S4: Repeal of the Elimination of Income Tax Act (Failed)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: West_Midlander

[Classic Conservative]

I'm strongly opposed to this bill.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

As I ran in my campaign I fully believe that the income tax should come back for people who make over $75,000 with a 40% tax all those who take $150,000 more so I fully support this bill

[West_Midlander]

I think this bill is necessary in order to raise revenues in order to fund infrastructure, in order to tackle our unemployment, the largest in the nation, among other things.

[Leinad]

I think this bill is necessary in order to raise revenues in order to fund infrastructure, in order to tackle our unemployment, the largest in the nation, among other things.

Have you done any sort of calculations that prove, without a doubt, that regardless of what we do regarding corporate taxes, that the personal income tax must be reintroduced? Or is it just "oh no the Chamber [unanimously] got rid of a tax, we need to bring it back!!!"

[fhtagn]

Wasn't it just argued last session that there was an excessive surplus?

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

I think this bill is necessary in order to raise revenues in order to fund infrastructure, in order to tackle our unemployment, the largest in the nation, among other things.

Have you done any sort of calculations that prove, without a doubt, that regardless of what we do regarding corporate taxes, that the personal income tax must be reintroduced? Or is it just "oh no the Chamber [unanimously] got rid of a tax, we need to bring it back!!!"

I think he's doing because he wants money for the LEARN act, which costs 146 billion dollars, according to AZ's cost estimate (bad idea IMO).

[West_Midlander]

I think this bill is necessary in order to raise revenues in order to fund infrastructure, in order to tackle our unemployment, the largest in the nation, among other things.

Have you done any sort of calculations that prove, without a doubt, that regardless of what we do regarding corporate taxes, that the personal income tax must be reintroduced? Or is it just "oh no the Chamber [unanimously] got rid of a tax, we need to bring it back!!!"

I think he's doing because he wants money for the LEARN act, which costs 146 billion dollars, according to AZ's cost estimate (bad idea IMO).

Infrastructure is important also. If the Governor cares that we have the largest regional unemployment.

EDIT: Wouldn't an increased corporate tax potentially drive corporations out of the South or overseas, further compounding our unemployment crisis?

[fhtagn]

I think this bill is necessary in order to raise revenues in order to fund infrastructure, in order to tackle our unemployment, the largest in the nation, among other things.

Have you done any sort of calculations that prove, without a doubt, that regardless of what we do regarding corporate taxes, that the personal income tax must be reintroduced? Or is it just "oh no the Chamber [unanimously] got rid of a tax, we need to bring it back!!!"

I think he's doing because he wants money for the LEARN act, which costs 146 billion dollars, according to AZ's cost estimate (bad idea IMO).

Infrastructure is important also. If the Governor cares that we have the largest regional unemployment.

EDIT: Wouldn't an increased corporate tax potentially drive corporations out of the South or overseas, further compounding our unemployment crisis?

Infrastructure is important, but 146 billion dollars is a lot of money out of the pockets of working class people, who stand to be the most hurt by this.

And once again, there were arguments last session about having too big of a surplus in the budget. Why not use what is already not being used?

[West_Midlander]

I think this bill is necessary in order to raise revenues in order to fund infrastructure, in order to tackle our unemployment, the largest in the nation, among other things.

Have you done any sort of calculations that prove, without a doubt, that regardless of what we do regarding corporate taxes, that the personal income tax must be reintroduced? Or is it just "oh no the Chamber [unanimously] got rid of a tax, we need to bring it back!!!"

I think he's doing because he wants money for the LEARN act, which costs 146 billion dollars, according to AZ's cost estimate (bad idea IMO).

Infrastructure is important also. If the Governor cares that we have the largest regional unemployment.

EDIT: Wouldn't an increased corporate tax potentially drive corporations out of the South or overseas, further compounding our unemployment crisis?

Infrastructure is important, but 146 billion dollars is a lot of money out of the pockets of working class people, who stand to be the most hurt by this.

And once again, there were arguments last session about having too big of a surplus in the budget. Why not use what is already not being used?

The remaining surplus isn't enough for either providing higher education for the poor and/or paying for substantial amounts of infrastructure building.

[diptheriadan]

How would we go about the creation of the new income tax? Could we just include it in here?

[West_Midlander]

How would we go about the creation of the new income tax? Could we just include it in here?

It's just a repeal of the repeal bill. The old income tax is reinstated and we can amend that as needed from there.

[Leinad]

Infrastructure is important also. If the Governor cares that we have the largest regional unemployment.

Ah yes, the classic "I disagree with your way of "fixing things" -> I don't want things to be fixed" fallacy

How would we go about the creation of the new income tax? Could we just include it in here?

It's just a repeal of the repeal bill. The old income tax is reinstated and we can amend that as needed from there.

That's kind of silly though, no? So this is just a bill with no real articulated need--just based on a guess that we won't be able to afford throwing money at everything as it is--without even any clue of what to do next? One could even argue the validity of the "old income tax," considering it's just the RL state tax codes (and state laws are a rarely-acknowledged part of Atlasia and thus a little fuzzy on exactly how it works).

[West_Midlander]

We simply don't have enough surplus to pay for infrastructure and/or the LEARN Act, Mr. Governor. The cost of just the LEARN Act exceeds the remaining surplus and the infrastructure bill was specifically tabled due to a lack of funds (before the LEARN Act came to the floor; the region-wide infrastructure project would greatly exceed our existing ability to fund it and stay out of the red).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm calling for a final vote. Delegates have 48 hours.

[diptheriadan]

Aye

[Classic Conservative]

Nay

[Vern]

Nay

[West_Midlander]

Aye
(I think you should vote Aye b/c not only would increasing the corporation tax not provide enough money to work on education OR infrastructure (even one issue, not both). It would also create increased strain on corporations operating in our region, perhaps exacerbating our unemployment issue.)

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Aye.

[Leinad]

Aye
(I think you should vote Aye b/c not only would increasing the corporation tax not provide enough money to work on education OR infrastructure (even one issue, not both). It would also create increased strain on corporations operating in our region, perhaps exacerbating our unemployment issue.)

Increasing corporate tax revenue =/= increasing corporate tax rates. It could just mean removing loopholes, for example.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

With 3 Ayes and 2 nays, this bill passes.

[West_Midlander]

Aye
(I think you should vote Aye b/c not only would increasing the corporation tax not provide enough money to work on education OR infrastructure (even one issue, not both). It would also create increased strain on corporations operating in our region, perhaps exacerbating our unemployment issue.)

Increasing corporate tax revenue =/= increasing corporate tax rates. It could just mean removing loopholes, for example.

How much would just removing loopholes raise? Perhaps we could do that in addition to the income tax, perhaps reducing the income tax later on.

[diptheriadan]

There's also the chance the reducing loopholes could hurt business.

[Leinad]

With 3 Ayes and 2 nays, this bill passes.

Hmm...maybe.......

...nah

VETO