Hiring Incentives Act [FAIL'D]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bill Slot: 7
Sponsor: Bacon King

[Bacon King]

There should be some sort of restrictions placed into this bill. Companies could easily game this law by racking up tax credits through hiring and subsequently firing a bunch of people, or by putting a bunch of "phantom" employees on their payroll who don't exist, or maybe real people who work five hours a week. This could guarantee any owner immoral enough to do such a thing effectively a year without taxes.

Also, I don't know the nuances of the Social Security system, but would businesses not paying social security taxes have any adverse affect on that employee's future retirement benefits?

[k-onmmunist]

I think Bacon King has good points, but overall, I love this bill to be honest. The DoI will support this.

[Franzl]

I am reluctant to support something of this sort unless it is fully paid for.

[Badger]

I am reluctant to support something of this sort unless it is fully paid for.

Sounds like a good reason to have a budget in place.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I am reluctant to support something of this sort unless it is fully paid for.

The point of the Act would be to stimulate employment by lessening the burden on hiring and giving people an incentive to expand their business. Placing another burden somewhere else to lessen another burden here would seem to me to be a pointless exercise.

And, to be frank, we have plenty of revenue that will build up over the months and years from our new income tax brackets that more than cover such a temporary expenditure.

I also remember quite a few votes from you in the past that don't seem to live up to that statement. Shall I look them up?

[Marokai Backbeat]

There should be some sort of restrictions placed into this bill. Companies could easily game this law by racking up tax credits through hiring and subsequently firing a bunch of people, or by putting a bunch of "phantom" employees on their payroll who don't exist, or maybe real people who work five hours a week. This could guarantee any owner immoral enough to do such a thing effectively a year without taxes.

I have no problem with some restrictions to ensure these benefits are not gamed, but I think you're overreacting a bit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe so. I also don't recall this ever becoming an issue when these proposals were put forward in real life, which you think it would.

[Franzl]

I also remember quite a few votes from you in the past that don't seem to live up to that statement. Shall I look them up?

You're right...but it isn't an excuse to expect a vote from me every time

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What is the unemployment benefits policy in Atlasia? I'm tempted to support this but I'm also skepitcal that it may worsen the deficit.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Perhaps this could be paid for in part by the new revenue towards the SBA? (Assuming that the Break The Chains Act passes.)

[Purple State]

For this and future legislation, I ask that the Senate consider clauses that place the implementation of legislation under the auspices of an executive office.

[Franzl]

Perhaps this could be paid for in part by the new revenue towards the SBA? (Assuming that the Break The Chains Act passes.)

That's quite a good idea, actually.

[Bacon King]

Amendment, offered and accepted as friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Changes in bold.

[Franzl]

No Love for neutralizing the costs through Break The Chains?

[Bacon King]

I'd prefer that be brought up as a seperate (nonfriendly) amendment, if you even want to bring it up before we have a budget in place, which we might have again soon. Regardless, it would defintely be something requiring debate. Spending a sizeable portion of the Break the Chains Act money on this seems to be against the spirit of that bill, especially concerning the lack of size restrictions on manufacturing firms here. Not really under the purview of the Small Business Administration.

[Bacon King]

With no objections, the amendment has been added to the bill. If nobody has anything else to add, I'll be moving this to a final vote shortly.

[Bacon King]

Alright, Senators, the bill below is now at final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bacon King]

Aye

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Aye

[Franzl]

Nay

[Badger]

I'd prefer that be brought up as a seperate (nonfriendly) amendment, if you even want to bring it up before we have a budget in place, which we might have again soon. Regardless, it would defintely be something requiring debate. Spending a sizeable portion of the Break the Chains Act money on this seems to be against the spirit of that bill, especially concerning the lack of size restrictions on manufacturing firms here. Not really under the purview of the Small Business Administration.

I have to agree with BK here. Although I actually DO have love for the idea, Franzl, the BTC Act was just passed so we should wait and see how well the SBA is able to make use of the revenue raised. If it later turns out the SBA seems to have more money than it can effectively use, then I'd certainly support the idea of diverting the surplus towards paying for this measure. This will be easier to measure once we have an actual budget in place.

Speaking of that budget, it sure would be helpful to put in context of how much this bill is expected to cost. While I support the intent and economic theory of this bill, my initial impulse is that $4k and $7.5k still seems awfully high. That said, as real life has been a bitch this week and kept me from contributing to debate on this measure, I'll consider the measure as is rather than parsing the numbers now that a vote has begun.

Despite some reservations about the costs, overall this is a step in the correct direction. In balancing the need for stimulating the economy and encouraging hiring, versus avoiding the deficit's growth, the current economic climate makes the former a much higher priority. Accordingly, I vote:

AYE.

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[Bacon King]

Vote still ongoing, this is just an update...

Senators voting aye: Bacon King, AHDuke, Libertas, Badger, Hans-im-Glück (5)
Senators voting nay: Franzl (1)
Senators abstaining: none (0)

Senators yet to vote: Bgwah, Bullmoose88, Dallasfan65, NCYankee (4)

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.