SENATE BILL: WHITE HOUSE BUDGET PROPOSAL (On the President's Desk)

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

I object to this one.  We know very little about the best ways to teach; slashing the research budget seems misguided to me.

This is for research on eduation and not research at educational institutions, right?

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye

[TJ in Oregon]

This will cost us a considerable amount of tax revenue (about $150 B by my quick calculations) since so many more people pay the lower brackets.

We already tax the wealthy too much in Atlasia considering the top bracket is already 60%. I will not support making it higher while the lower brackets are this light. 35K a year is not poor; we do not need the government to try and "help" people making 35K a year.

[TJ in Oregon]

I object to Amendment 49:24:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[TJ in Oregon]

Not a fan of the higher rich tax rates, TJ?

No. I'm not going to support raising a rate already at 60%, or making the top corporate rate 44% (!). That's too much of other peoples' money right there.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye on Seatown's gas Amendment.

No. I'm not going to support raising a rate already at 60%, or making the top corporate rate 44% (!). That's too much of other peoples' money right there.

Yes, but it's 44% on corporations making at least $15M, a significant amount.  Those who can pay more, should.  We're reducing rates on those who cannot afford to pay, while upping them on those who can.  That's simple fairness, and it makes economic sense, as we're making more now than we did under the original rates.

How are those companies supposed to grow, invest, add jobs to our economy, or heaven forbid, earn money for their shareholders if we're taking 44% of of their profits!? Large companies employ a lot of people and such a drastic increase in their taxes cannot be good for the economy.

I understand the larger companies and wealthier individuals can contribute more money to the government. I'm not advocating a flat tax. But this is too far.

[TJ in Oregon]

The current income tax system is really unfair to the wealthy as the highest bracket is over half of their income and the second one is half, while many in this country pay absolutely nothing in income taxes. I would like to eliminate the 60% tax bracket without wrecking the almost-balanced nature of the budget. Here’s my attempt at an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TJ in Oregon]

Basically I:
-Changed the individual income tax rates to make the system fairer
-Added the proposed gas tax increase
-Cut the Corporate Clean Energy Credit by about half
-Readjusted the Science Funding to stress NSF and Energy rather than the space race
-Cut some of the Green Energy Fund
-Cut Funding to Education Research

[TJ in Oregon]

TJ, does that spending include the new figures from various amendments?

Originally it included just the gas tax increase, but I revised it to also include the veterans' funding increase we also passed. I think those are the only two amendments not related to income taxation we've passed, correct?

Truthfully now that I've noticed that, I'll need to try and find some other things to cut so that we're at least back to where we started from in terms of budget-neutrality relative to the president's proposal. $12 B is a lot to account for...

[TJ in Oregon]

Senator TJ...

Are you proposing increasing taxes on lower and middle-income people to give the wealthy a cut?

Our taxation system is too progressive. I am proposing everyone who has income ought to pay some small amount of income taxes, hoping to remove the 60% tax bracket. Other than that, I am not proposing to cut income taxes for other wealthy brackets. Atlasia is full of poorer young people who pay no taxes, thus have been voting for a progressive scale for so long that the brackets have become absurd.

[TJ in Oregon]

Of course everyone on here can give token complaint that 60% is too high, but I'm the only one who has tried to propose doing anything about it.

[TJ in Oregon]

I’m going to give this another try (my last amendment is withdrawn). Since it isn’t financially feasible to cut out the 60% bracket entirely without coming up with more cuts, I’m proposing to split the difference and make it 55%. Here’s my newest amendment attempt:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[TJ in Oregon]

What amendments did I miss?

[TJ in Oregon]

Sorry for making this much more complicated than it needs to be.

I'm withdrawing all of my previous amendments and just proposing this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

            

[TJ in Oregon]

Sorry for making this much more complicated than it needs to be.

I'm withdrawing all of my previous amendments and just proposing this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

            

Careful... based off of this, it looks like you can pay nothing if you have over $2.5 M.

Thanks... I seemed doomed to mistakes in amendment proposals in this thread for some reason.

[TJ in Oregon]

I still don't see a rate for those making over 2.5M

Look at the bracket above it.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye

[TJ in Oregon]

Don Henley has a song called "You Can't Make Love". In this case, it should be "You Can't Fake Activity"


Of course he also has a song called "You're Not Drinking Enough", which fit just fine as is in situations like these, sbane.

I believe Amendment 49:31 was passed first since the 24 hours expired prior to Amendment 49:30 passing by a vote. Since they are contradictory, the more recent amendment should have been adopted, erasing the effects of Amendment 49:31 which also passed. Am I correct?

[TJ in Oregon]

Section 3 of the OSPR reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seatown's amendment takes effect automatically when the 24 hours expires regardless of whether or not it was declared by the PPT.

Thus it was negated approximately three hours later when my contradictory amendment was passed by a vote. It also does not matter whether the passage of this occurs once the necessary votes are in place or when declared by the PPT. Either way, the 6th vote occurred more than 24 hours after Seatown's amendment was announced for unanimous consent.

[TJ in Oregon]

Actually seeing as how Seatown just re-proposed his amendment, I'm going to withdraw my previous consent and think that we ought to follow the rules as I stated before (mine passing is the current state of the bill) and we should vote on Seatown's. If his then passes, then mine would be simultaneously repealed. Does that make sense?

Yankee you're just trying to check and see if we're really paying attention

[TJ in Oregon]

I'm going to object to Seatown's amendment like I should have done to begin with

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay on 49:36

[TJ in Oregon]

To our GM/SoEA/Amendment Sponsor:

How would the proposed military budget cuts affect our operations?

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye