SB 8610: GAIN Act

[YE]

For those convinced that and/or campaigning on the idea that the deficit can be eliminated through only military cuts and taxes on "the rich", please take note that once again those deficit-cutting proposals are being looted to pay for something new rather than the large existing deficit. It is increasingly looking like the big tax changes in the revenue Enhancement act and this massive increase in tax rates including a 58% rate (which is evil) will result in little change to the deficit at all. I fail to see how the deficit can be reduced through rich taxes and military cuts given this strong push by 1 Senator to piss away the only deficit reductions the majority party has really advocated for. We couldn't even convince the Senate to eliminate a bunch of corporate welfare spending last fall.

AFAIK, this bill in its current form is on hold for deficit reduction reasons.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Sweet. I recognize big tax increases I dislike are probably still likely to effect the deficit reduction but I am reassured that at least we wont be pissing away big tax increases entirely on new stuff without addressing the deficit at all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think one thing that is probably worth pointing out is that the underlying IRL legislation was written for a country with a $7.25 minimum wage and a 10% bottom tax rate, while we currently have a $10.50 minimum wage (set to further increase if the House passes the minimum wage text the Senate passed) and a reduction in the bottom tax rate is being discussed.

To be fair, Khanna also supports a $15 minimum wage (yes, you know that but I'm not sure most Southern senators do as they don't follow Democratic politics IRL as much as the the rest of the body if I had to guess) so that means in his view, this proposal would be fine with a $15 minimum wage.

But Khanna supports both proposals against a backdrop of neither existing in a RL situation where the minimum wage is as Sestak said much lower and the other programs don't exist. It would be counterproductive for someone in that position to hold back when the whole discussion runs contrary to the objectives desired as to this point little has been accomplished in this regard here.

That is not the case here, we have a rather generous health subsidy, which is not the case in RL and we have higher a minimum wage. This backdrop allows us to be more discerning in our approach and to make choices rather than just copy/pasting the real life agenda of a RL politician, elements of which are probably dictated by throwing stuff at the board until it actually sticks or said better, the beginning of a negotiating position.

As to the minimum wage, I support it being in the neighborhood of $10-$12, indexed to inflation and also with a gradient based on living standards in a given area rather than having $15 be uniform for New York and Wayne County, NC.

Would Khanna withdraw his sponsorship of his bill if a $15 minimum wage though? That I'm not sure of but I felt the need to point it out just so everyone's on the same page.

No Khanna wouldn't necessarily, because he is trying to drag the overton window back in that direction. That doesn't mean that such would be be adopted wholesale. More likely one would be and another would be moderated or both would be moderated before they passed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That moment when you realize your post from four days ago is the last one on the thread.

[Pericles]

An amendment is being planned for this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the status/progress on this one, Pericles?

Like with the other one where I asked the same of Lech, I would prefer to have regular posted updates so we can see the progress and thereby judge estimated completion and assist with completion. Also could thus allow for us to determine if we need to proceed with this at a later time.

[YE]

What is the status/progress on this one, Pericles?

Like with the other one where I asked the same of Lech, I would prefer to have regular posted updates so we can see the progress and thereby judge estimated completion and assist with completion. Also could thus allow for us to determine if we need to proceed with this at a later time.

Last I heard, the plan was to replace the EITC and CTC tax credit along with a Basic Earnings Credit and a Minimum Child Credit. I was told explicitly of this on January 29, and since then, I'll just say the political landscape between those involved with this has changed so unless I can get assurances that this is somehow still in the works, I'd be in favor of scrapping everything but the higher income tax hike (if we can agree on that). That isn't stopping you all from finishing the rest of bill per se(and in fact, I'd encourage you to do so), but at the same time, we can't let bills rot.

Of course, it's worth noting there's a bill in the House floor that raises the minimum wage to $12.500 at the same time that we're debating this.

[Pericles]

This will be done. And I don't get your bizarre hatred for low-income tax cuts YE, especially as it supposedly stops some magical non-existent bill that you claim to prefer. There is absolutely no way I will let this be scrapped. I have already had to rebut your tired and dumb arguments repeatedly. This bill is worthwhile and beneficial to millions of Atlasians. Furthermore, I want to wait until the presidential results as how we proceed would be different depending on if you, tmthforu, or someone else somehow get elected.

[YE]

Oh, you misunderstood my comment. I’m not against, based on what the rough outline that I’ve been told is in the works, the potential modified version of this bill but I don’t want bills to become stale on the Senate floor. It sets a bad precedent for just procrastinating on unfinished bills and discourages debate.

[Pericles]

Oh, you misunderstood my comment. I’m not against, based on what the rough outline that I’ve been told is in the works, the potential modified version of this bill but I don’t want bills to become stale on the Senate floor. It sets a bad precedent for just procrastinating on unfinished bills and discourages debate.

Ok, well that's more justifiable but I was concerned by your comments previously and on Discord when I do strongly feel this bill will be beneficial. I have also shown the amendment proposal to Senator DevoutCentrist and have contact with the original proposer.

[YE]

Oh, you misunderstood my comment. I’m not against, based on what the rough outline that I’ve been told is in the works, the potential modified version of this bill but I don’t want bills to become stale on the Senate floor. It sets a bad precedent for just procrastinating on unfinished bills and discourages debate.

Ok, well that's more justifiable but I was concerned by your comments previously and on Discord when I do strongly feel this bill will be beneficial. I have also shown the amendment proposal to Senator DevoutCentrist and have contact with the original proposer.

I mean I did introduce a negative income tax credit in Fremont as FM so I do have some record as a pro-tax cutting FM but also feel that in the event we're destined to increase public spending, revenues to some extent need to go up.

For full disclosure, here was what I had to say re: when I first found out about the original proposal:
[11:12 AM] Yellow_Evan: it's better but I'm still not sure if it's wise to cut taxes for lower incomes with the deficit as is
[11:31 AM] Yellow_Evan: That’s fine I suppose; my earlier comment was just a general note not just specific to this bill

The bolded bit is good to hear, BTW, so at least both Fremont Senators are on the same page - something I didn't expect to be the case given the political events of the last week and a half.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wasn't there suppose to be an amendment for this at some point? Been over two weeks now!

[YE]

Wasn't there suppose to be an amendment for this at some point? Been over two weeks now!

Just saw this now.

Yea, there was, and I intended to try to write it, but at this point, the sponsor is no longer a senator, and I think, judging by the presidential debate answers, the new president isn’t fond of the part of the bill that causes it to pass paygo.

[Pericles]

I can still help write the amendment as a citizen, by the time Atlasia settled down rl was very busy.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

I'll just post this here even though progress seems to have stagnated on this bill:

Now that the tax revenue numbers are complete, a more detailed cost analysis is in order. As it turns out, the initial estimate that I posted a few weeks ago was way off. 100 billion dollars off, in fact. My new analysis shows that the tax increases outlined in this bill would only generate, at most, 73.9 +/- 5 billion dollars in new revenues, only half of the cost estimate of the RL bill (141 billion dollars).

Now here's a fun fact: in order to fund this bill in its current form, the current top marginal tax bracket would have to be taxed at a rate of 78.8%.

Another fun fact: even if the top two marginal tax rates were increased to 100%, the resulting new revenues would total 327 billion dollars, only about 60% of the current projected deficit, and only 2.3 times the per-year cost of the Brown-Khanna bill. Ultimately, not enough people make up the top two tax brackets for 'tax the rich' solutions to work as an effective source of new revenues; if income tax increases are to be used as such, then the lower bracket rates would have to be upped as well.

[Former President tack50]

Well, while this tax cut for the poor and middle class is fine, there is a very big problem with funding. A 58% income tax is (barely) on the level that I consider acceptable.

Since it doesn't comply with paygo rules, I think this needs an ammendment reducing the amount of the cut (and maybe also reducing the maximum income tax rate if the EITC is reduced enough).

There is also the possibility of funding this through cuts in other areas of government. Mr. Reactionary identified up to 20 billion $ that coult (theoretically) be cut in the department of agriculture alone. There were also further areas identified that could be cut.

While taking all those cuts would be a bad idea, if this is to pass in its current form, there will need to be some cuts somewhere, this can't be funded just by an increase in the income tax.

[YE]

I’ll look through my records but pretty sure the plan proposed was to replace the EITC and a few other tax credits with something more progressive.