HB 2016-1063 - The Full Employment and (G.R.O.W) Act (GOES TO SENATE)

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

PART 1.

[NeverAgain]

PART TWO

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: NeverAgain

I open this up for a 48-hour period of debate.

[NeverAgain]

If y'all have any questions, or something looks funky, PLEASE tell me. I worked on this for a while, so I want to make this prim and proper so we can get this passed.

I will be proposing specific numbers (cost) for each section later today, so if there are any questions on that front, please hold on.

[Goldwater]

Well, this bill covers does a lot of things, so I'm just having a bit of a hard time processing it all. I do have a question though. What exactly is wage insurance? I don't think I'm familiar with the concept.

[NeverAgain]

Well, this bill covers does a lot of things, so I'm just having a bit of a hard time processing it all. I do have a question though. What exactly is wage insurance? I don't think I'm familiar with the concept.

Completely understandable, it's a pretty hearty bill.

Wage insurance is a form of insurance that would provide workers with compensation if they are forced to move to a job with a lower/lesser salary. So my plan would allow those that are hired for a much lesser salary to be able to apply for benefits to pay for the difference between the two jobs so that these people can still pay their bills.

[Goldwater]

Well, this bill covers does a lot of things, so I'm just having a bit of a hard time processing it all. I do have a question though. What exactly is wage insurance? I don't think I'm familiar with the concept.

Completely understandable, it's a pretty hearty bill.

Wage insurance is a form of insurance that would provide workers with compensation if they are forced to move to a job with a lower/lesser salary. So my plan would allow those that are hired for a much lesser salary to be able to apply for benefits to pay for the difference between the two jobs so that these people can still pay their bills.

Interesting. I wonder if such a system could be abused, for example by somebody moving from a very high paying job to a job with lower that's still well above the median income, or if somebody is moving to an area where a cost of living decrease outweighs the income decrease.

[NeverAgain]

Well, this bill covers does a lot of things, so I'm just having a bit of a hard time processing it all. I do have a question though. What exactly is wage insurance? I don't think I'm familiar with the concept.

Completely understandable, it's a pretty hearty bill.

Wage insurance is a form of insurance that would provide workers with compensation if they are forced to move to a job with a lower/lesser salary. So my plan would allow those that are hired for a much lesser salary to be able to apply for benefits to pay for the difference between the two jobs so that these people can still pay their bills.

Interesting. I wonder if such a system could be abused, for example by somebody moving from a very high paying job to a job with lower that's still well above the median income, or if somebody is moving to an area where a cost of living decrease outweighs the income decrease.

We actually do have a form of wage insurance already. It's called Earned Income Tax Credit or EITC. The EITC does on a permanent and automatic basis what I am proposing - wage insurance - subsidizes the low wages of a family with money other than the employer’s. From the point of view of the employee, the EITC is insurance against a low-wage employer. From the point of view of the employer, the EITC pays its workers money.

I do understand the fraud idea, I think I will amend it to focus on if the new job is below $100,000/a year, and if the gap is outside a certain percentage of the previous paycheck. Of course, this insurance will run out over a certain period. Great question, though.

I will be amending this bill after we've sorted out any problems y'all see with it.

[NeverAgain]

folks. gimme your comments.

[Santander]

I oppose every single proposed measure in this bill. Our first priorities are repealing every single word of Obamacare, passing a flat tax and abolishing the IRS.

[NeverAgain]

Okay, complete fiscal run down (all costs will be given in 5-year amounts)

Section One:

- Payroll Tax Cuts on Employees (Y1: $178.8B, Y2: $134.1B, Y3: $89.41B, Y4: $44.13B, Y5: $0B - On Fiscal Year 2021, the tax cuts will revert back to its current 6.2%. As it will decrease instantly in half on FY 2017, and then a .775% increase over the following four years, and caps off at its original rate of 6.2%) All summed up this will cost -$446.44B, over the next 5 years.
- Payroll Tax Cuts on Employers (including tax holidays for added workers): The FY 2017 will cost $121.5B, and FY 2018 will cost $62.6B, before ending in FY 2019. All together this will be -$181.1B
- Mortgage Interest Refinancing and giving new state aid for purchasing properties will cost $5.68B in FY 2017, $2.43B in  FY 2018, -$1.19B in FY 2019, -$5.43B in FY 2020, and -$9.97B in FY 2021. Overall, it will increase government revenue by +$8.48B, as it will decrease citizen's dependence on the mortgage interest deduction in the tax code.

Section Two:
- The cost over five years of keeping 6 million beneficiaries on unemployment insurance through 2020 will be -$21.2B.

- Unemployment insurance for work sharers to cover for lost hours - -$2.1B

- Improving reemployment services for the long-term unemployed, seniors, and young people through counseling, job training, and eligibility assessments will cost around -$3.6B.

- Bridge to Work Program - $6B

- Innovating entrepreneurship and wage insurance programs will cost about -$12.3B

- Create a $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers and offering tax credits to encourage businesses to hire unemployed veterans.

Section 3

- Enacting Increased Transportation Funding and Creating a National Infrastructure Bank will cost -$12B for the infrastructure bank, and $50B for the increased transportation funds.

- Restarting FDR's WPA will cost a start-up fee of $15.5B, and then an average spending bill of $20B a year, with a grand total of -$115.5B.

- Modernize 35,000 public schools and community colleges, and rebuild 1 million currently uninhabitable or foreclosed homes. Elementary Schools ($12.6B), Middle Schools ($4.6B), High Schools ($10.2B), Community Colleges ($2.7B), and 1 Million Foreclosed or Uninhabitable homes ($16.6B). Overall, this is a cost of -$46.7B.

- Enact a high-speed rail system from Boston to Miami. This project will be undertaken from now until its projected completion on January 1st, 2022. It will cost -$101.6B. If it is successful between 2022 and 2023, then a project will be set up for a new route between Florida and Texas (probably Dallas) which will cost around $64B.

Section 4.

- Grow and protect 280,000 public service jobs, like teachers, firefighters, and police officers. This will cost the federal government to uphold these jobs, -$35B.

Section 5.

- Create Universal Pre-K and afterschool programs for low and middle-income families (families making under $46,500 and a childcare tax credit for families making under $186,000 a year.). This will cost around -$68 Billion over the next 5 years.

Overall, the cost is a bit above what I expected in my initial analysis, but the final total is: $1082.94 Billion over the next 5 years. Averaging to around $216.6 each FY from 2017 to 2021. Please give me comments!

[Blair]

This a brilliant bill, and just the type of thing that we need in Atlasia to revive our struggling economy

[NeverAgain]

Kay folks, giving you all 24 hours to debate on this, or else we're going to a final vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Some parts of this are good.


Payroll tax holiday is one of the most effective means to stimulate demand and hiring. I agree with leading with that. Several of the other tax measures like expensing (good for boosting investment and durable goods orders), have promise.

Non Tax provisions like Infrastructure (provided it is built in such a way that we get the projects done and have the benefits of the project not just the spending for sake of spending. Basically more List then Keynes paying people to dig holes to nowhere), and Mortgage refinance are good as well.

If you want to stimulate the economy, it is not just about spending money. How you spend it matters.

1. Expand disposable incomes (Payroll tax cut, lower interest rates, refinancing, and cheaper energy are critical to this). This goes for both consumers and business.
2. Boost Investment long term and highly beneficial areas. (Expensing, lower interest rates, repatriation, infrastructure etc). This goes for both business and gov't.
3. Durational Safety net boosts - some of this automatic.


One should then go through each provision and ask whether it helps one or more of these objectives, or hampers one or more of these objectives.

[NeverAgain]

Some parts of this are good.


Payroll tax holiday is one of the most effective means to stimulate demand and hiring. I agree with leading with that. Several of the other tax measures like expensing (good for boosting investment and durable goods orders), have promise.

Non Tax provisions like Infrastructure (provided it is built in such a way that we get the projects done and have the benefits of the project not just the spending for sake of spending. Basically more List then Keynes paying people to dig holes to nowhere), and Mortgage refinance are good as well.

If you want to stimulate the economy, it is not just about spending money. How you spend it matters.

1. Expand disposable incomes (Payroll tax cut, lower interest rates, refinancing, and cheaper energy are critical to this). This goes for both consumers and business.
2. Boost Investment long term and highly beneficial areas. (Expensing, lower interest rates, repatriation, infrastructure etc). This goes for both business and gov't.
3. Durational Safety net boosts - some of this automatic.


One should then go through each provision and ask whether it helps one or more of these objectives, or hampers one or more of these objectives.

I thank you for your comments. Luckily this bill isn't just about "spending money". Each spending provision is balanced and will grow the economy. Whether it is allowing those currently uninsured to stay on for longer or building back our infrastructure, every single one ensures unemployment reduction, economic revitalization, or are programs to help working families.

If there is a specific provision, or section that you have questions over, then I am happy to explain it and calm any concerns.

That being said, I talked with Ted, who worried over how we can pay for this bill. First off, I will say this bill will probably not force increases in income taxes. On a side note, I will be revisiting our  budget and working on that within the coming weeks. But some things as I mentioned that we will look at to help pay for the bill will include new sin taxes, a new carbon tax, and a Chinese Currency Manipulation Fee.

Please post any other questions and/or comments.

[NeverAgain]

Okay, giving this 24 more hours, then we're voting.

[Mike Thick]

As Nev said, while I like a lot of the provisions here, I'm skeptical of the tax increases needed to pay for the bill -- specifically, sin tax increases and the possible income tax increases. I'm also pretty unfamiliar with the concept of a Currency Manipulator fee (pardon my ignorance), and although it isn't essential for me to support the bill, I wouldn't mind a little explanation of what that would entail and the fee's possible economic ramifications.

[NeverAgain]

As Nev said, while I like a lot of the provisions here, I'm skeptical of the tax increases needed to pay for the bill -- specifically, sin tax increases and the possible income tax increases. I'm also pretty unfamiliar with the concept of a Currency Manipulator fee (pardon my ignorance), and although it isn't essential for me to support the bill, I wouldn't mind a little explanation of what that would entail and the fee's possible economic ramifications.

Great, thanks for the comment!

So, on sin taxes I have a pretty big plan that I will be releasing once this (hopefully) passes. The proposal will include increased taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and Gambling (among a few other provisions). The plan will bring in around $228.6B over the next 5 years.

On income taxes, I have already released my income tax proposal in the budget thread, and as we know income taxes and such are much more hotly debated and should be discussed in relation to the budget, and not just for paying for bills. It includes tax cuts for the middle class, along with some tax increases for the very wealthy. Again, this bill has nothing to do with that and will assumingly be paid for separately.

Okay, so, currency manipulation. Here is a big part of what the fee will entail. But to sum it up it will be a fee on Chinese manipulated currency which will be hopefully globally organized to stop the dramatic increase and deficits (and jobs for that matter) caused by this practice. Now, this may worry those that are strongly holding their jobs in China, but with the global community standing united against this practice, we will hopefully #1 end it, and #2 bring mack the GDP flow and jobs that it is costing us and other nations. This will hopefully bring in between $100 and $300B over the next 5 years.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What about the stability of the sin tax revenues. Generally speaking, such taxes reduce the consumption of those products and thus the revenues generated from them.



As for the currency manipulation, it presumes that China would attempt to respond "in kind" for which as the link says there are limited assets held by the US. On the other hand they could in fact curb purchasing of such debts which would drive up interest rates on the very debt needed to fund this $1 trillion bill, no?

[NeverAgain]

Will have a response to this ASAP.

[NeverAgain]

What about the stability of the sin tax revenues. Generally speaking, such taxes reduce the consumption of those products and thus the revenues generated from them.



As for the currency manipulation, it presumes that China would attempt to respond "in kind" for which as the link says there are limited assets held by the US. On the other hand they could in fact curb purchasing of such debts which would drive up interest rates on the very debt needed to fund this $1 trillion bill, no?

As to Sin Taxes. Some are expected to produce decreased revenue, as they should for (personal opinion) societal evils such as tobacco and alcohol. But, as a couple economists pointed out when Congress increased the tobacco tax in 2009, the likely majority of those that partake in using these products are likely not going to stop due to a couple cents is being added to their checkout total, the same rule applies to alcohol also. Also, a tax on such things as highly sugary drinks or marijuana would instead place an increased burden on those entities in addition. This would not just be an extreme rise in those sin taxes we currently have.

On Chinese Currency Manipulation. If they attempted to end purchasing of Atlasian Debt which amounts to about 5% of our nation's debt holdings, and 30% of Atlasian foreign debt holdings, it would significantly damage their economy as it is so linked to our debt that a rise in interest rates/an end to purchasing our debt (which can be purchased from other places, mind you) would end the projected billions of revenue that they would make from it. U.S. government does not have significant holdings of Chinese government assets. Also, as the link says: "Chinese leaders would have no way to retaliate in kind,” since the U.S. government does not have significant holdings of Chinese government assets."

Also, this bill is accounted for in my new balanced budget proposal, which I will release hopefully in the next few days. Thanks for your comments!

I will leave this open for 24 hours more of debate before I move to a final vote! Yay!

[White Trash]

I think we've worked most of the kinks out of this legislation, and ought to approve it swiftly.

[NeverAgain]

Okay, opened for a 24-hour period of voting.

[Goldwater]

Eh, Abstain,

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Aye

[NeverAgain]

AYE!