FY 2015 Budget (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:30:37 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  FY 2015 Budget (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11
Author Topic: FY 2015 Budget (Passed)  (Read 10786 times)
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2014, 09:19:20 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2014, 09:19:55 PM »

Alright, I'll be honest: the situation is very complicated. I managed to calculate some of the extra expenses, but there's a point in which I can't find a way of calculating the Health Care expense without a GM estimate, and I have failed in discovering the effect of Nixcome as well. Thing is, with the new spending and the lowering of the Payroll Tax from 8% to 6.1% (Note: I had to include that change in the budget, the initial proposal neglected this already enacted change) there is an effective gap to be filled, and with the situation starting to stabilize after the civil conflict I do not thing it's in the interest of anybody to continue fiscal irresponsibility and allow a big deficit nor I do think it's a good idea to just keep raising taxes in the hope that it will solve our economic woes.

What I am going to propose is not going to be popular, but I feel is in the interests of all of us that we lower spending in the form of minor cuts across most of the different areas (with some exceptions, like the minor raise I ask for defense spending and other areas which would be risky to cut). Likewise, I will also propose minor increases on certain taxes in order to fill the gap without unfairly burdening a specific sector. I have assumed that the new Health Care system will lower the expenses, and I have proposed minor spending on this area because I believe the reform will lower the expense and to account for the losses in the payroll tax.

Thus, my attempts at reducing spending (to a level that some might find unacceptable, I know), and assuming a flat $1000 B for Health Care and a similar debt expenditure than 2013-2014 we would be looking at spending levels that are about $13-14 B lower than the Averroes Budget, with the advantage that we would cover most of the extra spending and things like the Duke-Scott Education bill, thus allowing us to focus the tax raises and make them less pronounced to cover up the loss of revenue. I decided not to raise the bottom and top Income taxes because in the first case I don’t believe it’s a good idea to raise the taxes on this group and regarding the second it has already been pointed out that 60% is already a high rate (although lowering it means a bigger deficit). I also refrained from experimenting with the creation of more brackets on the income taxes for the time being.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 23, 2014, 03:50:26 AM »

I object to the amendment offered by the President the minute that someone decides to introduce it on his behalf.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 23, 2014, 05:01:33 AM »

I introduce that and I object.
The biggest losers would be the poors when you cut some things like food stamp.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 23, 2014, 06:25:31 AM »

#LumineShutdown
#FirstTimeEver
#BadBudgeting
#Gladidon'thavetohelpwiththisbudget
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 23, 2014, 09:23:48 AM »

I will need to look through this more thoroughly before I can say anything, but I will comment here to. It just may take some time, because Christmas and all.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 25, 2014, 02:31:21 PM »

TNF's amendment has passed without objection.

I'll open a vote on Lumine's amendment which windjammer has introduced tomorrow.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 25, 2014, 08:47:55 PM »

I'm trying to be pragmatic in the sense that spending has to be cut and I prefer the cuts to be small instead of causing major harm, but what cuts would be agreeable to the Senators who have objected?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 26, 2014, 06:06:47 AM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A vote is now open on senator windjammer's amendment, please vote aye nay or abstain
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 26, 2014, 09:30:51 AM »

NAY

This undoes the more progressive taxes rates we just agreed on
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 26, 2014, 09:33:25 AM »

Nay

Before voting for any cuts, I would like to know what currently the deficit is.
And I will never vote to cut food stamps, because that would definitely hurt the poors.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 26, 2014, 04:19:06 PM »

Nay, but I think we're getting somewhere

Tomorrow I'll provide my own revenue suggestion that will leave the same amount of revenue spending as Lumine's.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2014, 06:06:47 AM »

So, if I still may, these are the cuts as I understand them. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

4B - Military Retirement
2B - CIA
0.3B - various NR&E points
6.64B - Farm subsidies
1B - Highways
1B - Air Transport
0.61B - Community and Regional Development
2B - Elementary and Secondary Education
2B - Universities
+35B - Duke Scott & Universal Education
2.2B - Unemployment Insurance
11.4B - Elderly Insurance
2B - Housing Assistance
2.58B - Food Stamps

Are those cuts made from the Nix budget, or from a previous proposal?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2014, 07:56:56 AM »

NAY
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2014, 04:27:38 PM »
« Edited: December 27, 2014, 05:55:51 PM by Senator bore »

My amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2014, 04:33:12 PM »

Basically here's my amendment in brief:

My spending is 2 billion higher than Lumine, I would try and cut more but most of the categories are so vague I have no idea if we actually can cut them without harming people:

I reversed cuts on food stamps and unemployment insurance and dramitically raised foreign aid.

I paid for this by cutting things like specific space research (though I increased general science funding) air and road transportation.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2014, 04:39:14 PM »

Would you be willing to revise that to include the tax rates that we approved via my amendment?
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 27, 2014, 06:02:11 PM »

So, if I still may, these are the cuts as I understand them. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

4B - Military Retirement
2B - CIA
0.3B - various NR&E points
6.64B - Farm subsidies
1B - Highways
1B - Air Transport
0.61B - Community and Regional Development
2B - Elementary and Secondary Education
2B - Universities
+35B - Duke Scott & Universal Education
2.2B - Unemployment Insurance
11.4B - Elderly Insurance
2B - Housing Assistance
2.58B - Food Stamps

Are those cuts made from the Nix budget, or from a previous proposal?


More or less, yes, and most are made from the Nix budget. The exception would be transportation, which I believe was in my initial basic proposal.

I'm actually supportive of Bore's amendment, and I am happy to see most of the cuts retained. I'm not sure if I am the actual sponsor here since I'm not a Senator, but the amendment is mostly friendly for me.

That said, I would like to see the possibility of increasing the NASA budget (I believe it's far too low if we can to get more ambitious things done in that front), and, if the proposal raises enough revenue, reverting some of minor cuts in the international area. I'm not sure if Bore's proposal actuall raises the Healthcare Payroll tax back to 8%, but if that was the case then the situation may not be as nearly as complicated.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: December 27, 2014, 06:55:08 PM »

I wish to apologise, my Christmas travel process started earlier than anticipated.

I will not support any measure that contains the tax rates in Senator TNF's amendment. I understand the desire and reaction for those rates, but I see massive perverse outcomes from them.

 
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: December 27, 2014, 11:05:10 PM »

I will not support this because the tax structure is in need of systemic reform and taxing 60% percent on those making over a million is a non starter with me.

My income tax structure proposal

9,500-20,000 5%
20,001-100,000 10%
100,001-500,000 20%
500,001-5,000,000 30%
5,000,001+ 40 %
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2014, 02:54:48 AM »

I will not support this because the tax structure is in need of systemic reform and taxing 60% percent on those making over a million is a non starter with me.

My income tax structure proposal

9,500-20,000 5%
20,001-100,000 10%
100,001-500,000 20%
500,001-5,000,000 30%
5,000,001+ 40 %

Would be helpful if you could provide a workable option, not a personal wish-list
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: December 28, 2014, 04:37:47 AM »

More or less, yes, and most are made from the Nix budget. The exception would be transportation, which I believe was in my initial basic proposal.

I'm actually supportive of Bore's amendment, and I am happy to see most of the cuts retained. I'm not sure if I am the actual sponsor here since I'm not a Senator, but the amendment is mostly friendly for me.

That said, I would like to see the possibility of increasing the NASA budget (I believe it's far too low if we can to get more ambitious things done in that front), and, if the proposal raises enough revenue, reverting some of minor cuts in the international area. I'm not sure if Bore's proposal actuall raises the Healthcare Payroll tax back to 8%, but if that was the case then the situation may not be as nearly as complicated.

Okay thank you.

I too think that Senator bore's amendments are sensible, and likewise as Senator Polnut, I can not approve of Senator TNF's tax rates. It just makes no sense at all just starting to tax people making more than 100K, we can in no way fund our budget with such a tax structure. (I better not start talking about Senator JCL's proposal)

Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2014, 07:03:19 AM »

The vast majority of people making under $100K are doing so through honest means. I see no reason to tax them at exorbitant rates.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: December 28, 2014, 09:13:55 AM »

The vast majority of people making under $100K are doing so through honest means. I see no reason to tax them at exorbitant rates.

For God's sake... therefore everyone earning over $100k is earning through dishonest means? Long story short, this short-sighted view on this issue only creates a massive revenue problem for the future.

Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2014, 12:14:45 PM »

Officially offering this:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Senators have 36 hours to object
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 11 queries.