SB 2018-295: No Child Should Live in Poverty Act (Debating)

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People's House of Representatives
Passed 7-0-1-1 in the Atlasian House Assembled
[/quote]

Sponsor: Needed

[Mr. Reactionary]

I will sponsor this.

However, I want to also see the figures for what this would cost in net terms. Did the House do an assessment, or will we need one conducted? This strikes me as being potentially quite expensive.

We will def need a study. And the funding source is very blunt.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I thought we were waiting for GM numbers to see if this violates pay-go or not. We still need a study. Objection.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I didn't. Has the sponsor?

[Mr. Reactionary]

The Senate should probably pass this soon.

Shouldn't they study it first? We still dont have numbers.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Any news on the funding for this bill?

Not at this time.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So some preliminary numbers for 1 year:

The cost of the tax credit as written would be approximately $56.954 Billion

A 5% cut to defense spending would be $27.110 Billion

I havent scored the revenue enhancement bill yet

[Mr. Reactionary]

So even with the defense cut we are still woefully short, which is pretty much what I expected.

I had a conversation with Pericles the week before Christmas about using a range of funding options, both to mitigate the cut to defense and to ensure we had enough. It seems though even I was under estimating the extent of the differential from the defense cut and the cost of the tax credits.

A lot of these bills involving flinging spaghetti at the walls funding attempts with just random % changes to "taxes on teh rich" without actually considering the cost prior to my scoring are starting to look woefully short, especially when compared with the anticipated deficit. Ive got most of the already passed budget adjustments done save for more intangible scores like "effect of criminal reform", "effect of VA privatization", and "increase in GDP due to deregulation" but I dont anticipate those wiping out most of the deficit. Last years deficit was over $800 billion and after subtracting out $22 billion in disaster aid most of our accumulated savings are only totaling $37 Billion with the biggest ticket savings being $23 billion from the estate tax increase (which apparently may now be diverted), $4.2 billion from federal pension changes, $13.2 billion from the government efficiency act (which is a generous determination), $3.7 billion from Superfund taxes, and $11 billion from eliminating Davis Bacon. I hope to have spreadsheets up as soon as I can.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This amendment steals 90% of the revenues from a large tax increase intended for deficit reduction and pisses them away. I would hope someone from Labor can explain to Pericles why that is dumb.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I've already explained this amendment in a previous post, both bills are now very beneficial.

That implies that my bill reducing the deficit was not beneficial unless it instead funds your bs. You will never make inroads on the deficit if you piss away all net savings on new spending. In the balanced budget thread, Labor pretty much said, deficit spending is OK ... during recessions. In Atlasia our economy is improving and u employment is down, that is when lefty Keynesians think you should pay down the deficit to be prepared for a future recession. Blowing up the deficit now is like Bush level voodoo economics, and paying for income tax reductions purely with sin tax increases is risky as consumption based taxes are not as stable as income based. This bill will just make it that much harder for future administrations to reduce the deficit.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Time to vote imo-therefore I motion for just that.

What happens if the revenue Enhancement act fails in the House?