Fiscal Responsibility Bill [On President's Desk]
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:38:48 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Fiscal Responsibility Bill [On President's Desk]
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Author Topic: Fiscal Responsibility Bill [On President's Desk]  (Read 12353 times)
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 25, 2009, 11:09:46 PM »
« edited: December 03, 2009, 02:50:40 AM by Sen. Marokai Blue, PPT »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Sponsor: Marokai Blue
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2009, 11:10:10 PM »

It's high time that we get serious about the fact that revenue is much needed. We can no longer continue instituting vast (but very useful, in my mind) spending programs and strengthening the safety net without some form of paying for it. We can't cut taxes forever, nor can we spend forever.

This proposal raises taxes on the current two highest tax brackets, and creates a new tax bracket targeting income over one million dollars. Keeping in mind the Income Tax Reduction Act, the bottom tax bracket is raised in this proposal by 1%, from 0. To compensate for what this may sound like, it's more than made up for by the fact that a previous proposal from Afleitch which was vetoed by President Lief, a 1% tax cut on the second tax bracket, is included, as well as a $1,300 increase in the standard income tax reduction.

The goal here, is three pronged. One, making sure that all individuals are taxed as fairly and progressively as possible, though I personally wish it went further in this regard, it accomplishes this decently enough.

Two, drastically increasing our revenues to help balance our financial situation while protecting the most vulnerable at the same time. It does this quite well, making sure all incomes are taxed, but special protection given to the bottom.

Three, it shifts the burden higher up, and will go further to reduce record levels of income inequality in Atlasia. This won't solve the problem overnight, but it will slow it without harming the economy.

I believe this proposal is fair, reasonable, and done in the most careful and responsible of ways.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2009, 11:49:08 PM »

Could the Senator provide us with a copy of the existing brackets, which this would replace?
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2009, 01:14:32 AM »

What is the point of the 1% taxation on the lower bracket?
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2009, 03:52:47 AM »

In general, this bill has the right idea. Tax cuts for the lower classes and a higher 50% bracket from a certain point on.

I believe in progressive taxation, and I also believe in cutting the deficit.


One thing I don't agree with here is the marriage penalty for couples that make $1 Mio. together. I see no reason we should not allow them both individually to earn that amount before coming into the 50% bracket.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2009, 04:32:46 AM »

I think looking at this issue is long overdue and while I'll need to run through the figures I have no concerns over the intent of this bill and what it wishes to address. My one qualm is the 1% tax rate for bottom earners. I understand why this has been proposed as it demonstrates that tax rises will affect everyone but the cost to the fed of administering the collection of 1% of income from may outweight any financial gain.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2009, 07:16:44 AM »

It should go beyond 50% for the wealthier.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2009, 07:17:44 AM »


Be happy I'm willing to go that far. Take what you can get Smiley
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2009, 07:36:10 AM »

There's no point in a 1% rate. Just don't tax income under $8,025. I also think that a 50% rate should cut in much earlier than a million, but I suspect that I might be in a small minority on that Tongue
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2009, 09:36:45 AM »

There's no point in a 1% rate. Just don't tax income under $8,025. I also think that a 50% rate should cut in much earlier than a million, but I suspect that I might be in a small minority on that Tongue

I agree on the 1% with you and Afleitch, we might as well just raise the standard deduction and start taxation at 10% or so from a certain point.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2009, 10:49:11 AM »

There's no point in a 1% rate. Just don't tax income under $8,025. I also think that a 50% rate should cut in much earlier than a million, but I suspect that I might be in a small minority on that Tongue


Believe me, I agree with both of you personally that it should go beyond 50%, but I doubt such a thing would pass the Senate.

As for the 1% bump in the bottom bracket, I'd be fine with removing it since I see no point in putting up a big fight over it.

In general, this bill has the right idea. Tax cuts for the lower classes and a higher 50% bracket from a certain point on.

I believe in progressive taxation, and I also believe in cutting the deficit.

One thing I don't agree with here is the marriage penalty for couples that make $1 Mio. together. I see no reason we should not allow them both individually to earn that amount before coming into the 50% bracket.

50% above a million in income is quite alot of money to tax even for both of them, even if I agree there's an inconsistency. I worry about losing revenue if we simplify that penalty too much.
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2009, 11:08:56 AM »

Nay
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2009, 01:15:41 PM »


Don't ever claim to be a fiscal conservative again.
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2009, 02:07:11 PM »


I don't support tax hikes. The better way is to cut spending.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2009, 02:08:34 PM »


And you know perfectly well that you won't find a majority in the Senate to cut the programs you'd like to.

Now you have a choice between:

a.) paying for these programs
b.) running up the deficit.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2009, 03:16:56 PM »

I want a higher bracket, Franzl wants to lessen the penalty for being married, Afleitch & Al want to keep the bottom rate 0%, so let's combine them in this amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2009, 03:18:08 PM »

I'm satisfied with that compromise. In exchange for having over $15,000 tax free and married couples not being punished as much, I have no problem accepting the highest bracket.
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2009, 05:24:52 PM »


And you know perfectly well that you won't find a majority in the Senate to cut the programs you'd like to.

Now you have a choice between:

a.) paying for these programs
b.) running up the deficit.

I made my choice. It's to cut spending. I don't care if their isn't a majority. I don't have to sign on to tax increases.
Logged
Hans-im-Glück
Franken
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,970
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -5.94, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2009, 01:28:40 PM »

I want a higher bracket, Franzl wants to lessen the penalty for being married, Afleitch & Al want to keep the bottom rate 0%, so let's combine them in this amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would support this.
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2009, 01:54:51 PM »

Don't punish the rich like that! If you take into account regional and local sales taxes, they will pay almost 3/4 of their income in taxes. I support increasing revenue, but please don't do it this way. After all, %1,000,001 in NYC is merely middle-class, whereas in a rural area it's pretty f#$%ing rich!
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2009, 02:36:55 PM »


lol

Poor creatures. After all, they're the ones who are really suffering right now!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Diddums.

SAD FACE Sad Sad Sad

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A million dollars a year is rich, full stop.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2009, 03:39:17 PM »


Poor riches, indeed. Sure they will suffer from the lack of money...
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2009, 04:15:39 PM »

A preliminary estimate by the Office of the GM predicts this bill will bring in between $250 billion and $600 billion. A more detailed analysis will come in the next week or so.
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2009, 04:25:21 PM »
« Edited: November 27, 2009, 04:36:53 PM by Governor Vepres »


*Grumble*Europeans*Grumble*

1. You punish people for being successful.
2. You discourage people from being ambitious (a positive trait in many cases).
3. Who do you think gives people the money they need to start a small business? Rich people.
4. Many wealthy people donate a lot of money to charities.
5. Gee, I wonder who creates jobs in this country? Certainly not some poor guy from Alabama.

BTW, stop with the obeboism Tongue


lol

Poor creatures. After all, they're the ones who are really suffering right now!

So, you'd rather have everybody suffer right now? To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, "...you'd rather the poor be poorer, provided the gap between rich and poor was smaller."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Diddums.

SAD FACE Sad Sad Sad[/quote]

How would you feel if you spent your whole life struggling to work up the ladder only to find that the government takes 3/4 of your income when you get to the top?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A million dollars a year is rich, full stop.
[/quote]

Roll Eyes I take it you don't know anybody who has lived in a big city. In NYC $1,000,000 a year is upper middle-class at best if you want to live in a decent area.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2009, 04:54:40 PM »

1. You punish people for being successful.

So you consider than succes=money ? In the perfect world it would certainly be so, in the perfect world of Adam Smith when private interests always cause the greatest good possible. In our world it isn't so. And anyways I DON'T PUNISH THEM. Taw is not a punishment, but the contribution anyone should give to the common interest.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't worry, people won't stop to be ambitious just because they will give 60% of their income to the State instead of 50%. When you are so rich, those numbers don't mean anything, except if you are Oncle Scrooge.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who else does ? The State. How do you finance the State ?


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Charity doesn't solve social problem. It can act in the short term and the most desperate cases. Plus, charities make people feel indebted for what they received, whereas a decent life should be a right.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same answer than question 3.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 12 queries.