Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Atlas Fantasy Government => Topic started by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 10, 2012, 07:57:21 PM



Title: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Law'd)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 10, 2012, 07:57:21 PM
Quote
A BILL

To promote and incentivize job growth in the Republic of Atlasia.

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled.

SECTION 1. TITLE

This act may be cited as the ‘Jobs Now Act of 2012.’

SECTION 2. HIRING INCENTIVES ACT RENEWAL

1.) The effects of the Hiring Incentives Act are hereby renewed for one year after passage of this legislation.

SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

3.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.

SECTION 4. WHITE ROOFTOP INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATELY OWNED BUILDINGS

1.) All local, state, and regional administrative officials will be subsidized 25% for the hiring of construction workers to paint black rooftops of government buildings the color white.

2.) All individuals, households, and business owners will be subsidized 25% for the hiring of construction workers to paint black rooftops of houses and businesses white.

SECTION 5. REGIONAL PUBLIC BANKING SYSTEM

1.) All regions of the Republic of Atlasia are bestowed the option of creating individual state-owned banks, which will be funded by the federal government per request of each region.

2.) Regional banks will be delegated with the duties
    To assist local banks with capital and liquidity requirements
    To provide loans & loan guarantees
    To provide assistance to borrowers in areas of job retention
    To provide assistance to borrowers in technology creation
    To provide assistance to small businesses and businesses of retail, and
    To participate in community service projects

3.) All revenues collected by each region shall be deposited in their respective banks.

4.) Funds that are deposited in a regional bank shall not transmit services to other regions or countries unless funds are prescribed to via a budget item of the region in control of the bank.

5.) 35% of a bank's earnings will be remitted to the region's Treasury.  If a treasury is not in place, the region will be responsible for establishing one.

6.) A regional bank will be responsible for keeping a record of all transactions and writing summaries which shall convey expectation and outlook of growth and inflation over each upcoming year.  The region's Treasury will be designated with the responsibility of annually checking the bank for organization of these records and efficiency in management.

7.) No individual, co-partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to subscribe for or to hold at any time more than $25,000 par value of stock in a regional bank.

Sponsor: Scott


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 10, 2012, 07:58:38 PM
Mr. PPT, the reforms that are outlined by this legislation seek to accomplish four essential goals which are paramount to jump-starting the economy and putting Atlasians back to work: one, to incentivize businesses for expansion and job creation, two, to curb the ongoing loss of jobs by subsidizing workers for lost hours, three, to putting construction workers back to work whilst making our infrastructure more environmentally friendly and less costly, and four, to help regional governments put their checkbooks in order and provide them with the necessary tools to expand their local economies.

I will explain each section separately.

Hiring Incentives Act Renewal

The first portion of the bill is an extension of an older policy that was introduced by former Senator Bacon King.  It is my understanding that while taxes must be kept at a reasonable level for new businesses to work around, tax reductions simply aren’t enough, and so they must have the incentive to hire and expand.  The polices that the Hiring Incentive Act put in place over the course of its effectiveness did just that, and in a time when employment is still not up to par, it is necessary for us to renew this law for another year.

Voluntary Work Hour and Pay Cut Compensation

This section focuses to encourage companies to reduce employees’ hours and pay instead of laying them off.  Faced with reduced demand in recent years, many companies have been forced to make up the costs by laying workers off, and this is partly how we lost over eight million jobs in the Great Recession.  But what if, instead, we encouraged them to divide the pain more equally, by reducing workers' hours, rather than shedding jobs?  This is what many companies in Germany do, and this can be partly attributed to its ongoing success in an overall weak global economy.

To quote this Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/five-ideas-create-jobs-crazy-might-just-152228059.html) article, “Kevin Hassett, an economic policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a supporter of the idea, recently laid out how it works. If an employer in Germany cuts a worker's hours and wages by 10 percent or more, the government pays the worker 60 percent of the amount he lost--unemployment benefits, essentially, for the lost income. That helps the worker, of course, because he's making more than he would be just from jobless benefits, and because he keeps up his skills and contacts by continuing to go to work every day. But it also helps the employer, because turnover of employees is costly: It's cheaper to keep workers during slow periods than it is to have to hire and train new employees once things pick up.”  This is a policy that has shown tremendous success where it’s been used, and it ought to be a model for this government to look toward.

White Rooftop Incentive For Private and Publicly Owned Buildings

This section aims to put our infrastructure on a more environmentally friendly path by incentivizing government officials, homeowners, and business owners to pay construction workers, one of the hardest hit groups of the recession, to paint black tar roofs white.  This would save 20% in energy, which could be spent on goods and services other than generating electricity, which increases fuel and oil prices.  This initiative, minor as it may appear at a first glance, would have a significant impact on our economy.

Regional Public Banking System

Finally, the primary purpose of this section is to increase revenue for regions that are struggling with their budgets and promoting job creation by encouraging regional administrators to establish their own public banks.  This particular section of the bill is taken off a similar policy that I had written for the Northeast government.

As many of you might know, North Dakota is the only state in the country that went virtually unaffected by the Great Recession, and continues to run budget surpluses as well as have the lowest unemployment and the fastest job growth rate in the country.  While many attribute North Dakota’s economy to its abundant oil supply, much of its success is thanks to the state’s public bank, (http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/the-north-dakota-miracle-not-all-about-oil) which has raked in over $300 million in revenue to the state's Treasury.  Basically, the state deposits its tax revenues in the bank which ensure that a high portion of State funds are in the economy, and the bank is able to remit a portion of its earnings to the Treasury.  This stands in heavy contrast to states like California, which has no public bank to steer funds into productive investments within the state.  Instead, revenues are largely deposited into private banks, which fund out-of-state, invest them in speculative trading strategies (including derivative bets against the state’s own bonds), and do not remit any of their earnings back to the State Treasury.

So what, exactly, does North Dakota’s success story teach?  It teaches us that there must be significant action on a local level for prosperity to be achieved across the board, and at the same time, the correct policies must be enacted in a responsible fashion.  Indeed, the federal government isn’t the cure to all the nation’s problems, but it is our duty as senators to ensure that every region has the tools it needs to maintain a business-friendly environment whilst keeping their checkbooks in order.



Evidently, this bill is designed to address several portions of our economy.  However, I recognize that these proposals cannot aid all of our economic woes, and that is why I urge my colleagues to use the opportunity to revise and add on to what we have.  To those who desire to tweak certain sections, I ask that any amendments or ideas that come forward do not disregard or displace the central ideas that the bill lays out.  And on that, I wish to open the floor to thoughtful and respectful debate and, where possible, bipartisanship.

Thank you.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 10, 2012, 07:58:51 PM
Scott you have 24 hours to advocate for this bill.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 10, 2012, 07:59:44 PM
Damn it, 13 seconds too late. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 10, 2012, 07:59:53 PM
()


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 10, 2012, 08:04:51 PM
Pic doesn't work at least on my machine.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 10, 2012, 08:06:07 PM
Haha, it just says "Nailed it!" :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 11, 2012, 09:02:06 PM
Does anyone know how much money in the energy budget goes to subsidies for renewable energy sources (such as solar panels) and to scientific research?  I'm thinking about adding a section to the bill that transfers funds from subsidies to energy research, since excessive spending on solar subsidies tends to actually raise costs instead of reduce them. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html)  I'd appreciate some input from Yankee or shua on this idea.

EDIT: We also might want to look into reducing or eliminating oil subsidies if those are on our books, too.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 12, 2012, 01:18:18 AM
It sounds promising but we would need some raw data from the Game Moderator to move forward.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Napoleon on August 12, 2012, 09:54:36 PM
My administration would like to ensure that employers may not discriminate based on current employment status. Does the Senate think that could work its way into this bill?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 12, 2012, 10:03:12 PM
My administration would like to ensure that employers may not discriminate based on current employment status. Does the Senate think that could work its way into this bill?

Employment discrimination on account of anything is already illegal, if I'm not mistaken.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Napoleon on August 12, 2012, 10:05:33 PM
My administration would like to ensure that employers may not discriminate based on current employment status. Does the Senate think that could work its way into this bill?

Employment discrimination on account of anything is already illegal, if I'm not mistaken.

Quote
4. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, political affiliation, religious affiliation, marital status, or veterans' status in membership to unions or employment, except where a government-issued waiver is granted for special circumstances, including, but not limited to: political organizations or work requiring certain attributes or skills.

That isn't included in the Worker's Bill of Rights Act.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 12, 2012, 10:11:10 PM
Amendment:
Quote
SECTION 6. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FORBIDDANCE

Section 2, subsection 4 of the Worker's Bill of Rights Act is hereby amended;

Quote
4. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, political affiliation, religious affiliation, marital status, veterans' status, or employment status in membership to unions or employment, except where a government-issued waiver is granted for special circumstances, including, but not limited to: political organizations or work requiring certain attributes or skills.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Napoleon on August 12, 2012, 10:14:55 PM
Thank you Senator Scott. This amendment can help ease people out of long term unemployment and reliance on the state. I believe that as a package, this bill can bring about positive change to our economic state.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on August 13, 2012, 01:06:53 PM
I have a small semantic issue with Section 4.... I don't believe the incentive should be made for hiring the workers directly but rather hiring a construction firm which will then provide the workers. As is- I don't know if it would be most efficient to have workers apply to be employed directly by a business or individual as this work does not lead long-term employment

I will comment on the other parts of this legislation later today...


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 13, 2012, 01:42:01 PM
I have a small semantic issue with Section 4.... I don't believe the incentive should be made for hiring the workers directly but rather hiring a construction firm which will then provide the workers. As is- I don't know if it would be most efficient to have workers apply to be employed directly by a business or individual as this work does not lead long-term employment

I will comment on the other parts of this legislation later today...

I don't see what the difference would be if the incentive applied to people who hired firms rather than individuals.  It is my belief that incentivizing people to take either of those options would lead to more work and reduced energy costs, and therefore, more employment.  The answer to whether or not this incentive will lead to long-term employment ultimately depends on how much people take advantage of the incentive and how much construction projects are being pursued.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 13, 2012, 05:54:55 PM
Quote from: Amendment 50:26 by Scott
SECTION 6. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FORBIDDANCE

Section 2, subsection 4 of the Worker's Bill of Rights Act is hereby amended;

Quote
4. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, political affiliation, religious affiliation, marital status, veterans' status, or employment status in membership to unions or employment, except where a government-issued waiver is granted for special circumstances, including, but not limited to: political organizations or work requiring certain attributes or skills.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 13, 2012, 05:56:33 PM
Senator, has any success been had in establising a line of communications with the Game Moderator on the matter discussed Saturday last.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 13, 2012, 06:35:17 PM
No.  I'm going to PM him now.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 13, 2012, 07:49:21 PM
Does anyone know how much money in the energy budget goes to subsidies for renewable energy sources (such as solar panels) and to scientific research?  I'm thinking about adding a section to the bill that transfers funds from subsidies to energy research, since excessive spending on solar subsidies tends to actually raise costs instead of reduce them. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html)  I'd appreciate some input from Yankee or shua on this idea.

EDIT: We also might want to look into reducing or eliminating oil subsidies if those are on our books, too.

The main renewable energy spending is the Go Green Fund, which is $50 Billion spent over four years in grants and loans. https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Green_Jobs_Act

There are also tax credits, which are based on some legislation passed by the Atlasian Senate which I can't find at the moment, but the first is for companies converting to renewable energy and the second is for research
Quote
Corporate Clean Energy Credit           2.7 B
Alternate Energy R&D Credits            3.4 B

I'm not aware of any subsidies that go specifically to oil companies.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 13, 2012, 09:57:21 PM
Are tax credits basically the same thing as subsidies?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 14, 2012, 12:37:59 AM
Are tax credits basically the same thing as subsidies?
They can be considered so - it's a common way to subsidize something without spending money on it directly. Still, it depends on who you ask.  They encourage spending on something that might otherwise not be made - but there has to be enough of a market for it that the consumer finds it valuable in itself, since the tax credit usually doesn't cover the entire cost.

The clean energy tax credits produce a modest amount of demand for clean energy. The effect of price increasing from greater demand is going to be balanced out to some extent by the greater economies of scale that reduce production cost. Combined with some of the grants in the Go Green Fund it may have an effect on raising prices, but nowhere approaching what has happened in Germany.  The major difference here is that there is an investment in a variety of clean energy (at least, that's the plan), and not a huge amount given to a single technology.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 14, 2012, 09:34:46 PM
Thank you, Shua.  With that in mind, I will not touch the clean energy tax credits.

Anything else, guys?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 15, 2012, 08:34:39 AM
Why are they state-owned banks rather than regionally?
Is 5.1 a blank check from the federal government to the regions? 


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: AndrewTX on August 15, 2012, 08:44:14 AM
Why are they state-owned banks rather than regionally?
Is 5.1 a blank check from the federal government to the regions? 

I never noticed that until now. That's a great question.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 15, 2012, 11:42:03 AM
Why are they state-owned banks rather than regionally?
Is 5.1 a blank check from the federal government to the regions?  

"State" is suppose to be defined as a governing entity, not an individual state.  And yes, I do see how this would constitute as a blank check without any budgetary restrictions.  I will make those corrections now.

Quote
SECTION 5. REGIONAL PUBLIC BANKING SYSTEM

1.) All regions of the Republic of Atlasia are bestowed the option of creating individual public banks, the creation of which will be subsidized 35% per region by the federal government.

2.) Regional banks will be delegated with the duties
    To assist local banks with capital and liquidity requirements
    To provide loans & loan guarantees
    To provide assistance to borrowers in areas of job retention
    To provide assistance to borrowers in technology creation
    To provide assistance to small businesses and businesses of retail, and
    To participate in community service projects

3.) All revenues collected by each region shall be deposited in their respective banks.

4.) Funds that are deposited in a regional bank shall not transmit services to other regions or countries unless funds are prescribed to via a budget item of the region in control of the bank.

5.) 35% of a bank's earnings will be remitted to the region's Treasury.  If a treasury is not in place, the region will be responsible for establishing one.

6.) A regional bank will be responsible for keeping a record of all transactions and writing summaries which shall convey expectation and outlook of growth and inflation over each upcoming year.  The region's Treasury will be designated with the responsibility of annually checking the bank for organization of these records and efficiency in management.

7.) No individual, co-partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to subscribe for or to hold at any time more than $25,000 par value of stock in a regional bank.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 15, 2012, 07:04:24 PM
The amendment under consideration has been adopted.

Is that a new amendment you are offering there, Scott?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 15, 2012, 07:07:04 PM
The amendment under consideration has been adopted.

Is that a new amendment you are offering there, Scott?

Yes.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 15, 2012, 07:17:51 PM
Quote from: Amendment 50:28 by Scott
SECTION 5. REGIONAL PUBLIC BANKING SYSTEM

1.) All regions of the Republic of Atlasia are bestowed the option of creating individual public banks, the creation of which will be subsidized 35% per region by the federal government.

2.) Regional banks will be delegated with the duties
    To assist local banks with capital and liquidity requirements
    To provide loans & loan guarantees
    To provide assistance to borrowers in areas of job retention
    To provide assistance to borrowers in technology creation
    To provide assistance to small businesses and businesses of retail, and
    To participate in community service projects

3.) All revenues collected by each region shall be deposited in their respective banks.

4.) Funds that are deposited in a regional bank shall not transmit services to other regions or countries unless funds are prescribed to via a budget item of the region in control of the bank.

5.) 35% of a bank's earnings will be remitted to the region's Treasury.  If a treasury is not in place, the region will be responsible for establishing one.

6.) A regional bank will be responsible for keeping a record of all transactions and writing summaries which shall convey expectation and outlook of growth and inflation over each upcoming year.  The region's Treasury will be designated with the responsibility of annually checking the bank for organization of these records and efficiency in management.

7.) No individual, co-partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to subscribe for or to hold at any time more than $25,000 par value of stock in a regional bank.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 16, 2012, 07:35:19 PM
Amendment passed.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 17, 2012, 12:06:57 AM
Working hours in Atlasia are already quite low due to policies such as The Productivity Equalization and Worker Employment Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/The_Productivity_Equalization_and_Worker_Employment_Act).  What is considered overtime is much less than the average working hours (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/dec/08/europe-working-hours) in Germany (42 hours).  I'm trying to think how this bill will interact with that.  Will there be little effect because employers are already giving their employees so few hours?  I guess it could help a few people anyway.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2012, 12:12:13 AM
Working hours in Atlasia are already quite low due to policies such as The Productivity Equalization and Worker Employment Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/The_Productivity_Equalization_and_Worker_Employment_Act).  What is considered overtime is much less than the average working hours (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/dec/08/europe-working-hours) in Germany (42 hours).  I'm trying to think how this bill will interact with that.  Will there be little effect because employers are already giving their employees so few hours?  I guess it could help a few people anyway.

I think so.  If there is a business that is considering lay-offs even with the low work hour requirement, the law could still help the employees of those companies keep their jobs and continue to make ends meet.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Napoleon on August 17, 2012, 07:00:59 PM
The removal of Section 3 wouldn't really bother me.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2012, 07:30:45 PM
Unless there's a reason for why the section should be removed, I'd prefer that it stay in the bill.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Napoleon on August 17, 2012, 07:34:34 PM
Unless there's a reason for why the section should be removed, I'd prefer that it stay in the bill.

Well, as Shua has said, normal work hours are reduced to 32 for larger companies starting in 2013. That's actually a 20% decrease from the 40 hour work week. It seems that the goal of Section 3 will already be accomplished, unless you are trying to take that even further.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2012, 07:39:23 PM
Unless there's a reason for why the section should be removed, I'd prefer that it stay in the bill.

Well, as Shua has said, normal work hours are reduced to 32 for larger companies starting in 2013. That's actually a 20% decrease from the 40 hour work week. It seems that the goal of Section 3 will already be accomplished, unless you are trying to take that even further.

Yes, but the goal of the section is to give employees in struggling businesses the ability to temporarily cut their work hours so that they can keep their jobs and continue to receive pay in the case that 32 hours is still too much for a company to afford.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Napoleon on August 17, 2012, 07:44:15 PM
Unless there's a reason for why the section should be removed, I'd prefer that it stay in the bill.

Well, as Shua has said, normal work hours are reduced to 32 for larger companies starting in 2013. That's actually a 20% decrease from the 40 hour work week. It seems that the goal of Section 3 will already be accomplished, unless you are trying to take that even further.

Yes, but the goal of the section is to give employees in struggling businesses the ability to temporarily cut their work hours so that they can keep their jobs and continue to receive pay in the case that 32 hours is still too much for a company to afford.

Do you think we could find a way to make sure that employers don't use this as an opportunity to cut hours or salaries for their workers on the taxpayer's dime, if those companies aren't making cuts that are necessary? And if we pass this right now, that subsidy will go out but the hours cuts are going to come into effect anyway so its likely that employers can reduce their employees hours from 36 to 32 (or whatever) and the employee gets the subsidy but the work hours likely would have been reduced anyway to avoid overtime payments, making it a freebie.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2012, 07:50:53 PM
::) Fine, then.

Amendment:
Quote
SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

3.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.

EDIT: RESCINDED


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Napoleon on August 17, 2012, 07:51:41 PM
No, I'm not saying we have to take all of it out, but if you want to do that we should delay it or something. I think we can constructively eliminate the loophole.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2012, 07:54:54 PM
Okay, then I will rescind my previous amendment for now.  However, I'm not exactly sure how such a loophole could be eliminated.  How could we establish the criteria for a business that cannot afford to keep its employees and would need to make downsizes?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 18, 2012, 07:03:59 PM
A long winded set of restrictions, maybe?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 18, 2012, 07:10:04 PM

I'm not sure what those restrictions would be.  There'd have to be a certain criteria we could use to determine if a business is truly struggling and would therefore need to resort to layoffs.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: LastVoter on August 18, 2012, 07:21:47 PM
::) Fine, then.

Amendment:
Quote
SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

3.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.

EDIT: RESCINDED
I object, I think this is a crucial part of the bill.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 18, 2012, 07:23:09 PM

I'm not sure what those restrictions would be.  There'd have to be a certain criteria we could use to determine if a business is truly struggling and would therefore need to resort to layoffs.

It is the only to do it though. My suggestion would be to just start writing down standards and think of as many continencies for abuse as possible so as to address them.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 18, 2012, 07:23:57 PM
::) Fine, then.

Amendment:
Quote
SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

3.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.

EDIT: RESCINDED
I object, I think this is a crucial part of the bill.

Are you objecting to thin air or something? That amendment was withdrawn, I think. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Napoleon on August 18, 2012, 07:24:41 PM

I'm not sure what those restrictions would be.  There'd have to be a certain criteria we could use to determine if a business is truly struggling and would therefore need to resort to layoffs.

It is the only to do it though. My suggestion would be to just start writing down standards and think of as many continencies for abuse as possible so as to address them.

Can other Senators try contributing even a little bit? It's like the same three or four people doing everything, I don't imagine that can be very fun.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: LastVoter on August 18, 2012, 07:32:56 PM
::) Fine, then.

Amendment:
Quote
SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

3.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.

EDIT: RESCINDED
I object, I think this is a crucial part of the bill.

Are you objecting to thin air or something? That amendment was withdrawn, I think. :P
Oh... well.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 18, 2012, 07:40:38 PM

I'm not sure what those restrictions would be.  There'd have to be a certain criteria we could use to determine if a business is truly struggling and would therefore need to resort to layoffs.

It is the only to do it though. My suggestion would be to just start writing down standards and think of as many continencies for abuse as possible so as to address them.

Can other Senators try contributing even a little bit? It's like the same three or four people doing everything, I don't imagine that can be very fun.

It is not, but I doubt very much that they give a damn, really.

The first thing I would do in your place is to think of the most obvious scenario in which a business man would try and cash in on this. If this is aimed at struggling businesses, perhaps you might want to link assistance to a certain set of indicators on the cash-flow or balance sheets. Of course then you run into the risk that they may manipulate data illegally or just do less well based on what the incentives look like.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 18, 2012, 07:44:28 PM
What if we create a ten-person board and prosecute any business that attempts to bribe its members?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Sbane on August 18, 2012, 11:10:07 PM
I would just get rid of Section 3. We don't really need to go any lower than 32 hours per week. Even the 32 hours is unfair to workers who want to work more. I doubt companies will actually give anyone more than the 32 hours and will just hire more workers. I understand that is the point, but at some point it just becomes ridiculous. These people have to pay their bills.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 18, 2012, 11:29:40 PM
Or perhaps we can reinstate the traditional working hours?

After thinking about it, I've decided that I would rather not remove section three completely.  That just defeats one of the bill's main components.  Perhaps by reinstating the normal working hours with section three in place, workers could work more and take cuts when it's most appropriate.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Napoleon on August 18, 2012, 11:31:33 PM
I cannot, as President, participate in erasing the Snowguy legacy. Sorry, guys. You can work around me on that if you want but I find a lot of what we accomplished in that era to be central to our economic future. I will gladly speak in defense of these policies if explanation is needed.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Sbane on August 19, 2012, 12:08:07 AM
Or perhaps we can reinstate the traditional working hours?

After thinking about it, I've decided that I would rather not remove section three completely.  That just defeats one of the bill's main components.  Perhaps by reinstating the normal working hours with section three in place, workers could work more and take cuts when it's most appropriate.

I would be fine putting it at 35 hours. Would that alleviate the President's concerns? And then we could go ahead with your plan for a year, but the question still remains on the gaming of the system that might be possible. I don't really have an answer to that.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 19, 2012, 06:37:25 PM
What if we create a ten-person board and prosecute any business that attempts to bribe its members?

It would still need a set of standards or it could get out of control very fast.




Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 19, 2012, 11:56:20 PM
What are you trying to restrict here?  I think for the most part any employer and employee aren't going to agree to this unless to avoid layoffs.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2012, 12:45:46 AM
What are you trying to restrict here?  I think for the most part any employer and employee aren't going to agree to this unless to avoid layoffs.

The idea is to somehow restrict businesses from lying their way into cutting their employees' pay or work hours at the expense of the taxpayers.  I'm still trying to think of a way to prevent this system from being abused.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 20, 2012, 12:55:44 AM
Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible. :P



Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2012, 12:58:21 AM
Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible. :P

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 20, 2012, 01:21:18 AM
Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible. :P

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes. :P

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line. :P

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2012, 01:50:49 AM
Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible. :P

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes. :P

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line. :P

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.

Financial statements could easily be checked for any kind of manipulations, in my opinion.  But what do you mean by net loss of size and duration?  Could you be more specific?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 20, 2012, 02:52:13 AM
What are you trying to restrict here?  I think for the most part any employer and employee aren't going to agree to this unless to avoid layoffs.

The idea is to somehow restrict businesses from lying their way into cutting their employees' pay or work hours at the expense of the taxpayers.  I'm still trying to think of a way to prevent this system from being abused.

Why would they have to lie?   Isn't allowing employers to cut pay or work hours without greatly harming their employees the whole point of this?   In fact, that's already the major employment policy in Atlasia as it stands: to encourage businesses to cut employees work hours in order to try to make them hire more workers.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2012, 03:08:26 AM
What are you trying to restrict here?  I think for the most part any employer and employee aren't going to agree to this unless to avoid layoffs.

The idea is to somehow restrict businesses from lying their way into cutting their employees' pay or work hours at the expense of the taxpayers.  I'm still trying to think of a way to prevent this system from being abused.

Why would they have to lie?   Isn't allowing employers to cut pay or work hours without greatly harming their employees the whole point of this?   In fact, that's already the major employment policy in Atlasia as it stands: to encourage businesses to cut employees work hours in order to try to make them hire more workers.

Businesses should only be cutting pay or work hours if it's absolutely necessary for them to in order to stay in business.  The current policy doesn't encourage employers to cut work hours, it requires them to, and this could potentially hurt workers who want to work longer when their business doesn't even have to make the cuts.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 20, 2012, 06:42:23 PM
Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible. :P

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes. :P

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line. :P

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.

Financial statements could easily be checked for any kind of manipulations, in my opinion.  But what do you mean by net loss of size and duration?  Could you be more specific?

Yes they could, but you would have to know what to look for.   

You want to aim these are struggling businesses, correct? So you could put in a minimum net loss for a minimum amount of time as being the primary standard for which the aid is given out.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2012, 06:46:54 PM
Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible. :P

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes. :P

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line. :P

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.

Financial statements could easily be checked for any kind of manipulations, in my opinion.  But what do you mean by net loss of size and duration?  Could you be more specific?

Yes they could, but you would have to know what to look for.  

You want to aim these are struggling businesses, correct? So you could put in a minimum net loss for a minimum amount of time as being the primary standard for which the aid is given out.

A minimum loss of income?  Okay.

So for example, if a business is found to be losing more than 40% of its income over a year, it would be eligible for the program?

Ugh, now this is just starting to sound like corporate welfare. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 20, 2012, 06:55:53 PM
Well it wouldn't sound it exactly like that. Typically net profit is between 2%-8%. If you have a net loss of 40% of revenue it is far too late for any relief to help. Unless it is a one time thing imposed like a fine or something and the company has the reserves to absorb it.


It thought this was being aimed at the employees of such companies? Is that not so?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2012, 07:01:13 PM
Well it wouldn't sound it exactly like that. Typically net profit is between 2%-8%. If you have a net loss of 40% of revenue it is far too late for any relief to help. Unless it is a one time thing imposed like a fine or something and the company has the reserves to absorb it.


It thought this was being aimed at the employees of such companies? Is that not so?

Do you feel that this would be an appropriate measure?

Quote
SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more that have lost 17% of net income during the past year and have not been found to be involved in illegal activity will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) The Department of Internal Affairs will be tasked with the duty of checking for fraud and abuse of companies that apply.

3.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

4.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.



Haha- yes, yes, it is.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 20, 2012, 07:10:50 PM
I need to check some resources of mine that I have first. I would like to know what shua thinks. First about the idea in general then how best to implement it.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 20, 2012, 07:57:43 PM
I need to check some resources of mine that I have first. I would like to know what shua thinks. First about the idea in general then how best to implement it.
If a company is experiencing a 17% or more revenue loss, you are still likely going to see layoffs even if they go through with this program.  But it could help.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2012, 10:10:09 PM
Amendment:
Quote
SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more that have lost 17% of net income during the past year and have not been found to be involved in illegal activity will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) The Department of Internal Affairs will be tasked with the duty of checking for fraud and abuse of companies that apply.

3.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

4.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.
[/quote]


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 21, 2012, 11:44:06 PM
Quote from: Amendment 50:30 by Scott
SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more that have lost 17% of net income during the past year and have not been found to be involved in illegal activity will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) The Department of Internal Affairs will be tasked with the duty of checking for fraud and abuse of companies that apply.

3.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

4.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.
[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 23, 2012, 08:21:58 PM
Amendment has passed.


Scott, would the text you added be read the same as a "17% decline in Net Income"?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 23, 2012, 09:33:54 PM
Amendment has passed.


Scott, would the text you added be read the same as a "17% decline in Net Income"?

Yes.  I realize that was probably a grammatical error. :P  Do you feel it's necessary to fix it?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 24, 2012, 12:47:39 AM
Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 24, 2012, 10:32:27 PM
"Just nod if you can here me. Is there anyone home?" :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 24, 2012, 11:47:49 PM
Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Sbane on August 25, 2012, 12:36:37 PM
It's just adding more layers of bureaucracy...


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 25, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
It's just adding more layers of bureaucracy...

Not really.  The bill merely assigns a new responsibility for the DoIA, so no new departments are created.  Someone, unfortunately, has to be in charge of approving the business applications so that employers aren't simply getting cheaper labor at the expense of the taxpayer.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Sbane on August 25, 2012, 01:00:40 PM
It's just adding more layers of bureaucracy...

Not really.  The bill merely assigns a new responsibility for the DoIA, so no new departments are created.  Someone, unfortunately, has to be in charge of approving the business applications so that employers aren't simply getting cheaper labor at the expense of the taxpayer.

I know you are trying to do your best here but a more efficient use of our resources would be to spend more on constructing or repairing our infrastructure rather than providing subsidies to corporations.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 25, 2012, 02:42:18 PM
It's just adding more layers of bureaucracy...

Not really.  The bill merely assigns a new responsibility for the DoIA, so no new departments are created.  Someone, unfortunately, has to be in charge of approving the business applications so that employers aren't simply getting cheaper labor at the expense of the taxpayer.

I know you are trying to do your best here but a more efficient use of our resources would be to spend more on constructing or repairing our infrastructure rather than providing subsidies to corporations.

Well, I'm really not concerned about corporations; I am concerned about helping workers keep their jobs in a tough economy, which is the key element of the bill.  If we must get rid of this section of the bill, then it needs to be replaced with an alternative means of helping workers, otherwise this effort would have been for nothing.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 26, 2012, 01:43:49 AM
Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

Yes, if the bill directs them to check for a specific secondary or subsequent criteria, which would clue them in as to the shift. Just assuming they will know what to look for and when could lead to them not looking at all.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 26, 2012, 11:19:06 PM
Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

Yes, if the bill directs them to check for a specific secondary or subsequent criteria, which would clue them in as to the shift. Just assuming they will know what to look for and when could lead to them not looking at all.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply direct the SOIA to not accept applicants from businesses that are shifting their income around?  I 'm not sure what you mean by 'secondary criteria' unless you're referring to something like that.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 27, 2012, 12:13:39 AM
Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

Yes, if the bill directs them to check for a specific secondary or subsequent criteria, which would clue them in as to the shift. Just assuming they will know what to look for and when could lead to them not looking at all.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply direct the SOIA to not accept applicants from businesses that are shifting their income around?  I 'm not sure what you mean by 'secondary criteria' unless you're referring to something like that.

No that wouldn't work there are numerous legitimate reasons to be "shifting money". You would cripple any business with such a restriction.

I am thinking of another line on a financial statement. How familiar are you with accounting?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 27, 2012, 12:15:41 AM
Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

Yes, if the bill directs them to check for a specific secondary or subsequent criteria, which would clue them in as to the shift. Just assuming they will know what to look for and when could lead to them not looking at all.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply direct the SOIA to not accept applicants from businesses that are shifting their income around?  I 'm not sure what you mean by 'secondary criteria' unless you're referring to something like that.

No that wouldn't work there are numerous legitimate reasons to be "shifting money". You would cripple any business with such a restriction.

I am thinking of another line on a financial statement. How familiar are you with accounting?

I'm really not...


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 29, 2012, 09:11:17 PM
Yankee, what type of financial statement did you have in mind?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 29, 2012, 10:33:01 PM
Well changes in Revenues and Liabilities would be one, but you would have to word it in such as way as ot ensure it doesn't get flagged for legitimate business operations.


In the end there will be limits to what can be done, because they can simiply slow down their business operations and there will be little that could be done becuase provign it was just for the tax credits would be difficult at best.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 31, 2012, 08:39:32 PM
"Companies must have declines in net income resulting from overall declines in sales and business during the reporting periods in questions. Declines in Net Income resulting from one time financial transactions shall not be eligible under this program and the Department of the Interior shall be charged with enforcing and policing applicants and and those the program to ensure compliance with the program and its standards."


How is that for a start?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 31, 2012, 09:12:29 PM
Quote
SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more that have lost 17% of net income during the past year and have not been found to be involved in illegal activity will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) The Department of Internal Affairs will be tasked with the duty of checking for fraud and abuse of companies that apply. Companies must have declines in net income resulting from overall declines in sales and business during the reporting periods in questions. Declines in Net Income resulting from one time financial transactions shall not be eligible under this program and the Department of the Interior shall be charged with enforcing and policing applicants and and those the program to ensure compliance with the program and its standards.

3.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

4.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 01, 2012, 07:55:18 PM
Quote from: Current Text
A BILL

To promote and incentivize job growth in the Republic of Atlasia.

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled.

SECTION 1. TITLE

This act may be cited as the ‘Jobs Now Act of 2012.’

SECTION 2. HIRING INCENTIVES ACT RENEWAL

1.) The effects of the Hiring Incentives Act are hereby renewed for one year after passage of this legislation.

SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more that have lost 17% of net income during the past year and have not been found to be involved in illegal activity will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) The Department of Internal Affairs will be tasked with the duty of checking for fraud and abuse of companies that apply.

3.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

4.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.

SECTION 4. WHITE ROOFTOP INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATELY OWNED BUILDINGS

1.) All local, state, and regional administrative officials will be subsidized 25% for the hiring of construction workers to paint black rooftops of government buildings the color white.

2.) All individuals, households, and business owners will be subsidized 25% for the hiring of construction workers to paint black rooftops of houses and businesses white.

SECTION 5. REGIONAL PUBLIC BANKING SYSTEM

1.) All regions of the Republic of Atlasia are bestowed the option of creating individual state-owned banks, which will be funded by the federal government per request of each region.

2.) Regional banks will be delegated with the duties
    To assist local banks with capital and liquidity requirements
    To provide loans & loan guarantees
    To provide assistance to borrowers in areas of job retention
    To provide assistance to borrowers in technology creation
    To provide assistance to small businesses and businesses of retail, and
    To participate in community service projects

3.) All revenues collected by each region shall be deposited in their respective banks.

4.) Funds that are deposited in a regional bank shall not transmit services to other regions or countries unless funds are prescribed to via a budget item of the region in control of the bank.

5.) 35% of a bank's earnings will be remitted to the region's Treasury.  If a treasury is not in place, the region will be responsible for establishing one.

6.) A regional bank will be responsible for keeping a record of all transactions and writing summaries which shall convey expectation and outlook of growth and inflation over each upcoming year.  The region's Treasury will be designated with the responsibility of annually checking the bank for organization of these records and efficiency in management.

7.) No individual, co-partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to subscribe for or to hold at any time more than $25,000 par value of stock in a regional bank.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 01, 2012, 07:58:06 PM
Oh, sorry.  That was an amendment I just offered. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 01, 2012, 08:00:15 PM
Quote
SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more that have lost 17% of net income during the past year and have not been found to be involved in illegal activity will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) The Department of Internal Affairs will be tasked with the duty of checking for fraud and abuse of companies that apply. Companies must have declines in net income resulting from overall declines in sales and business during the reporting periods in question. Declines in Net Income resulting from one time financial transactions, or or otherwise not resulting from a decline in sales and business, shall not be eligible for this program. The Department of the Interior shall be charged with enforcing and policing new applicants and auditing those within program to ensure compliance with the program's standards and requirements.

3.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

4.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.


I tightened up the language and corrected some errors like a double "and".


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 01, 2012, 08:01:36 PM
Amendment:

Quote
SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more that have lost 17% of net income during the past year and have not been found to be involved in illegal activity will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) The Department of Internal Affairs will be tasked with the duty of checking for fraud and abuse of companies that apply. Companies must have declines in net income resulting from overall declines in sales and business during the reporting periods in question. Declines in Net Income resulting from one time financial transactions, or or otherwise not resulting from a decline in sales and business shall not be eligible for this program. The Department of the Interior shall be charged with enforcing and policing new applicants and auditing those within program to ensure compliance with the program's standards and requirements.

3.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

4.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 01, 2012, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: Amendment 50:35 by Scott
SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more that have lost 17% of net income during the past year and have not been found to be involved in illegal activity will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) The Department of Internal Affairs will be tasked with the duty of checking for fraud and abuse of companies that apply. Companies must have declines in net income resulting from overall declines in sales and business during the reporting periods in question. Declines in Net Income resulting from one time financial transactions, or or otherwise not resulting from a decline in sales and business shall not be eligible for this program. The Department of the Interior shall be charged with enforcing and policing new applicants and auditing those within program to ensure compliance with the program's standards and requirements.

3.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

4.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 02, 2012, 09:20:11 PM
The amendment is passed.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 04, 2012, 02:06:31 AM
I am still worried about some of things in this bill, but I am unsure about how to go about fixing them. I like the underlying idea, but it is a very thing tiny needle to thread to get this kind of thing right and not end up subsidizing healthy companies to cut their employees and letting the gov't pick up the tab.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 04, 2012, 02:25:33 PM
I am still worried about some of things in this bill, but I am unsure about how to go about fixing them. I like the underlying idea, but it is a very thing tiny needle to thread to get this kind of thing right and not end up subsidizing healthy companies to cut their employees and letting the gov't pick up the tab.

What in the amendment do you not find sufficient?  Truth be told, if this were real life, we would probably have written up a good five hundred pages or so that would standardize the requirements for these benefits.  I'm not sure what the bill lacks now that we need to fix.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 04, 2012, 11:55:32 PM
I am still worried about some of things in this bill, but I am unsure about how to go about fixing them. I like the underlying idea, but it is a very thing tiny needle to thread to get this kind of thing right and not end up subsidizing healthy companies to cut their employees and letting the gov't pick up the tab.

What in the amendment do you not find sufficient?  Truth be told, if this were real life, we would probably have written up a good five hundred pages or so that would standardize the requirements for these benefits.  I'm not sure what the bill lacks now that we need to fix.

I don't know that is the problem. :P If I did I would have amendments drawn up by now. If you feel comfortable, then you should consider calling for a final vote.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 05, 2012, 01:01:10 AM
If no one raises any objections to section three or any other parts of the current text, I will call for a final vote in the next 24 hours.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 05, 2012, 01:14:30 AM
If no one has any more objections, I will call for a final vote in the next 24 hours.

Objections are defined in this case as any discussion relating to the bill itself. Only the PPT can do UC according to the OSPR and this post by the honerable Senators form the NE shouldn't be miscontrued as such by members, even though it kinda, sorta sounds like that.

Or just to be safe in case someone starts talking:

I ask unanimous consent to waive the cloture vote and proceed immediately to a final vote. Senators have 24 hours to object.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 06, 2012, 12:57:56 AM
Vote here in a little over 10 minutes.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (At Final Vote)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 06, 2012, 01:19:23 AM
Senators, this bill is now at final vote so please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (At Final Vote)
Post by: Sbane on September 06, 2012, 08:49:44 AM
The bill has not been updated on the first post with the amendment passed for section 3.

I vote Aye.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (At Final Vote)
Post by: Redalgo on September 06, 2012, 09:33:53 AM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (At Final Vote)
Post by: LastVoter on September 06, 2012, 11:00:02 AM
Abstain


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (At Final Vote)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 06, 2012, 01:52:56 PM
Aye.

I'll just say, I'm going to be a little pretty dang ticked off if this thing fails since only a few senators offered their own opinions/suggestions when this thing has been on the floor for almost a month and because I had said I'd like a final vote if no one expressed any further concerns with the legislation -- which no one did.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (At Final Vote)
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on September 06, 2012, 03:11:49 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (At Final Vote)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on September 06, 2012, 03:26:16 PM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (At Final Vote)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 06, 2012, 11:23:33 PM
I posted this last night but for some reason it didn't go through. Stupid convention is slowing the site down and in turn messing up my connection. Even late in the morning the site still acts up which might just be the residual impact on my end of the early slowness caused by the convention at 10-Midnight. Whenver the site fails to load because because of traffic or whatever causes that "Website can't be found" crap, it causes problems on my computer.

Quote from: Final Text
A BILL

To promote and incentivize job growth in the Republic of Atlasia.

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled.

SECTION 1. TITLE

This act may be cited as the ‘Jobs Now Act of 2012.’

SECTION 2. HIRING INCENTIVES ACT RENEWAL

1.) The effects of the Hiring Incentives Act are hereby renewed for one year after passage of this legislation.

SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more that have lost 17% of net income during the past year and have not been found to be involved in illegal activity will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) Companies must have declines in net income resulting from overall declines in sales and business during the reporting periods in question. Declines in Net Income resulting from one time financial transactions, or or otherwise not resulting from a decline in sales and business shall not be eligible for this program. The Department of the Interior shall be charged with enforcing and policing new applicants and auditing those within program to ensure compliance with the program's standards and requirements.

3.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

4.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.


SECTION 4. WHITE ROOFTOP INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATELY OWNED BUILDINGS

1.) All local, state, and regional administrative officials will be subsidized 25% for the hiring of construction workers to paint black rooftops of government buildings the color white.

2.) All individuals, households, and business owners will be subsidized 25% for the hiring of construction workers to paint black rooftops of houses and businesses white.

SECTION 5. REGIONAL PUBLIC BANKING SYSTEM

1.) All regions of the Republic of Atlasia are bestowed the option of creating individual public banks, the creation of which will be subsidized 35% per region by the federal government.

2.) Regional banks will be delegated with the duties
    To assist local banks with capital and liquidity requirements
    To provide loans & loan guarantees
    To provide assistance to borrowers in areas of job retention
    To provide assistance to borrowers in technology creation
    To provide assistance to small businesses and businesses of retail, and
    To participate in community service projects

3.) All revenues collected by each region shall be deposited in their respective banks.

4.) Funds that are deposited in a regional bank shall not transmit services to other regions or countries unless funds are prescribed to via a budget item of the region in control of the bank.

5.) 35% of a bank's earnings will be remitted to the region's Treasury.  If a treasury is not in place, the region will be responsible for establishing one.

6.) A regional bank will be responsible for keeping a record of all transactions and writing summaries which shall convey expectation and outlook of growth and inflation over each upcoming year.  The region's Treasury will be designated with the responsibility of annually checking the bank for organization of these records and efficiency in management.

7.) No individual, co-partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to subscribe for or to hold at any time more than $25,000 par value of stock in a regional bank.

SECTION 6. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FORBIDDANCE

Section 2, subsection 4 of the Worker's Bill of Rights Act is hereby amended:

Quote
4. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, political affiliation, religious affiliation, marital status, veterans' status, or employment status in membership to unions or employment, except where a government-issued waiver is granted for special circumstances, including, but not limited to: political organizations or work requiring certain attributes or skills.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (At Final Vote)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 06, 2012, 11:26:53 PM
AYE


The bill has not been updated on the first post with the amendment passed for section 3.

That is good, because if had been updated, it meant that someone had hacked my account. I usually leave the OP as introduced and then post "Current Texts" every so many pages, then a final text at the start of the vote (unless of course something weird happens like last night). It is good way to flush out Senators who don't pay attention.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (On the President's Desk)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 15, 2012, 12:17:58 AM
Vote on fianl passage of the Jobs Now Act of 2012:

Aye (4): Ben, NC Yankee, sbane, Scott
Nay (1): Redalgo
Abstain (2): Clarence and Seatown

Didn't Vote (3): AndrewTX/BK, NVTownsend, TJ in Cleve/Hagrid

With four votes in the affirmative and one in the negative and time having expired, the bill is passed and is presented to the President for executive action.