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

[Pericles]

Given that the Revenue Adjustment Act can fully fund this bill, I offer this amendment.

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]

[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.

[Lechasseur]

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.

Yeah, tbh I don't have anything against this bill iedeologically, if it were affordable I'd vote for it. But it really does seem like it costs too much when we could be using the money for other things.

[Pericles]

I've already explained this amendment in a previous post, both bills are now very beneficial. This is a far better use of the funds than originally intended, and it's not dumb because this is used effectively. The budget exist to fund worthwhile government services-this is one of them.

[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.

[Pericles]

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

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

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

[Sestak]

First of all, there's no "Revenue Adjustment Act" - I'm going to grammar-amend it to "Enhancement".

24 hours to object.

[Sestak]

Can we please start voting now? Objection time has expired.

There are another 12 hours left to run.

[Sestak]

A final vote is now open. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Pericles]

Aye

[MAINEiac4434]

Aye!

[Lechasseur]

Nay

[YE]

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.

Yeah, tbh I don't have anything against this bill iedeologically, if it were affordable I'd vote for it. But it really does seem like it costs too much when we could be using the money for other things.

To be honest, this. Obama's efforts to cut taxes for low income people back in his first term with little success makes me somewhat more skeptical of low income tax cuts than the sponsor would suggest.

Also keep in mind that IRL taxes in the USA aren't very high in the first place:


Source:  http://money.com/money/4862673/us-tax-burden-vs-oecd-countries/

[Zaybay]

Abstain

[Sestak]

Nay.

[YE]

Nay.

[Sestak]

The vote is 2-2-1.

Aye: Pericles, MAINEiac
Nay: Lechasseur, Sestak
Abstain: Zaybay

Not Voting: NC Yankee


The Senate being equally divided; the Vice President voting in the negative; the bill is defeated.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY ftr