South American Tax Standardization Act

[Simfan34]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cranberry]

Will our government at any time present its case for this bill, or is it supposed to stand just as that?

[Goldwater]

So if I'm reading the part about dependents right does that mean, for example, a house with two working adults with two children who's combined household income is $55,000 won't qualify for any deductions? Eh, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

[Potus]

So if I'm reading the part about dependents right does that mean, for example, a house with two working adults with two children who's combined household income is $55,000 won't qualify for any deductions? Eh, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

That would be the upper limit on deductions in that circumstance. It's important to remember that the average income, etc. in South America is much lower than in the Former United States. While $55,000 is a typical middle class home with a comfortable life in the US, it's an upper middle class home far outpacing the cost of living.

EDIT: Worth mentioning that this family's effective rate is fairly low. If we assume the $55,000 is the household's income, then the taxes levied on income, the social protection contribution and income tax, have an effective tax rate of 8.5%. That isn't egregious by any means. If the consumption tax is factored in under the assumption that the family consumed $20,000 in taxable goods and services, then the effective tax rate is 10.4%, which is, once again, not particularly egregious.

[Potus]

This bill standardizes taxation in a simple, fair, progressive way. It provides adequate funding to run a government while keeping taxes low and the economy growing. The bill stands on its own merits.

[Goldwater]

So if I'm reading the part about dependents right does that mean, for example, a house with two working adults with two children who's combined household income is $55,000 won't qualify for any deductions? Eh, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

That would be the upper limit on deductions in that circumstance. It's important to remember that the average income, etc. in South America is much lower than in the Former United States. While $55,000 is a typical middle class home with a comfortable life in the US, it's an upper middle class home far outpacing the cost of living.

Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. 6% is far from an outrageous tax rate, so I'm not going to make a big fuss about it anyway.

[Potus]

So if I'm reading the part about dependents right does that mean, for example, a house with two working adults with two children who's combined household income is $55,000 won't qualify for any deductions? Eh, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

That would be the upper limit on deductions in that circumstance. It's important to remember that the average income, etc. in South America is much lower than in the Former United States. While $55,000 is a typical middle class home with a comfortable life in the US, it's an upper middle class home far outpacing the cost of living.

Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. 6% is far from an outrageous tax rate, so I'm not going to make a big fuss about it anyway.

I just updated the post with an analysis which includes the social protection contribution and consumption tax. The effective income tax rate is significantly lower.

EDIT: The effective income tax rate on a household of $55,000 would be 4.5%.

[Cranberry]

Since these new tax rates will be a significant reduction to current rates in, I dare say, every single one of our constituent nations, has the government yet made up its mind on how to cope with the massive loss of revenue that this bill would entail?

[Potus]

Since these new tax rates will be a significant reduction to current rates in, I dare say, every single one of our constituent nations, has the government yet made up its mind on how to cope with the massive loss of revenue that this bill would entail?

We don't have any existing expenditures. We get to have that conversation with the approval of a budget once this law is enacted.

[Simfan34]

Do we have a seconder for the Second Reading?

[Goldwater]

I'll second it.

[Simfan34]

Very well. We move onto the second reading. Do any members of the opposition wish to propose an amendment to the proposed legislation?

[Cranberry]

Since these new tax rates will be a significant reduction to current rates in, I dare say, every single one of our constituent nations, has the government yet made up its mind on how to cope with the massive loss of revenue that this bill would entail?

We don't have any existing expenditures. We get to have that conversation with the approval of a budget once this law is enacted.

This is just untrue - we as federal government, as a new entity might not have any existing expenditures, yes; but all of our constiuent nations do, and most of them within a framework that significantly exceeds anything that is possible to disburse with the means of revenue that are allowed under passage of this law.

Secondly, and this is so far more important, we can not have a meaningful discussion on this if we have no idea on how much we want to spend, on a social net for instance. This is nothing but putting the cart before the horse, if we want to speak metaphorically. An approach like this is nothing but reckless and stupid - revenues and expenditures need to be debated simultaniously. Anything else, and we limit ourself unnecessarily when debating the other.

[Potus]

The bill is effective upon passage of an expenditure plan. This conversation isn't relevant.

[Simfan34]

If there are no amendments that members of the opposition or the government wish to propose, I will at this time accept a motion from the Prime Minister that this bill be read for a third time once the second reading has concluded.

[Cranberry]

The bill is effective upon passage of an expenditure plan. This conversation isn't relevant.

Obviously these tax rates become effective just with the next budget, that has never been my point. My point is why you would seperate discussion about expenditures and revenues; first establishing revenues before even checking what kind of expenditures we currently have; and if sums add up, or if we need to either cut expenditures or raise revenues. What we need to do is have a meaningful discussion about both simultaneously. What this government is trying to do here is fatal and stupid - it is simply no different than to put the cart before the horse.

[Türkisblau]

The Conservatives have no qualms about incurring debt from imperialist forces beyond our borders to benefit their bourgeoisie funders. What a surprise!

[Cranberry]

The Conservatives have no qualms about incurring debt from imperialist forces beyond our borders to benefit their bourgeoisie funders. What a surprise!

While I would not formulate this in such a drastical way, in essence, the gentleman from the Worker's Party does have a point. I join him in my fear that tax rates at such a low level would only lead to an unreasonable accumulation of our national debt.

[Potus]

I move for a third reading.

[Cranberry]

I see the government sees no reason to continue the badly needed discussion; I shall hope the gentlemen of the Social Liberals will acknowledge that when joining us in voting down this monstrosity of a bill.

[Simfan34]

Very well. Division!

[BaconBacon96]

Nay.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Aye

[Cranberry]

Nay

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay