Advertisement
by Bleckonia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:33 pm
Atlanticatia wrote:Assuming our median income is $15,000, and the poverty line is $5,000; the median worker would pay a whopping...
$0 in tax.
(($15000-$5000)*0.1)-$1000 = $0.
This would probably raise us about 1/5 of what my proposed budget would..
by Atlanticatia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:35 pm
by Bleckonia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:16 pm
Amendments to the Primary Revenue Act
Author: Sen. Franz Haas (Bleckonia | FCP), certain text borrowed from Sen. Sebastián Luc Morales (Atlanticatia | DemLeft)
Sponsors: Sen. Chaz Carrera (Vedastia | FCP)
The definition of 'taxable income' shall be amended to read "Taxable income - income from employment, wages, salaries, commissions, self-employment earnings, trusts, rents, dividends, interest, annuities, and royalties."
The definition of 'unearned income' shall be eliminated.
Paragraph a of section 1 shall be amended to read
"a) The personal income tax shall be levied on all 'taxable income' of households at the following marginal rates:All households with total income above the poverty line are eligible to receive a standard tax deduction of $100 for every individual in the household less one; the total standard deduction for a household may not exceed $500, and the standard tax deduction may not result in a negative tax payment, regardless of how many individuals reside in a household."
- Households with total taxable income between $0 and the poverty line per annum shall be eligible for a transfer payment equal to one-half the difference between the amount of taxable income and the poverty line.
- Taxable income above the poverty line per annum shall be taxed at 14%.
The following paragraphs shall be added to section 2:
"b) Any individual is eligible to opt out of the Universal Social Contribution and not receive social security benefits; employers, however, are required to offer all employees the option of contributing to Universal Social Contribution and may not incentivize opting out.
c) If an individual opts out of the Universal Social Contribution, neither the employee nor the employer shall be required to pay the Universal Social Contribution."
Paragraph a of section 3 shall be amended to read
"a) Corporate tax shall be levied on all worldwide corporate profits, at the following marginal rates:
- Corporate profits shall be taxed at a rate of 10%"
In paragraph b of section 4, "$0.50" shall be amended to read "$0.12"; "$1.89" shall be amended to read "$0.4536."
Paragraphs a, c, and d of section 4 shall be eliminated.
The heading of section 5 shall be amended to read "§ 5 - Capital Gains Tax".
Paragraph a of section 5 shall be amended to read
"a) The Capital Gains tax shall be levied on all capital gains of individuals at a marginal rate of 5%."
Paragraph b of section 5 shall be eliminated.
The words "Unearned Income Tax" shall be replaced with "Capital Gains Tax."
by The New World Oceania » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:24 pm
by Lykens » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:26 pm
by The New World Oceania » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:28 pm
by Bleckonia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:29 pm
by Heraklea- » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:39 pm
Bleckonia wrote:-snip-
by The New World Oceania » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:46 pm
by Bleckonia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:59 pm
Heraklea- wrote:Bleckonia wrote:-snip-
This will in no way provide the tax funds necessary to fund the government and its programs. I realize you don't like the programs the government wants to implement, but that is not the issue in play. What is at play is the distribution of the burden. You have done nothing to ensure adequate taxes are taken in to pay for the budget.
by Bleckonia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:02 pm
The New World Oceania wrote:Bleckonia wrote:
I made it an amendment to sidestep the GEA requirement.
Also, in what universe is a 60% top marginal tax rate centrist?
Currently, the Speaker has jurisdiction over the order of voting, so the amendment might not be voted on first.
Also, in the Democrats' defense, it's not as if Blues weren't allowed in their coalition thread and the Cabinet thread. In theory we had a chance to put in our say.
by Lykens » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:03 pm
Bleckonia wrote:The New World Oceania wrote:
Currently, the Speaker has jurisdiction over the order of voting, so the amendment might not be voted on first.
Also, in the Democrats' defense, it's not as if Blues weren't allowed in their coalition thread and the Cabinet thread. In theory we had a chance to put in our say.
Even if it's voted on second, it doesn't matter. The revenue bill will pass regardless, unfortunately.
by Bleckonia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:06 pm
The New World Oceania wrote:Bleckonia wrote:
I made it an amendment to sidestep the GEA requirement.
Also, in what universe is a 60% top marginal tax rate centrist?
Currently, the Speaker has jurisdiction over the order of voting, so the amendment might not be voted on first.
Also, in the Democrats' defense, it's not as if Blues weren't allowed in their coalition thread and the Cabinet thread. In theory we had a chance to put in our say.
by Heraklea- » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:07 pm
Bleckonia wrote:Heraklea- wrote:This will in no way provide the tax funds necessary to fund the government and its programs. I realize you don't like the programs the government wants to implement, but that is not the issue in play. What is at play is the distribution of the burden. You have done nothing to ensure adequate taxes are taken in to pay for the budget.
So don't implement all the programs, or run a deficit. After all, this Government is full of Keynesians (who ironically don't know anything about what Keynes actually said) who want to implement a stimulus.
Keynes said that when the economy is stagnant, you CUT taxes, increase government purchases, and run a deficit, so a deficit shouldn't be a problem for you, right?
The point of this bill is to soak the rich.
by Bleckonia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:07 pm
by Bleckonia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:10 pm
Heraklea- wrote:Bleckonia wrote:
So don't implement all the programs, or run a deficit. After all, this Government is full of Keynesians (who ironically don't know anything about what Keynes actually said) who want to implement a stimulus.
Keynes said that when the economy is stagnant, you CUT taxes, increase government purchases, and run a deficit, so a deficit shouldn't be a problem for you, right?
The point of this bill is to soak the rich.
I don't have a problem with a deficit, but running a deficit just so we can entertain the anarcho-capitalistic masturbatory fantasy of trickle down economics is dumb.
by Battlion » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:20 pm
Bleckonia wrote:The New World Oceania wrote:
Currently, the Speaker has jurisdiction over the order of voting, so the amendment might not be voted on first.
Also, in the Democrats' defense, it's not as if Blues weren't allowed in their coalition thread and the Cabinet thread. In theory we had a chance to put in our say.
To my knowledge, they never announced anything to anyone outside their coalition, so it's obvious they didn't want our input. If they wanted our input, they would have announced that they're putting something together.
by Bleckonia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:26 pm
Battlion wrote:Bleckonia wrote:
To my knowledge, they never announced anything to anyone outside their coalition, so it's obvious they didn't want our input. If they wanted our input, they would have announced that they're putting something together.
Nobody said the Opposition couldn't contribute and offer suggestions, if they failed to do so it cannot complain that they weren't consulted.
by Heraklea- » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:27 pm
Bleckonia wrote:Heraklea- wrote:I don't have a problem with a deficit, but running a deficit just so we can entertain the anarcho-capitalistic masturbatory fantasy of trickle down economics is dumb.
First of all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, and second of all, it's a fact that if we soak the rich, it's going to stifle investment (even Keynesians, not just libertarians, believe that we should cut taxes during a recession). If the Government wants to boost aggregate demand, it should not be taxing people this high. Even Keynes was smart enough to know that.
by Atlanticatia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:28 pm
by Battlion » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:28 pm
Bleckonia wrote:Battlion wrote:
Nobody said the Opposition couldn't contribute and offer suggestions, if they failed to do so it cannot complain that they weren't consulted.
Do you honestly expect us to check your dumb Coalition thread every day? Do you honestly expect me to believe that no opposition members wanted to be a part of the budget process?
No, you intentionally did not make us aware of what was going on in order to avoid our criticism. Don't bullshit me.
by Lykens » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:29 pm
Bleckonia wrote:Battlion wrote:
Nobody said the Opposition couldn't contribute and offer suggestions, if they failed to do so it cannot complain that they weren't consulted.
Do you honestly expect us to check your dumb Coalition thread every day? Do you honestly expect me to believe that no opposition members wanted to be a part of the budget process?
No, you intentionally did not make us aware of what was going on in order to avoid our criticism. Don't bullshit me.
by Vedastia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:34 pm
I would like to sponsor.Bleckonia wrote:
by Bleckonia » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:43 pm
Heraklea- wrote:Bleckonia wrote:
First of all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, and second of all, it's a fact that if we soak the rich, it's going to stifle investment (even Keynesians, not just libertarians, believe that we should cut taxes during a recession). If the Government wants to boost aggregate demand, it should not be taxing people this high. Even Keynes was smart enough to know that.
There is a difference between reducing taxes to moderately stimulate growth and slashing taxes. Government spending increases economic growth at a greater rate than the cutting of taxes. Ensuring the government has the base needed to spend in that manner is way more important than ensuring the rich have even more money to save, and that is exactly what the vast majority of that money would be used for - savings.
Trickle down is bullshit that gets spoon fed to the poor to make them think they're winning when the government cuts taxes. It's a fantasy designed by the same pack of hustlers that want to destroy all government regulations pertaining to safety, collective bargaining rights and pollution in order to further pad their bottom line. These same people would want to abolish the military and the police in favor of PMCs and private security firms if those same groups didn't provide such huge sources of sales. It is at the very core of anarcho-capitalist thought.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users