happen). Anyway motion to table.

[Never]

I'll second the motion to table. It might not be the best time to advance flatter taxes in the Pacific Region.

[Cranberry]

Thank you for tabling the bill, I really don't think it's the best time to talk about flattening taxes when we would create a great deficit then.
Anyway, I'll be writing a couple of new bills, so we have new things to debate.