SENATE BILL: Fiscal Year 2014 White House Budget Proposal (Law'd)

[Maxwell]

I'll do the calculation again, but I got that spending was 3491.46B. Maybe something was forgotten, but I'll do the arithmetic again if anyone needs me to.

[Maxwell]

I will look through this budget more thoroughly later, but I like the way this is designed as is.

[Maxwell]

How much of an impact would there be if the top rate was only raised to 55% instead of 60%?

I'm curious of that too. If we are running a small deficit in a time of bad economy, it's probably a good thing.

[Maxwell]

By my estimate, we lose about 56 Billion in revenue if we go to a top rate of 55%, leading to a budget deficit of about 40 Billion.

[Maxwell]

By my estimate, we lose about 56 Billion in revenue if we go to a top rate of 55%, leading to a budget deficit of about 40 Billion.

The Federalist Rich Man's Party: Creating deficits so that the rich can pay less in taxes. So much for fiscal conservatism, eh, boys?

Merely doing the calculation

[Maxwell]

I want to add some proposals/amendments, unfortunately I'm not a Senator.

I was wondering what would happen if we, instead of having that gigantic jump from 40 to 60 in the income tax, add a bracket and lower the top rate a tad? Here's my more specific idea.

$35K-80K (22%)
$80K-170K (30%)
$170K-368K (35%)
$368K-750K (42%)
$750K-2M (50%)
$2M+ (57%)

Obviously, I will go to Griffin with this to see how much revenue we lose/gain by making some small changes, but let's start there. I think 60% is perhaps excessive, but if its the only way, than I guess it may be.

I'm also wondering what would happen if we raise the Financial Transaction tax to 0.6%. I know it's kind of an anti-business move (though we are lowering the corporate tax to 25%), but it would help with revenue.

I have sent these questions to Griffin, so hopefully we won't close this.

I also wanted an extensive at how much education costs in Atlasia, so I wanted to see how much each of our recent education bills cost.

[Maxwell]

I want to get costs before I go forward with an amendment (that some kind Senator hopefully takes up), but I think with a new Senate pretty soon, maybe we should hold off on table talk.

[Maxwell]

I like Sbane's proposal: the 60% rate only for the super duper wealthy.

[Maxwell]

Withdrawing that first amendment, and re-offering it with the rest of the budget.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's better, right?

[Maxwell]

My argument here is we should look everywhere and anywhere for cuts, and we should be relegating the role of governance to the regions if we are planning on lowering their number. Thus, broader, unfocused federal plans can get a slight downsize and if there is the need for more spending, than regions can do it.

[Maxwell]

Aye

[Maxwell]

Can we not do this in every single thread?

[Maxwell]

I understand the level of vindictiveness towards my proposal. However, surely a 75% tax rate would raise far more revenue than we are possibly needing, especially with your cuts to the military (which I support). I know you like sticking it to rich people, and sticking it to them hard, but come on dude, tax rates should be as low as they can while being able to fund the government, and we are doing that properly.

[Maxwell]

I understand the level of vindictiveness towards my proposal. However, surely a 75% tax rate would raise far more revenue than we are possibly needing, especially with your cuts to the military (which I support). I know you like sticking it to rich people, and sticking it to them hard, but come on dude, tax rates should be as low as they can while being able to fund the government, and we are doing that properly.

I respectfully disagree, Senator. Tax rates should be a means by which to redistribute the wealth of society from those who profit from others' hard work to those who created that wealth in the first place, i.e. Atlasian workers.

From other's hard work? Don't give me that. Your definition of work seems to be that of pure physical endurance, stuff like manufacturing. That's not all work. It's not all, but generally, people who are earning on that higher level are working in a different way that still is hard work. And, in general, they worked harder or worked in a smarter way than most people to get there. 60% is enough.

Obviously, I object to this amendment.

[Maxwell]

Which budget estimates do you need specifically? The last several posts of debate seem to just be the same things from a dozen other threads. Do you need a revenue estimate for the new tax bracket or...?

Well, also Sbane's proposals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Maxwell]

How many people actually earn 2.5 million a year?

That doesn't matter. Nix lowered the corporate tax rate to make Atlasia more competitive. Why should we raise the top rate to 75%, which would very effectively move Atlasia backward in terms of competitiveness.

[Maxwell]

Anyways, I am for Sbane's amendments, and I hope we get some numbers in soon.

[Maxwell]

So Sbane's overall proposal costs 13.2B. I want to see what else we can do to fill that gap.

My point was this matter is largely academic (or ideological) because there are only about 5 people (in the uk about 18000 people earn a million a year- but that's doubled because there was a higher tax on bonuses) whose wages are over 2.5 million and they will all change their financial arrangements (which is laughably easy) so they wouldn't have to pay the tax.

What I'm getting at is we can argue about the symbolic or moral effect of a 75% tax, but let's not pretend it would really change anything.

The GM just stated that it would change things though, people emigrating out of this country because they see a better deal elsewhere. Not everyone operates like that, but obviously that's how a lot of people would. Especially since we do not have the enormous tax incentives that the 50s had for people (where the effective rate is about the same as it is today).

Either way, TNF totally acknowledges that this isn't about revenue, it's about sticking it to rich people.

[Maxwell]

Actually forget the first part of my post, using all of Sbane's proposals in a row, it actually adds another 15B to our surplus. My question for the Senator is are you going to continue to have your amendments in the broken up nature they are currently in, or propose them as a block budget amendment?

[Maxwell]

Sbane's proposal creates enough more revenue as it is, also considering we have a surplus.

[Maxwell]

Sbane's proposal creates enough more revenue as it is, also considering we have a surplus.

Why not create more that can be spent on those who need it most? If you're making over $2.5 M you can pay a bit more. I won't shed a tear over any rich kid who misses out on a new yacht if it means we can double or triple education funding.

You make people pay a whole 25% more income (or, if you think I am being biased, 15 points). That's not a bit more, that's quiet a lot more. But framing aside, this is again apart of your world view that all rich people are these scoundrels and leeches, I don't think it's healthy for the conversation. Besides, 60% is more than fair in Atlasia terms, I think, and probably the top level before we very deeply and severely hit into our ability to compete across the globe.

[Maxwell]

Nay

[Maxwell]

Deficit spending during a recession isn't terrible, but we have a bill on the way that will cost a lot (the basic income guarantee), and the worry is that it will already put us in a deficit, which is why there is a current surplus.

[Maxwell]

Aye

[Maxwell]

Does anyone find it funny that people talk about robbing the people blind government surpluses like they are positive things?

It all depends on the basic income bill. I'd be willing to lower the surplus if there was a cost attached to a final version of that. That would give more of a sense of what our deficit will really look like.