LC 2.28 Resolution to Establish the Budget of the Lincoln Government (Debating)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:55:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  LC 2.28 Resolution to Establish the Budget of the Lincoln Government (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: LC 2.28 Resolution to Establish the Budget of the Lincoln Government (Debating)  (Read 4140 times)
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 04, 2019, 11:27:10 AM »
« edited: June 29, 2019, 06:54:57 PM by tack50 »

Quote
IN THE LINCOLN COUNCIL

A RESOLUTION

Establishing the budget for the Lincoln Government lasting from July 2019 until June 2020

Resolved by the Lincoln Council convened,

Expenditures

Health - $269.89bn + $1.49bn (L603) = $269.89bn

Pensions - $104.40bn + $0bn (LC 11.11) = $104.40bn

Education - $105.19bn + $ 35.63bn (L505, L601, L 12.9, L 13.06) = $140.82bn

Defence - $0.10bn + $0.03bn (L 11.22) = $0.13bn

Transport - $54.18bn + $0.48bn (L 15.6) =$54.66bn

Welfare - $40.93bn + $0.22bn (L 11.4.2, L 14.9) = $41.15bn

General Govt - $20.27bn + -$0.11bn (L513, L 15.9) = $20.16bn

Debt Interest - $23.30bn

Protection - $23.83bn + $4.86bn (L 6.4.3, L 7.3.1, L 10.16.5) = $28.69bn

Other - $31.44bn + $0.98bn (LC 1.13) = $32.42bn

One time additional spending - $39.54bn (L 6.5.1, L 7.1.1, L 7.4.2, L 7.5.1, L 9.10.5, L 10.16.5, L 10.26.5, L 11.17, L 15.3)

===============================

TOTAL EXPENDITURES - $ 755.80 billion

===============================

PROPOSED TAXES

Income tax
0.0%    $0 - $24,999 ($0 B)
10%    $25,000 - $49,9999 ($13.19 B)
15%    $50,000 - $99,999 ($56.40 B)
20%    $100,000 - $249,999 ($118.42 B)
25%   $250,000 - $999,999 ($71.51 B)
30%   $1,000,000 + ($41.87 B)

Rates remain the same for married couples filing jointly, but brackets are doubled.

Cannabis Tax
10% ($2.09 B) + $1.25bn (L10.25.4) = $3.34bn

Other drugs tax (L10.25.4) = $0.58bn

Excise Taxes
Gas: 30.0 cents per gallon ($13.35 B)
Diesel: $0.50 per gallon ($7.41 B)
New automobile purchase tax (by curb weight): $120 per thousand kilograms ($1.02 B)

Luxury Tax
15% ($3.24 B)

Property tax
0.0%    $0 - $24,999 ($0 B)
5%    $25,000 - $49,9999 ($15.53 B)
10%    $50,000 - $99,999 ($54.57 B)
15%    $100,000 - $249,999 ($78.63 B)
20%   $250,000 - $999,999 ($24.21 B)
25%   $1,000,000 + ($7.60 B)

===============================

TOTAL REVENUES - $510.88 B

===============================

PROJECTED DEFICIT - - $ 244.92 B

[/quote]

Sponsor: Pyro

Debate time for this bill has started and shall last for no less than 72 hours

As per the rules of the Lincoln Council and Lincoln Constitution, this bill shall constitute a meaningful vote of confidence in the Pyro Ministry

As per the Lincoln Constitution, a balanced budget is required (unless we pass the Balanced budget repeal amendment in which case this requirement can be overruled through a 2/3 vote)

Early Budget debate for reference: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=319684.0
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2019, 11:56:33 AM »

Mr. Speaker and Fellow Councilors,

We have before us the task to formally establish the budget of our region. In the estimated figured as noted above, our expenditures outweigh our revenue by an intimidating margin, meaning we must, by law, find and codify additional sources of revenue to offset the costs in our baseline expenditures or reduce spending to match the revenue supply.

I may represent the Government and that of the Left in these budget discussions but I am not deaf to the concerns of each side. We will need to make some tough decisions in order to reach a balanced budget, and it is my expectation that we hear everyone out and, ideally, come a consensus on how to proceed.

It would be my position that we avoid cutting spending in any of our crucial social and economic welfare programs, including healthcare and education, in order to achieve this task. The working people of Lincoln depend on these services and it would do them a great disservice to cut such programs unless all other possible options have been exhausted.

We have several avenues for growing our revenue. These shall be debated, presumably at length, in this session of Council. For instance, Lincoln presently does not levy a tax on corporations, nor on financial transactions. I would personally oppose it at the present time, but Lincoln also does not levy a sales tax.

I look forward to these discussions as we accomplish what prior sessions of Council and Assembly have failed to do and prepare a budget outlining the finances of our region. Thank you.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2019, 11:59:41 AM »

The only tax increase I would support is a Land Value Tax. Anything steals from the fruits of ones labor.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2019, 12:01:17 PM »

The only tax increase I would support is a Land Value Tax. Anything steals from the fruits of ones labor.

To clarify, how is a Land Value Tax different than a property tax and would it actually raise more revenue?
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2019, 12:02:26 PM »

The only tax increase I would support is a Land Value Tax. Anything steals from the fruits of ones labor.

To clarify, how is a Land Value Tax different than a property tax and would it actually raise more revenue?


Property tax punishes people for building a house which steals from the fruits of one labor. LVT only taxes the value of the land and any minerals in it. The origin of owning land IMO is not very fair because it was simply planting a flag or whatever and claiming it.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2019, 12:09:41 PM »

The only tax increase I would support is a Land Value Tax. Anything steals from the fruits of ones labor.

To clarify, how is a Land Value Tax different than a property tax and would it actually raise more revenue?


Property tax punishes people for building a house which steals from the fruits of one labor. LVT only taxes the value of the land and any minerals in it. The origin of owning land IMO is not very fair because it was simply planting a flag or whatever and claiming it.

While I certainly find Georgist arguments and Land Value Taxes interesting, I don't think that would solve the problem at hand which is the huge deficit.

I am in favour of repealing the property tax and replacing it with an LVT if we can make that change revenue neutral or revenue positive. An LVT certainly seems better than a property tax on paper; being a progressive tax (not like our current property tax is regressive in the slightest) and being a more economically efficient tax.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2019, 12:20:26 PM »

The only tax increase I would support is a Land Value Tax. Anything steals from the fruits of ones labor.

To clarify, how is a Land Value Tax different than a property tax and would it actually raise more revenue?


Property tax punishes people for building a house which steals from the fruits of one labor. LVT only taxes the value of the land and any minerals in it. The origin of owning land IMO is not very fair because it was simply planting a flag or whatever and claiming it.

That's absurd. A property tax does not punish people for building a house. Real Property taxes are in place in order to ensure that the community in which the home is located is adequately funded - ie, education, public services, etc. Ideally it should never be levied on those who cannot afford it, but it is disingenuous to call it a punishment.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,248
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2019, 01:30:40 PM »

We are spending too much of pensions and healthcare


Also maybe raise the drug taxes


Also, I agree with lfromnj that we should avoid high property taxes
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2019, 05:47:45 PM »

We are spending too much of pensions and healthcare


Also maybe raise the drug taxes


Also, I agree with lfromnj that we should avoid high property taxes

Well, I think we are doing fine on both fronts tbh. Those numbers are actually taken from RL! So are you proposing cuts to pensions and healthcare?

Raising the drug tax might be a good idea though; maybe to 15 or 20%?
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2019, 04:14:07 PM »
« Edited: June 10, 2019, 06:41:43 PM by tack50 »

Since we will (hopefully) pass the Carbon Taxation act, we should probably reflect that in the budget. I present the following amendment to include it into the budget. The total revenue and projected deficit have been uptated accordingly

Amendment L 2:54 by tack50 to LC 2.28 Resolution to Establish the Budget of the Lincoln Government

Quote
IN THE LINCOLN COUNCIL

A RESOLUTION

Establishing the budget for the Lincoln Government lasting from July 2019 until June 2020

Resolved by the Lincoln Council convened,

Expenditures

Health - $269.89bn + $1.49bn (L603) = $269.89bn

Pensions - $104.40bn + $0bn (LC 11.11) = $104.40bn

Education - $105.19bn + $ 35.63bn (L505, L601, L 12.9, L 13.06) = $140.82bn

Defence - $0.10bn + $0.03bn (L 11.22) = $0.13bn

Transport - $54.18bn + $0.48bn (L 15.6) =$54.66bn

Welfare - $40.93bn + $0.22bn (L 11.4.2, L 14.9) = $41.15bn

General Govt - $20.27bn + -$0.11bn (L513, L 15.9) = $20.16bn

Debt Interest - $23.30bn

Protection - $23.83bn + $4.86bn (L 6.4.3, L 7.3.1, L 10.16.5) = $28.69bn

Other - $31.44bn + $0.98bn (LC 1.13) = $32.42bn

One time additional spending - $39.54bn (L 6.5.1, L 7.1.1, L 7.4.2, L 7.5.1, L 9.10.5, L 10.16.5, L 10.26.5, L 11.17, L 15.3)

===============================

TOTAL EXPENDITURES - $ 755.80 billion

===============================

PROPOSED TAXES

Income tax
0.0%    $0 - $24,999 ($0 B)
10%    $25,000 - $49,9999 ($13.19 B)
15%    $50,000 - $99,999 ($56.40 B)
20%    $100,000 - $249,999 ($118.42 B)
25%   $250,000 - $999,999 ($71.51 B)
30%   $1,000,000 + ($41.87 B)

Rates remain the same for married couples filing jointly, but brackets are doubled.

Cannabis Tax
10% ($2.09 B) + $1.25bn (L10.25.4) = $3.34bn

Other drugs tax (L10.25.4) = $0.58bn

Excise Taxes
Gas: 30.0 cents per gallon ($13.35 B)
Diesel: $0.50 per gallon ($7.41 B)
New automobile purchase tax (by curb weight): $120 per thousand kilograms ($1.02 B)

Luxury Tax
15% ($3.24 B)

Property tax
0.0%    $0 - $24,999 ($0 B)
5%    $25,000 - $49,9999 ($15.53 B)
10%    $50,000 - $99,999 ($54.57 B)
15%    $100,000 - $249,999 ($78.63 B)
20%   $250,000 - $999,999 ($24.21 B)
25%   $1,000,000 + ($7.60 B)

Carbon Tax (LC 2.20)
20$ per metric ton of CO2: $35.03 Bc

===============================

TOTAL REVENUES - $545.91 B

===============================

PROJECTED DEFICIT - - $ 209.89 B


Sponsor feedback: 24 hours to specify, otherwise assumed unfriendly
Status: 24 hours to object
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2019, 10:15:18 AM »

The amendment is friendly.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2019, 10:17:40 AM »

Does the carbon tax include the reduction in carbon use due to the tax?
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2019, 10:21:54 AM »

Does the carbon tax include the reduction in carbon use due to the tax?

No idea. I assume Encke already factored that in the calculations so the answer is yes.
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2019, 11:48:03 AM »

Does the carbon tax include the reduction in carbon use due to the tax?

Yes, it should, since the original number that Wallace provided for the Fremont tax bill was derived from a Brookings cost analysis that factored in the reduction of carbon emissions.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2019, 06:43:40 PM »

With no objections, the amendment is added to the bill
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2019, 06:31:28 PM »

Reposting my analysis from the GM Office thread:

Preliminary Analysis of Pyro's Tax Plan

The following contains some analysis of Pyro's tax plan, which he suggested to me via Discord a little over a week ago. The plan contained:

[1] corporate tax brackets of 5% (100K-1M), 10% (1M-10M), and 15% (10M+),
[2] a 30% cap on itemized deductions for households making over $250,000,
[3] equivalent treatment of capital gains and income,
[4] estate tax brackets of 15% (10M-50M) and 20% (50M+),
[5] a 2% tax on alcohol and tobacco products,
[6] a carbon tax akin to Fremont's (already passed in the legislature),
[7] a 1% financial transactions tax on all stock trades,
[8] a 5% tax on covered liabilities for institutions with 50B+ in total assets
[9] a 10% increase to the luxury tax (previously at 15%)
[10] a 1% wealth tax levied on the top 0.1%

Combined, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 generate roughly 171.9 billion dollars in revenue (for reference, the Lincoln deficit is currently around 244 billion). Items 7 and 8 are much, much harder to quantify without more details about the nature of these proposals (which should probably have their own detailed bills). In particular, the suggested 1% FFT seems rather high. Sweden's famous FFT was of similar magnitude, had the result of pushing most trading overseas, and generated less than 5% of initial revenue estimates in any given year.




Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2019, 07:08:46 PM »

Ok, now we need to discuss whether we are going to include all those taxes in the budget or just a few of them. I am personally fine with all of them except the FTT (which should be of 0.1% or possibly a bit lower, not 1%)

With all the items in there, including the FTT and point 8, we should pretty much be able to close the hole entirely.

Even if we don't count those, we would only be 30 billion short, at which point small cuts or small further tax increases could get us through. Or we could just choose to have a small deficit and go for a 2/3 override.
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2019, 07:46:32 PM »

Ok, now we need to discuss whether we are going to include all those taxes in the budget or just a few of them. I am personally fine with all of them except the FTT (which should be of 0.1% or possibly a bit lower, not 1%)

With all the items in there, including the FTT and point 8, we should pretty much be able to close the hole entirely.

Even if we don't count those, we would only be 30 billion short, at which point small cuts or small further tax increases could get us through. Or we could just choose to have a small deficit and go for a 2/3 override.

Small correction, the carbon tax was included in this analysis, since it was part of the tax plan that Pyro gave me. I didn't notice that you'd already factored it into the budget. So we are actually around 70 billion short still.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 15, 2019, 09:12:23 PM »

One of the most garbage tax bills I have seen almost on par with SNJC's tax bill. Doesn't include bracketing on wealth tells you that the maker of the tax bill is economically illiterate and overall just means FINK RICH PEOPLE.

A possible 70% capitals tax gains means a rich man investing 100 million dollars now into a good fund can get around 10% return on investment per year.  If he lived in the south  he would pay 0 regional capital gains tax and 15% Federal capital gains tax and would have around 550 million dollars in 20 year. With the capital gains tax now having a top bracket rate of around 70%  this man would have less than 200 million dollars. Why the hell would hundreds of people like this not just move out of the sh**t tax land that is Lincoln?. If Rich people are leaving NE states in moderate amounts over income tax ranging into the mid to high single digits why would they not leave over another 70% lost of money they saved?


All this bill would do is create a future deficit by placing all the burden on a few thousand individuals who would smartly move to the South to avoid these absurdly high tax rates. The other option is just pay a few hundred thousand or million to avoid these taxes as well as they can legally. So either way in the long term we will not be raising that much money.


Also I would like to note corporate taxes just force corporations to raise prices in this region. And no Mr.Chancellor forcing price regulations is one of the dumbest things you can do in a normally functioning economy.

Also why is there a limit on itemizing deductions? Now a person like Chuck Feeney wouldn't be able to afford giving away all his money to charity because FINK the rich right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,248
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2019, 10:47:22 PM »

This bill is terrible


There is no need to hike capital gains taxes through the roof or raise
the estate tax (which really needs to go) through the roof, if you really need to raise taxes, raise on dangerous stuff, like alcohol and cigarettes, or just consider cutting spending. Either alternative is better than this bill, which as already mentioned, will continue to send rich people to the Sun Belt, and decreasing our population, while the South and Fremont benefit.


Also with regards to my bill, I modified that bill several times, when it first came to the floor, despite being out of town.

I would urge the Chancellor to reconsider his proposal
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2019, 12:57:36 PM »

Mr. Speaker, I offer the following amendment.
This lays out the tax proposals with the projected deficit now reduced to $131.91 B.

For now, the capital gains tax has been put on hold. It will be adjusted and recalculated, to be added later.
More so, the financial transactions tax and the tax on covered liabilities will need to be calculated further as well.

Quote
IN THE LINCOLN COUNCIL

A RESOLUTION

Establishing the budget for the Lincoln Government lasting from July 2019 until June 2020

Resolved by the Lincoln Council convened,

Expenditures

Health - $269.89bn + $1.49bn (L603) = $269.89bn

Pensions - $104.40bn + $0bn (LC 11.11) = $104.40bn

Education - $105.19bn + $ 35.63bn (L505, L601, L 12.9, L 13.06) = $140.82bn

Defence - $0.10bn + $0.03bn (L 11.22) = $0.13bn

Transport - $54.18bn + $0.48bn (L 15.6) =$54.66bn

Welfare - $40.93bn + $0.22bn (L 11.4.2, L 14.9) = $41.15bn

General Govt - $20.27bn + -$0.11bn (L513, L 15.9) = $20.16bn

Debt Interest - $23.30bn

Protection - $23.83bn + $4.86bn (L 6.4.3, L 7.3.1, L 10.16.5) = $28.69bn

Other - $31.44bn + $0.98bn (LC 1.13) = $32.42bn

One time additional spending - $39.54bn (L 6.5.1, L 7.1.1, L 7.4.2, L 7.5.1, L 9.10.5, L 10.16.5, L 10.26.5, L 11.17, L 15.3)

===============================

TOTAL EXPENDITURES - $ 755.80 billion

===============================

PROPOSED TAXES

Income tax
0.0%    $0 - $24,999 ($0 B)
10%    $25,000 - $49,9999 ($13.19 B)
15%    $50,000 - $99,999 ($56.40 B)
20%    $100,000 - $249,999 ($118.42 B)
25%   $250,000 - $999,999 ($71.51 B)
30%   $1,000,000 + ($41.87 B)

Rates remain the same for married couples filing jointly, but brackets are doubled.

Alcohol Tax
2% ($1.16 B)

Tobacco Tax
2% ($0.57 B)


Cannabis Tax
10% ($2.09 B) + $1.25bn (L10.25.4) = $3.34bn

Other drugs tax (L10.25.4) = $0.58bn

Excise Taxes
Gas: 30.0 cents per gallon ($13.35 B)
Diesel: $0.50 per gallon ($7.41 B)
New automobile purchase tax (by curb weight): $120 per thousand kilograms ($1.02 B)

Luxury Tax
15% ($3.24 B)
25% ($5.40 B)

Wealth Tax
1% ($49.50 B)
Total Wealth Tax with Lincoln Population Multiplier = ($15.42 B)


Property tax
0.0%    $0 - $24,999 ($0 B)
5%    $25,000 - $49,9999 ($15.53 B)
10%    $50,000 - $99,999 ($54.57 B)
15%    $100,000 - $249,999 ($78.63 B)
20%   $250,000 - $999,999 ($24.21 B)
25%   $1,000,000 + ($7.60 B)

Estate Tax
15%  $10,000,000 - $19,999,999 ($0.61 B)
15%  $20,000,000 - $49,999,999 ($1.66 B)
20%  $50,000,000 + ($6.79 B)
Total Estate Tax with Lincoln Population Multiplier = ($2.82 B)

Corporate Tax
0.0%  $0 - $99,999 ($0 B)
5%   $100,000 - $499,999 ($0.27 B)
5%   $500,000 - $999,999 ($0.16 B)
10%  $1,000,000 - $4,999,999 ($1.00 B)
10%  $5,000,000 - $9,999,999 ($0.68 B)
15%  $10,000,000 - $24,999,999 ($1.94 B)
15%  $25,000,000 - $49,999,999 ($1.82 B)
15%  $50,000,000 - $99,999,999 ($2.22 B)
15%  $100,000,000 - $249,999,999 ($3.83 B)
15%  $250,000,000 - $499,999,999 ($4.45 B)
15%  $500,000,000 - $2,499,999,999 ($21.09 B)
15%  $2,500,000,000 + ($141.91 B)
Total Corporate Tax with Lincoln Population Multiplier = ($55.86 B)


Carbon Tax (LC 2.20)
20$ per metric ton of CO2: $35.03 B

===============================

TOTAL REVENUES - $545.91 B
TOTAL REVENUES - $623.89 B
===============================

PROJECTED DEFICIT - - $ 209.89 B
PROJECTED DEFICIT - - $ 131.91 B

Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2019, 02:05:08 PM »

Excellent amendment!

Amendment L 2:57 by Pyro to LC 2.28 Resolution to Establish the Budget of the Lincoln Government

Quote
IN THE LINCOLN COUNCIL

A RESOLUTION

Establishing the budget for the Lincoln Government lasting from July 2019 until June 2020

Resolved by the Lincoln Council convened,

Expenditures

Health - $269.89bn + $1.49bn (L603) = $269.89bn

Pensions - $104.40bn + $0bn (LC 11.11) = $104.40bn

Education - $105.19bn + $ 35.63bn (L505, L601, L 12.9, L 13.06) = $140.82bn

Defence - $0.10bn + $0.03bn (L 11.22) = $0.13bn

Transport - $54.18bn + $0.48bn (L 15.6) =$54.66bn

Welfare - $40.93bn + $0.22bn (L 11.4.2, L 14.9) = $41.15bn

General Govt - $20.27bn + -$0.11bn (L513, L 15.9) = $20.16bn

Debt Interest - $23.30bn

Protection - $23.83bn + $4.86bn (L 6.4.3, L 7.3.1, L 10.16.5) = $28.69bn

Other - $31.44bn + $0.98bn (LC 1.13) = $32.42bn

One time additional spending - $39.54bn (L 6.5.1, L 7.1.1, L 7.4.2, L 7.5.1, L 9.10.5, L 10.16.5, L 10.26.5, L 11.17, L 15.3)

===============================

TOTAL EXPENDITURES - $ 755.80 billion

===============================

PROPOSED TAXES

Income tax
0.0%    $0 - $24,999 ($0 B)
10%    $25,000 - $49,9999 ($13.19 B)
15%    $50,000 - $99,999 ($56.40 B)
20%    $100,000 - $249,999 ($118.42 B)
25%   $250,000 - $999,999 ($71.51 B)
30%   $1,000,000 + ($41.87 B)

Rates remain the same for married couples filing jointly, but brackets are doubled.

Alcohol Tax
2% ($1.16 B)

Tobacco Tax
2% ($0.57 B)


Cannabis Tax
10% ($2.09 B) + $1.25bn (L10.25.4) = $3.34bn

Other drugs tax (L10.25.4) = $0.58bn

Excise Taxes
Gas: 30.0 cents per gallon ($13.35 B)
Diesel: $0.50 per gallon ($7.41 B)
New automobile purchase tax (by curb weight): $120 per thousand kilograms ($1.02 B)

Luxury Tax
15% ($3.24 B)
25% ($5.40 B)

Wealth Tax
1% ($49.50 B)
Total Wealth Tax with Lincoln Population Multiplier = ($15.42 B)


Property tax
0.0%    $0 - $24,999 ($0 B)
5%    $25,000 - $49,9999 ($15.53 B)
10%    $50,000 - $99,999 ($54.57 B)
15%    $100,000 - $249,999 ($78.63 B)
20%   $250,000 - $999,999 ($24.21 B)
25%   $1,000,000 + ($7.60 B)

Estate Tax
15%  $10,000,000 - $19,999,999 ($0.61 B)
15%  $20,000,000 - $49,999,999 ($1.66 B)
20%  $50,000,000 + ($6.79 B)
Total Estate Tax with Lincoln Population Multiplier = ($2.82 B)

Corporate Tax
0.0%  $0 - $99,999 ($0 B)
5%   $100,000 - $499,999 ($0.27 B)
5%   $500,000 - $999,999 ($0.16 B)
10%  $1,000,000 - $4,999,999 ($1.00 B)
10%  $5,000,000 - $9,999,999 ($0.68 B)
15%  $10,000,000 - $24,999,999 ($1.94 B)
15%  $25,000,000 - $49,999,999 ($1.82 B)
15%  $50,000,000 - $99,999,999 ($2.22 B)
15%  $100,000,000 - $249,999,999 ($3.83 B)
15%  $250,000,000 - $499,999,999 ($4.45 B)
15%  $500,000,000 - $2,499,999,999 ($21.09 B)
15%  $2,500,000,000 + ($141.91 B)
Total Corporate Tax with Lincoln Population Multiplier = ($55.86 B)


Carbon Tax (LC 2.20)
20$ per metric ton of CO2: $35.03 B

===============================

TOTAL REVENUES - $545.91 B
TOTAL REVENUES - $623.89 B
===============================

PROJECTED DEFICIT - - $ 209.89 B
PROJECTED DEFICIT - - $ 131.91 B

[/quote]

Sponsor feedback: Origination
Status: 24 hours to object, otherwise added to the bill
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2019, 02:34:36 PM »
« Edited: June 16, 2019, 02:41:13 PM by Elliot County Populist »

Im not sure if this was mentioned already but the federal tax law is currently 39.1% corporate tax rates which is already one of the highest in the world and then adding another 15% tax for Lincoln's corporations will make Lincoln's corporations one of the least competitive in the entire world forcing them to increase prices which will only create a horrible loop of destroying corporations in Lincoln which in the end will just hurt Middle Class families.

We can stay competetive with a 39.1% but a 52.% is like 60% more than the OECD avg and a direct 16% increase over the 2nd highest which is Japan.
Logged
Fmr. Representative Encke
Encke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2019, 02:48:29 PM »

Im not sure if this was mentioned already but the federal tax law is currently 39.1% corporate tax rates which is already one of the highest in the world and then adding another 15% tax for Lincoln's corporations will make Lincoln's corporations one of the least competitive in the entire world forcing them to increase prices which will only create a horrible loop of destroying corporations in Lincoln which in the end will just hurt Middle Class families.

We can stay competetive with a 39.1% but a 52.% is like 60% more than the OECD avg and a direct 16% increase over the 2nd highest which is Japan.

Current federal law is 28%.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2019, 02:53:07 PM »

Im not sure if this was mentioned already but the federal tax law is currently 39.1% corporate tax rates which is already one of the highest in the world and then adding another 15% tax for Lincoln's corporations will make Lincoln's corporations one of the least competitive in the entire world forcing them to increase prices which will only create a horrible loop of destroying corporations in Lincoln which in the end will just hurt Middle Class families.

We can stay competetive with a 39.1% but a 52.% is like 60% more than the OECD avg and a direct 16% increase over the 2nd highest which is Japan.

Current federal law is 28%.

Ok so it was lowered to a more reasonable amount through a federal bill? or was I looking at the wrong numbers?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 13 queries.