Tax Increase Bill

[Democratic Hawk]

Tax Increase Bill

1. All income up to $500,000 shall be subject to social security taxes.
2. Clause 5 of F.L. 11-6, National Sin Tax Act, is amended to read: "The taxes implemented by this act are an addition to, not an overriding of, any existing federal and regional taxes that are placed on the aforementioned products."
3. An estate tax is established. Each portion of the value of the estate shall be taxed at the following rates, with each rate corresponding to the tax rate on only the portion of the estate that falls in the appointed range:
a) $0-$5,000,000 – 0%
b) $5,000,001-$10,000,000 – 3%
c) $10,000,001-$17,500,000 – 4%
d) $17,500,001-$25,000,000 – 5%
e) $25,000,001-$50,000,000 – 7.5%
f) $50,000,001-$100,000,000 – 10%
g) $100,000,001 and above – 12.5%

Sponsor: Sen. Dave 'Hawk'

[MasterJedi]

Raising taxes=bad and raising taxes that much is just evil.

[Democratic Hawk]

Tax Increase Bill

1. All income up to $500,000 shall be subject to social security taxes.

Absolutely horrendous considering only income up to $94,200 is currently subject to FICA at a rate of 6.2%. Not to mention a huge increase in taxes on the part of employers, who match contributions. I dread to think what such an added burden would mean for economy. Expect job lossses and minimal job creation if this happens

In sum this amounts to an obscene increase in social security taxes for both the empolyed and the employer; therefore, I'll be proposing an amendment striking this from the Bill

Furthermore, I'm considering introducing a wider Social Security Contributions Reform Bill

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like such taxes on consumption but accept such taxes may need to be increased under the circumstances

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no objections with this aspect of the Bill. The estate tax and its rates are reasonable and apply only to the relatively wealthy (i.e. Atlasians like me), who should be contributing more

'Hawk'

[Speed of Sound]

1. If I make 6,000,000, I should pay the taxes on it. Simple as that. Why should the 32,000 worker pay the taxes, but not the 6,000,000? I fail to see the logic.

2. Im not a huge fan of the sin tax. Just because of the effect of the product it should be taxed more? I dont think so. If you dont like it, remove it from market. Otherwise, leave it alone.

3. Im happy with this choice of tax raise. If you have enough to buy a 100,000,000 estate, you can afford this tax. However, farms should get a break from this tax, at least somewhat.


Liking 2 out of 3, Ill vote Aye to this.


and add this amendment:

1. All income up to $500,000 shall be subject to social security taxes.
2. Clause 5 of F.L. 11-6, National Sin Tax Act, is amended to read: "The taxes implemented by this act are an addition to, not an overriding of, any existing federal and regional taxes that are placed on the aforementioned products."
3. An estate tax is established. Each portion of the value of the estate shall be taxed at the following rates, with each rate corresponding to the tax rate on only the portion of the estate that falls in the appointed range:
a) $0-$5,000,000 – 0%
b) $5,000,001-$10,000,000 – 3%
c) $10,000,001-$17,500,000 – 4%
d) $17,500,001-$25,000,000 – 5%
e) $25,000,001-$50,000,000 – 7.5%
f) $50,000,001-$100,000,000 – 10%
g) $100,000,001 and above – 12.5%
Farmers' non-residential property shall be taxed at 50% the normal tax rate.

[Democratic Hawk]

1. If I make 6,000,000, I should pay the taxes on it. Simple as that. Why should the 32,000 worker pay the taxes, but not the 6,000,000? I fail to see the logic.

I just think it's way too radical an increase in the threshold from what it stands at present. It's as simple as that

I concur with your amendment to Clause 3, however

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I hereby propose the following amendment

Clause 1 is stricken from this Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 are renumbered 1 and 2.

'Hawk'

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye on the amendment.

Allow me to say that since I have been on Atlaisia TV, and have been in the media so long, I have built up a considerable fortune. I have no problem with the progressive tax percentages listed in the bill... After all, because I have wealth, I'm happy to pay. I don't believe that a lower or middle class individual should pick up my slack, just so I can buy another Lincoln Continental.

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye on the amendment.

Allow me to say that since I have been on Atlaisia TV, and have been in the media so long, I have built up a considerable fortune. I have no problem with the progressive tax percentages listed in the bill... After all, because I have wealth, I'm happy to pay. I don't believe that a lower or middle class individual should pick up my slack, just so I can buy another Lincoln Continental.

Vote isn't open yet . Of course, Senator, you can state whether you support it or not

'Hawk'

[Dr. Cynic]

Forgive my breach of protocol... I ask that it be duly noted, though.

[Ebowed]

Well, instead of striking Clause 1 entirely, you could keep some form of tax increase on social security taxes, even if you don't want it to be as high as what is there currently.

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, instead of striking Clause 1 entirely, you could keep some form of tax increase on social security taxes, even if you don't want it to be as high as what is there currently.

OK then, I withdraw my amendment striking Clause 1 and propose the following amendment to Clause 1:

1. All income up to $150,000 shall be subject to social security taxes as follows:

i. For earnings between $0 to $75,000, the rate of contributions shall be 6%
ii. For earnings between $75,001 to $100,000, the rate of contributions shall be 6.5%
iii. For earnings between $100,001 to $125,000, the rate of contributions shall be 7%
iv. For earnings between $125,001 to $150,000, the rate of contributions shall be 7.5%
v. Employer contributiuons on all earnings up to $150,000 shall be 6%

There you have it, as well as increasing the threshold and proposing more progressive rates, I'm proposing a small tax cut for those earning less than $75,000 as well as small tax cut on employer contributions. The tax increases I've proposed I don't consider punitive, unlike the original $500,00 increase in the threshold

However, I seek advice to its practicality bearing in mind that the Senate must seek to ensure that social security remains solvent over the long term

'Hawk'

[Bono]

I recomend that the president veto this, and that senators vote against it, if they don't want economic stagnation.

[Democratic Hawk]

I recomend that the president veto this, and that senators vote against it, if they don't want economic stagnation.

Is this the whole Bill you are referring to, Mr Secretary?

'Hawk'

[Bono]

I recomend that the president veto this, and that senators vote against it, if they don't want economic stagnation.

Is this the whole Bill you are referring to, Mr Secretary?

'Hawk'

Yes.

[Democratic Hawk]

I recomend that the president veto this, and that senators vote against it, if they don't want economic stagnation.

Is this the whole Bill you are referring to, Mr Secretary?

'Hawk'

Yes.

This Bill was actually part of the President's Fourteenth Senate agenda

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=37286.msg934726#msg934726

It was, originally, introduced by then Senator EarlAW and reintroduced by me. At the end of the day, whether I agree with the President or not, is by the by, it don't mean that I can't introduce them since I'm of the conviction that they deserve due consideraton by the Senate. I happen to agree with Clauses 2 and 3 of the original Bill, at least

Still, he might object to any amendments should they pass. Failing that, he's not unknown to veto his own legislation, so there's hope for you yet

However, we could always use the revenues to improve the highways . No seriously, I'd rather any monies raised were used to balance the budget or reduce the national debt. Of course, sustained economic growth can address that

'Hawk'

[WMS]

I wonder why we even have a cap on social security taxes at all...taxing 100% of the earnings of the poor and working classes but less than 100% of the earnings of the more affluent classes always struck me as rather regressive. Now, the rate itself should be lowered if possible, certainly.

I shall await Bono's screed on why nothing above the current cap should be taxed.

[Democratic Hawk]

I hereby open the fvote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain

3. An estate tax is established. Each portion of the value of the estate shall be taxed at the following rates, with each rate corresponding to the tax rate on only the portion of the estate that falls in the appointed range:
a) $0-$5,000,000 – 0%
b) $5,000,001-$10,000,000 – 3%
c) $10,000,001-$17,500,000 – 4%
d) $17,500,001-$25,000,000 – 5%
e) $25,000,001-$50,000,000 – 7.5%
f) $50,000,001-$100,000,000 – 10%
g) $100,000,001 and above – 12.5%
Farmers' non-residential property shall be taxed at 50% the normal tax rate.

'Hawk'

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye

'Hawk'

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[Virginian87]

Aye.

[Jake]

Nay

[Speed of Sound]

Aye

[Democratic Hawk]

With 5 'Ayes', 1 'Nay' and 0 Abstentions, this amendment has passed

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I hereby open the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain

1. All income up to $150,000 shall be subject to social security taxes as follows:

i. For earnings between $0 to $75,000, the rate of contributions shall be 6%
ii. For earnings between $75,001 to $100,000, the rate of contributions shall be 6.5%
iii. For earnings between $100,001 to $125,000, the rate of contributions shall be 7%
iv. For earnings between $125,001 to $150,000, the rate of contributions shall be 7.5%
v. Employer contributiuons on all earnings up to $150,000 shall be 6%

'Hawk'