The Atlasian Universal Education Bill (Debating)

[Cranberry]

So we raise them higher. Not a problem.

To what amount? 80%?

[windjammer]

So, according to this bill, we have a 17 Billion surplus?
But if I recall correctly, the miltary budget has been reduced by 75%?
So I guess the expected surplus is bigger???
Have we passed other spending programs during the last year? What is the current surplus in the end approximately?

[Dr. Cynic]

So then we just raise taxes on the rich. What's the problem?

You proposed that already, and we can't even get 10% of the sum needed from that.

Anyway, I guess I'll revoke my earlier position, and join the Senators Polnut and Yankee in their sensible opinion of finding a way to get the remaining money in somehow, and not run a deficit of it. As much as I believe free or near free universal education is imperative, we should try to keep our budget as balanced as possible, too.
So, we are probably at the point to find some other methods of funding this. I don't like it, but maybe we should raise the fees we would levy in my latest proposal by a bit? Maybe we also have a budget point from which we could transfer something to this point? I will try to come up wing a few more solutions tomorrow.

As a matter of fact, since Senator Dr Cynic is sponsor of the bill, I dare ask if I may assume co-sponsorship for this bill, for the case the Senator is sworn in as GM before we pass this act?

Senator TNF to took sponsorship, so the bill is in no danger from me becoming GM.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

So then we just raise taxes on the rich. What's the problem?

Because raising taxes on the rich will only make things worse for the working classes. We need cross the board tax cuts. I'll be introducing my tax plan very soon. Read my lips; flattened Clinton era tax rates.

So, according to this bill, we have a 17 Billion surplus?
But if I recall correctly, the miltary budget has been reduced by 75%?
So I guess the expected surplus is bigger???
Have we passed other spending programs during the last year? What is the current surplus in the end approximately?

Do you on the left really want our military be nothin more than a paper tiger?

[windjammer]

So then we just raise taxes on the rich. What's the problem?

Because raising taxes on the rich will only make things worse for the working classes. We need cross the board tax cuts. I'll be introducing my tax plan very soon. Read my lips; flattened Clinton era tax rates.

So, according to this bill, we have a 17 Billion surplus?
But if I recall correctly, the miltary budget has been reduced by 75%?
So I guess the expected surplus is bigger???
Have we passed other spending programs during the last year? What is the current surplus in the end approximately?

Do you on the left really want our military be nothin more than a paper tiger?

No JCL, but it has been voted in the previous senate, I m just asking a question!

[TNF]

So we raise them higher. Not a problem.

To what amount? 80%?

I would be perfectly fine with that amount.

[Lumine]

Hello, I just wanted to step in to state that I  completely share the concerns expressed before by Yankee and Polnut, and as I have talked in the past before the Senate I do not believe taxing the rich everything an expense comes up is the perfect solution.

Cranberry talked about the budget, and indeed, I do plan to make preparations to send a budget soon (especially considering we have little time before 2015 and we don't want to default, the DemPGH administration sadly failed to send a budget), but it would be better if we could find a way to fund this that doesn't involve yet another huge expense. I certainly look forward to see Yankee's possible solutions.

[TNF]

If you don't want to tax the incomes of the rich directly, there are plenty of other ways we could raise the kind of revenue we need to fund this. We already have a financial transactions tax that might be raised in order to fund this, or perhaps we could gradually increase the tax on capital gains to fund it.

[Cranberry]

To bring this back to life, I would like to offer the following amendment, including the things I have already proposed in this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I added a point for incomes of more than 500k, but I doubt that would make up for more than a billion. So the sum we would need is still twenty billions. Any ideas on how to get them in?

[TNF]

Amendment is friendly.

[Cranberry]

Thank you, Senator.
If I am allowed to, I still would like to assume co-sponsorship, just as I feel I put a good deal of work in this.

[TNF]

Thank you, Senator.
If I am allowed to, I still would like to assume co-sponsorship, just as I feel I put a good deal of work in this.

Sounds good to me.

[windjammer]

Good job cranberry!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

To bring this back to life, I would like to offer the following amendment, including the things I have already proposed in this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I added a point for incomes of more than 500k, but I doubt that would make up for more than a billion. So the sum we would need is still twenty billions. Any ideas on how to get them in?

I think still think, some kind of deferred loan scheme, low-no interest, not considered 'credit' and paid back at increments once the graduate is earning $xxxxx. I think you could increase the fees in this and permit students to borrow what they mightn't be able to afford.

I think if you include mandates caps on maximum tuition, to reflect the increased costs of teaching certain subjects, such as science, engineering and medicine.

I would also suggest that the existing student debts are not forgiven, but re-structured to reflect the new loan arrangements I'm proposing.

[Cranberry]

That would be good and sensible ideas, yes. Would you like to propose an amendment?

[bore]

Sorry about this, I thought it'd had already been processed

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Proposed by Senator Cranberry
Status: Friendly

Senators have 24 hours to object

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I don't object - but I will be presenting my amendment on the loan concept tomorrow.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I object. If you are wanting to end tuition fees, it has to ended for all regardless of income level.

[bore]

A vote is now open on Cranberry's amendment.

[Cranberry]

I object. If you are wanting to end tuition fees, it has to ended for all regardless of income level.

Well, I would have liked too, but it seems we don't have money for this. And a progressive system seems then more sensible for me. But let's wait for Senator Polnut's amendment, probably you can support this.


AYE

[bore]

Aye

[windjammer]

Aye

I'm curious to see Senator Polnut's amendment.

[TNF]

Aye

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'll vote AYE on the amendment as mine is kind of structured off it.

I should have my amendment up in the next two or three hours.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Apologies all, I've been caught up with some RL stuff, so my plans for getting this up have gone out the window.

It will be some point tomorrow my time.