Break the Chains Act [WITHDRAWN]

[Badger]

Jeez, I miss less than 24 hours of debate and I miss a ton.

Sorry to throw cold water on this nascent agreement, but I have multiple concerns about this bill. I think I like the idea behind the bill, but the numbers proposed to apply here are WAY skewed towards actually harming small business, and I have questions about what these "credits" are to be used for.

First and foremost is to amplify the comments from Blue, Bacon, and others about this needlessly striking at the small businesses the bill purports to support in the name of attacking conglomerate chains. Simply put, in terms of concentration of economic power, competing against sole proprietors, and the effect on businesses and communities, just as BK pointed out there's little practical difference between a 5 store chain and a 10 store chain, likewise in reality there is no real difference between a business with a single store and one with half a dozen.

A business owner who is successful enough he or she opens a second, or third, or even fourth or fifth store in the area is in much the same boat as the sole proprietor vis-a-vis competing with the national chains. These small multi-store owners are small business incarnate. They suffer the same pressures on suppliers, price gouging, political clout, and economic clout wielded by the big chains as the owner of a single store. These multi-store owners do not begin to match the conglomerates anti-competetive practices and concentration of wealth that damages local businesses. For both multi-store owners and single store owners the primary competition is not with each other, but from huge national chains.

In historical practice the idyllic vision of the single mom and pop store was not the sole, or even primary arena for local commerce. Single businesses with several locations around the city or region were as common as single store operations, and the latter generally coexisted and prospered side by side with the former without undue pressure. The real economic watershed came when the mega-chains like Wal-Mart expanded to the point that both the single store outlet and the several store businesses were both similarly forced out of business, with identical consequences to local commerce and entrepreneurship.

I realize under the proposed amendment there is only a 1% or 3% tax on these small multi-store businesses compared to 7% for the true mega-chains, but for the reasons stated it is unconscionable to be at all treating such pillars of local community centered commerce as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I believe imposing any such tax on businesses with even 5-15 stores is counterproductive and badly misplaced, let alone those with merely 2-4 as proposed. Frankly, even lumping together a medium sized regional chain with around 50 stores in the same category as the Wal-Marts, McDonald's, etc. with thousands of locations nationwide is similarly misplaced, as the former simply does not, and historically has not, have the same damaging anti-competative domination of local commerce as the national conglomerates. I do generally support the idea here of discouraging such economic domination by national chains and encouraging small business entrepreneurs, but again the numbers here are way off the mark and hitting small local and regional businesses rather than the Wal-Marts of the world.

Secondly, I'm concerned about the bill's language requiring when a business reaches a certain number of stores the tax rate is increased on the entire business's profits rather than simply on the newest store's profits. It is neither economically sensible nor fair when a business opens their 16th store the tax on all 16 stores suddenly almost doubles from 3% to 5% rather than simply raising the tax rate on that 16th store alone.

This isn't a minor matter. If a 16th store increases taxes across the entire chain the incentive to expand to 16 stores and beyond is severely diminished, and much more so for any business considering opening a 46th store. It's hard to fathom any store location being so lucrative it warrants raising taxes 2% on 45 other stores. While some supporters of this bill may believe its a good thing to ensure few if any businesses grow beyond 45 outlets nationwide regardless of how efficient and skilled it's management is, but that is an unwise path to say the least and would do little to combat the Wal-Martization of local economies.

I would respectfully suggest amending this to apply the tax similar to income taxes. 1% for the first X stores, 3% on profits from stores X +1 through Y, 5% on stores Y +1 through Z, etc. To avoid letting stores pick and choose less profitable stores to apply the tax rate the taxes rate could be based on the chronological order in which the stores started business. For example applying the formula proposed in the amendment (which, again, I strongly oppose for the reasons previously stated) the oldest McDonald's still in operation (in Oak Park, IL I think?) would not be taxed. The 2nd-5th oldest McDonald's restaurants in operation would be taxed at 1%, and so on until every McDonald's from the 46th oldest to the newest one in the country would be taxed at 7%.

I'd also include a provision that any outlet closed then reopened on the same site only counts as a "new store" if it was closed for more than 30 days. Otherwise businesses would simply have less profitable stores "go out of business" for a weekend then reopen on Monday so it would be subject to the higher tax rate as a "new store" and more profitable stores would stay open and thus be subject to the lower tax rates for "older" stores.

This is slightly more complicated than the retroactive flat tax proposed, but still not all difficult to calculate, and I have no doubt businesses of all sizes would much rather make that easy calculation than be subject to a business wide tax increase for opening a new store that puts them in a higher bracket.

An additional relatively minor concern is this proposal lumps in all stores or outlets the same regardless of size. A hole in the wall sandwich shop with only a few employees is treated the same as a 500 employee independent department store. The sandwich shop owner might open a half dozen similarly tiny shops employing less than 30 people total and cumulatively doing a fraction of the business the department store does, but the sandwich operation is subject to a 3% tax to protect "small businesses"? That doesn't make sense. That said I'll admit I'm not sure either that its a fatal problem with the bill, nor do I have a solution to propose either. But I figure as long as this post already is I might as well point this out for discussion.

My last major concern is more of a question: What exactly is the role of these "credits" to small businesses and how would they be distributed? Are they solely for start-up capital for new businesses (presumably with only one location)? Are they to benefit existing single store businesses? If so, how and in what form? Tax credits? What if the business is already quite profitable? Would tax funds then be used to subsidize a business owner who already earns a lucrative living? Would we be directly subsidizing single store businesses with these funds? What if the single store business want to use the funds to expand their operation and, heaven forbid, open a second store?

These are hardly nitpicking questions. The proposed tax rates of several percent on any retail business with even a few stores will produce massive amounts of revenue, likely in the multiple tens of billions. IMHO the tax rates are too steep, even if its application to small and medium sized businesses were severely curtailed. If we're going to raise anywhere near this much tax revenue it's crucial to understand in advance exactly what it's going to be spent on.

All this said, its an interesting idea. If a reasonable explanation can be made as to what the revenue raised will be used for, and if the application to small and medium-sized businesses could be seriously limited, I would seriously consider supporting this measure.

[Badger]

*slow standing applause*

My God, badger. I'm in love.

Errr, and I'm suddenly a little uncomfortable.

(Thanks though )

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, here is my amendment adding the bit about the loans, and to simplify things I went ahead and changed Sections 1-4 to match your suggestions above. Offered as friendly.

Accepted.


Since the Senator from McDonald's has yet to appreciate the value of concision, I'll have to tackle that essay in a bit.

I'll conceed, Senator, no one has ever accused you of being overly detailed in your arguments.

[Badger]

Where to begin, where to begin....

So let me get this straight, the tax credits will be applied to even the most profitable single businesses? An owner of a successful small retail business earning over a million dollars a year will be getting tax credits merely because they have a single business location? And another business owner with 2 stores who's barely scraping by will be taxed to benefit the millionaire with a single store?? Does anyone in this chamber other than the bill's sponsor not see what a grotesque misuse of taxpayer's money this involves? Talk about corporate welfare....

"Sure it would. The whole idea is to discourage a company from opening another store and thus concentrating more wealth and property in the hands of the few."

I have to admit, this is the first time I can recall a bill's sponsor proudly stating the actual intent of their proposal was to curtail economic growth. Not only would this prevent companies from expanding to a sixteenth or forty-sixth store, but why would anyone want to expand to even a second store if it means both exposing the business to an additional tax and giving up the single store tax credit?

And therein lies the fundamental misconception of this bill: It paints ALL non-single store businesses with the same broad brush. Every such business, from Wal-Mart to the small business owner who opened a second coffee shop or bookstore or pizza place, are all "chains" and jointly culpable in the large corporation takeover of local economies. This is the point senators need to understand: While this bill is being touted as fighting the Wal-Martization of local economies in favor of small business, it makes a wholly inaccurate definition of businesses with only 2-3 locations "big business". Does anyone else here fail to see the fallacy of definig a bookstore with 2 locations as "not small business"? Unfortunately this bill does exactly that and treats small local businesses as part of the problem rather than the cure.

There's two arguments offered here in favor: First, this "avoids the concentration of wealth among the elite". Huh? That might have a grain of truth if the changes I proposed to exempt small and mid-sized businesses were adopted. As the sponsor admitted, however, as it stands the owner of a large independent department store earning over a million dollars a year would get a tax credit, and it would be subsidized by taxing the owner of two pizza joints who is busting their ass to pull down $30-40k in this economy. Shovelling tax credits to successful single store business owners at the expense of struggling small businessmen with multiple stores actually increases the concentration of wealth to the economic elite.

Secondly, "every person opening a second store deprives the opportunity of someone else to own their own business". Where does that idea come from? Do we really think that one someone opens up a second pizza shop in their town its at the cost of another person who was clamoring to open their own pizza shop nearby? Of course not. Using a real world example, a friend was doing well enough running her bookshop in our tiny town she recently opened another shop in a nearby tiny town. No one else was clamoring to open up a bookstore of their own in that town. No one. If she was discouraged from opening up that second store in town as this bill surely would've done, the end result wouldn't have been another brave entrepreneur stepping up to open their own bookstore, but rather that town would've had no bookstore at all. Ironically, the competition our friend provides isn't against other small bookstore owners, but against the book aisles from the nearby Wal-Mart an Kroger stores. Lord, knows we can't allow that "big business" compete with the chain stores.

I just previewed and saw the criticism of the suggestion to graduate the tax brackets like the income tax as too complicated. Do we really believe that the accountant for any multi-store business, from Wal-Mart to my friend's two bookstore "mega-chain", couldn't tell the annual profit for each individual store within 60 seconds? Just because the sponsor has trouble understanding this it doesn't mean any competent businessman will.

One final note regarding your attitude and demeanor, Libertas: I suspect if you took a poll among your colleagues they would resoundingly agree that Marokai Blue isn't the one displaying maturity issues. Please attempt to improve the level of your discourse accordingly. Cheers.

[Badger]

Since the Senator from McDonald's has yet to appreciate the value of concision, I'll have to tackle that essay in a bit.

BTW, Senator. Please get it right. I'm the Senator from Good Times Burgers and Frozen Custard.

http://www.goodtimesburgers.com/index.php?page=site/locations&nav_id=abd4c5fd69c66e822795b80226e74a0e

This corporate behemoth has about 50 stores, 90% in Colorado. I'm uncertain as to exactly how many small burger and custard restaurateurs they've forced out of business with their 3 stores in Colorado Springs and <gasp> 10 in metro Denver, but under this bill their 50 stores are subject to the same tax rate as McDonalds and their 30,000 plus stores.

According to their 2009 business report: "After several years of same store sales growth, including several months of double digit growth in fiscal 2007 and early fiscal 2008, we experienced a dramatic change in our sales trends, beginning in early calendar 2008 and continuing through September 2009, as the economy slowed and competitive pricing pressures intensified. Due to the dramatic decline in consumer spending, the unprecedented rise in commodity costs and the upheaval in the credit markets, we suspended most of our restaurant development under both the dual brand format and under the Development Agreement with Zen Partners LLC described below. We also had to suspend the development of company-owned restaurants."

Hmmm....Hardly sounds like the perfect time to impose an additional 7% tax on this company's profits, or thousands of other companies like it.

[Badger]

So Badger, do you propose creating a larger differential then between smaller chains and the mega-chains?

Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand the question. Could you please elaborate?

[Badger]

So Badger, do you propose creating a larger differential then between smaller chains and the mega-chains?

Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand the question. Could you please elaborate?

Do propose widening the gap between the lowest bracket and the highest bracket? That is, lowering the effects on smaller chains, but implementing new tiers with higher rates on mega-chains with dozens or hundreds of outlets?

Just tried Woodford Reserve Bourbon for the first time tonight, so I'll try answering tomorrow.

[Badger]

So Badger, do you propose creating a larger differential then between smaller chains and the mega-chains?

Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand the question. Could you please elaborate?

Do propose widening the gap between the lowest bracket and the highest bracket? That is, lowering the effects on smaller chains, but implementing new tiers with higher rates on mega-chains with dozens or hundreds of outlets?

Just tried Woodford Reserve Bourbon for the first time tonight, so I'll try answering tomorrow.

Or maybe Monday. Lord what a day at work (where I still am, but finally finished)....

Thank you for the overture, Senator, but I'll be up front that I have serious reservations about the bill on several grounds as previously explained in detail.

I'll admit that I'm uncertain about where the exact numbers should lay. In general I have no problem in imposing this tax on not only the Wal-Mart and McDonald's sized conglomerates, but also the CostCo and Hardees's sized ones as well. I'm not only passionately opposed to imposing any tax on small businesses with sites numbering in the low double digits, but decidedly uncomfortable about imposing taxes on "mini-chains" with 50ish sites like my example of Good Times Burgers and Frozen Custard. Where to start the taxing? 100 stores/outlets maybe, and increase rates accordingly from there? I can try to be flexable, but I'm certainly opposed to the current structure putting statewide chains like Good Times in the same category and tax rate as McDonald's and Wal-Mart. To break down the current political and economic hegemony of national mega-chain conglomerates, replacing them with these 50+ regional chains are a decided improvement over the status quo.

For much the same reasons, I am decidedly against making the tax rates (or increases to a higher bracket) applicable either chain wide or not at all. It doesn't make sense to apply such a strong threshold barrier to an entire chain's growth no matter how efficient and effective their management is. My proposal for increasing tax rates on a per store basis based on when the site opened for business isn't complicated at all, and I assure you businesses would except the nominal time to calculate revenue per store rather than have the tax kick in to an entire chain. Don't forget that this system still hits the largest businesses accordingly. If we have a 45 outlet threshhold for the highest bracket (which, again, I believe is too low, but for example), Good Times Burgers would pay the tax on only about 10% of its 50ish stores, whereas Wal-mart would pay the tax on almost 99% of its over 4000 U.S. Atlasian stores.

Finally, even if a taxation rate per store starting at significantly higher levels of business can be agreed on, I'm still adamantly opposed to using tax dollars to provide tax credits for already wealthy successful business owners simply because they operate under a single roof. I like BK's suggestion to use the revenue from taxing mega-chains to be used for low or zero interest loans for small business start up. Maybe this combined with tax credits in a manner that won't subsize the already wealthy would work, and I wouldn't mind expanding it to small businesses even that have a few outlets. Maybe tax credits against losses incurred that year to be refunded towards payroll taxes the business paid that year?

Despite these concerns, I do like the idea of taxing conglomerates to fund opportunities for new small business entrepreneurs. Its just the implementation proposed here badly misses the mark by taxing multi-outlet small businesses and not directing the revenue raised to where it's most needed for business creation and retention. If we can agree to tax chains on a per store basis at a much higher threshold and not create tax subsidies for those who need relief the least, I'd be interested in supporting that proposal.

[Badger]

I'd love to see an amendment you have to offer Badger, and would vote for it.

Well, I'm not sure I would offer an amendment if it wasn't accepted as friendly. I was kind of waiting for Libertas's response.

I understand the Senate could amend the bill without the sponsor's consent. Still, I readily admit my idea to shield businesses from the tax until their number of outlets gets around triple digits, imposing the tax on a per store basis, and limiting the the use of such revenue to small business expansion without subsizing the already wealthy would dramatically change Libertas's vision of the bill. I'm not hesitant to do that per se but--and correct me if I'm wrong here, Mr. PPT--the sponsor of a measure can withdraw the measure from the floor even after its amended.

So I guess the ball is in your court, Libertas. I strongly suspect you'd oppose such sweeping changes as I've proposed, and if the amendment passing would cause you to withdraw the bill then I don't want to waste my time drafting a proposal. If, however, you would not withdraw the bill if the Senate passed such an amendment--even if you fight the amendment itself tooth and nail--then I'll put something forward.

The best argument I can offer to this latter approach that we might agree on, Senator, is that I believe such amendment will pick up enough votes that may make it the difference between it passing or failing.

[Badger]

I'd love to see an amendment you have to offer Badger, and would vote for it.

Well, I'm not sure I would offer an amendment if it wasn't accepted as friendly. I was kind of waiting for Libertas's response.

I understand the Senate could amend the bill without the sponsor's consent. Still, I readily admit my idea to shield businesses from the tax until their number of outlets gets around triple digits, imposing the tax on a per store basis, and limiting the the use of such revenue to small business expansion without subsizing the already wealthy would dramatically change Libertas's vision of the bill. I'm not hesitant to do that per se but--and correct me if I'm wrong here, Mr. PPT--the sponsor of a measure can withdraw the measure from the floor even after its amended.

So I guess the ball is in your court, Libertas. I strongly suspect you'd oppose such sweeping changes as I've proposed, and if the amendment passing would cause you to withdraw the bill then I don't want to waste my time drafting a proposal. If, however, you would not withdraw the bill if the Senate passed such an amendment--even if you fight the amendment itself tooth and nail--then I'll put something forward.

The best argument I can offer to this latter approach that we might agree on, Senator, is that I believe such amendment will pick up enough votes that may make it the difference between it passing or failing.

Well the idea of only applying the tax to particular stores above the limit doesn't make much sense to me. It would in my opinion needlessly increase the cost and complications of the bill, and the end result would just be to weaken the effects. The tax is on the owner, not the stores.

The whole point of the proposal is to discourage a single individual or company from seeking to consolidate more wealth and property under his/their ownership. That a chain may just be regional or that it is "family-owned" doesn't really change the fact they are indeed concentrating more property in fewer hands. A family that owns a chain of 20 stores is still depriving 19 other families of the chance to own their own livelihoods, as they would if there were instead 20 individual businesses.


But if you or any other senator would like to put forth an amendment that you feel keeps within the spirit of the law, I'm open...

<sigh> I was almost hoping you'd say no to reduce my backog of work. OK, I'll put something together. I may have some time tomorrow morning.

[Badger]

Just PM'd myself a partial draft of a proposed amendment, and should hopefully have the rest ready for posting sometime tonight.

[Badger]

Break the Chains Act

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 4 85-175 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 0.25% on their annual profits on the most recent 85th-175th stores to have been opened to the public for business.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 5 to 15 176-300 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 3% 0.50% on their annual profits on the most recent 176th through 300th stores opened to the public for business, plus any taxes applicable in Section 1 above .

3. Companies or individuals which possess 16 to 45 301-450 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 5% 0.75% on their annual profits on the most recent 301st through 450th stores opened to the public for business, plus any taxes applicable in Sections 1  & 2 above.

4. Companies or individuals which possess 46 451 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% 1% on their annual profits on the most recent 451st and greater stores opened to the public for business, plus any taxes applicable in Sections 1, 2 & 3 above.

4(B). If one or more stores/outlets opened for business to the public on the same date and said stores would cumulatively reach the threshhold number for the next higher tax bracket as established by Sections 1-4 above, the business may determine which of the stores/outlets opened that same date is subject to the lower tax rate.

4(C). If a store or outlet is fully closed for business to the public for no more than 30 days and then reopened for business on the same location, its original date of opening applies for determining its tax status in Sections 1-4. If the store/outlet is fully closed for business to the public for more than 30 days before reopening for business at the same location, the business may choose between the store's original date of opening or the date of its reopening for determining the tax rate applicable under Sections 1-4.

5. Funds collected from these taxes shall be deposited in what will be established as a Small Business Protection Fund. appropriated to the Atlasian Small Business Administration for expansion of current SBA programs for offering and/or guaranteeing small business loans to existing and new small businesses.

6. Companies or individuals which possess only 1 retail outlet or store shall be eligible to apply for a tax credit to be paid from this Fund.

7. The Department of Internal Affairs shall be tasked with ascertaining the validity of applications to this Fund, and shall have the power to reject applications which do not meet the criteria for tax credits in Section 6.

8. Based on the total number of accepted applications each year, credits issued to each business should be an equal share of the total fund, except that no business may receive a credit equivalent to more than 100% of its total annual tax burden.

9. The Small Business Protection Fund may also, at the discretion of the Secretary of Internal Affairs, be used to provide low interest loans to individuals and companies meeting the requirements listed in Section 6, as well as those seeking to establish businesses that meet the aforementioned requirements.

10.6. The Fund revenue raised from this act may not be used for any purpose not specified in this bill, unless specifically allocated by future laws.

OK, I'll try to be brief on the nature of proposed changes:

The reason for increasing the level at which chains are assessed this tax and for assessing it on a per store basis I already explained in great detail. The tax rates were cut dramatically as, by my calculations, the previous numbers would've constituted a huge tax increase, and I question even whether the tremendous amount of revenue it would raise could be effectively used for small business loans and loan guarantees. I'm not absolutely wedded to these exact numbers, either for the number of stores required to apply the tax or the tax rates themselves, but for the reasons previously stated I firmly believe these approximate ranges are far far preferable to those previously proposed.

I tried to be relatively simple (for a change ) in determining a use for the revenue received. I simply couldn't think of a way to apply the tax credits in a fair and effective way. An especially profitable small business needs such credits the least but would get the most advantage from them, whereas struggling small businesses with small or nonexistent profits which needs assistance the most would get little advantage from such credits. I'm quite open to any ideas for an alternate application of tax credits to help struggling businesses and avoid giving taxpayer funded windfalls to the already wealthy, but for now I shifted the application of the revenue raised to providing and/or guaranteeing small business loans.

Based on the general rule that, baring specific Atlasian laws/history to the contrary RL mirrors Atlasia, I assumed there is already a Small Business Administration within the DoIA. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel on how the revenue could/should be used, I propose a massive expansion of the SBA's current programs of providing and guaranteeing loans to small businesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Business_Administration#cite_ref-5

This would expand the use of such loans to small businesses beyond merely those with a single store/outlet. I've stated previously why I think that's an improvement over the original restrictions, and I realize Libertas and I will have to agree to disagree on this (and other) points here.

In a nutshell, I believe this amended version of the bill better achieves the goals of discouraging massive national conglomerate mega-chains while encouraging the development of small businesses, and does so in a manner that doesn't wrongly lump small 3-4 store businesses, or even 50-60 store regional chains, in with the Wal-Marts and McDonald's as "big business".

[Badger]

I'll have to reply later as I'm just now heading off to meet Grumpy Gramps for a beer.

[Badger]

Ah, that was nice. Thanks GG! Now the bill...

Has anyone here actually estimated the amount of revenue to be raised by this bill, even at these reduced tax rates? It's a lot. For example, Wal-Mart alone would pay an additional tax of about $150 million a year from these rates. Compare this to the RL SBA's current annual budget of only $569 mil. And that's just one company. Apply these tax rates across thousands of affected companies and this will translate into the biggest expansion of small business loans and loan guarantees in at least 70 years, possibly in history. And I believe the actual response from CEO's will be to reach for the antacids, not "sly smiles".

Nevertheless, as I said I'm not wedded to these numbers. If the Senate truly believes that such an overwhelming expansion of small business loans and loan guarantees are still insufficient, I suppose we could even <grits teeth> double these rates. At some point though there is a question as to how many good loans can even be made with this revenue. At some point supply will overreach demand, and if we are multiplying the SBA budget by several times and the statute forbids any other use of the revenue, then we may very well hit that point soon afterwards.

[Badger]

I like the amendment, Badger.

I'm interested in knowing what the rest of the Senate thinks. Or is lack of comment tantamount to acquiescence in this case?

[Badger]

Wait, what are we doing here again, this lost my interest weeks ago.

Then just abstain. No need to be a jerk about it.

[Badger]

Wait, what are we doing here again, this lost my interest weeks ago.

Then just abstain. No need to be a jerk about it.

LOL, you couldn't tell that was sarcasm to illustrate the lameness of the Senate. I have been following along as best as I could.

Sorry man.   Sick kid last couple days (but better now) has had me very impaired both on sleep and my sense of humor.

[Badger]

Aye.

[Badger]

AYE.

Honestly, Libertas, I hope you consider changing your vote, especially if necessary to pass this bill. There's no need to rehash the differences in our views on this legislation. BK effectively articulated mine between the amendment passing and the vote reopening. The tax rate is hardly insignificant to the corporations on which it's assessed, and will not only give smaller companies a competitive advantage over mega-chain conglomerates but raise oodles of money for SBA loans relative to what has previously been budgeted. (Smart move including the provision limiting the use of tax revenues raised for this purpose--kudos.)

I realize this bill doesn't do everything you envisioned, but simply ask yourself one question: Is this bill an improvement--even if a smaller one than what you want--on the status quo?

The answer to that question should mirror your vote.

[Badger]

I can certainly live with these changes, but perhaps the President could further explain for what other uses the revenue would be applied?

[Badger]

Libertas: you have two options:

1. File a motion to approve the President’s redraft by a simple majority vote, and return it to the President for his signature or veto. If the vote fails, then you decide whether to send our version of the bill back to the Senate or for the Senate to restart debate.

OR,

2. You can just withdraw the bill from the Senate.

In that case I would rather withdraw the bill from the Senate. I'd rather start all over again. The bill in it's current state is just totally ineffective and inefficient, and the president's amendment just adds a band-aid over a bad bill.

I'd ask you to reconsider, Senator. You agreed to not withdraw an amended bill reading much as it does now.

Well, I'm not sure I would offer an amendment if it wasn't accepted as friendly. I was kind of waiting for Libertas's response.

I understand the Senate could amend the bill without the sponsor's consent. Still, I readily admit my idea to shield businesses from the tax until their number of outlets gets around triple digits, imposing the tax on a per store basis, and limiting the the use of such revenue to small business expansion without subsizing the already wealthy would dramatically change Libertas's vision of the bill. I'm not hesitant to do that per se but--and correct me if I'm wrong here, Mr. PPT--the sponsor of a measure can withdraw the measure from the floor even after its amended.

So I guess the ball is in your court, Libertas. I strongly suspect you'd oppose such sweeping changes as I've proposed, and if the amendment passing would cause you to withdraw the bill then I don't want to waste my time drafting a proposal. If, however, you would not withdraw the bill if the Senate passed such an amendment--even if you fight the amendment itself tooth and nail--then I'll put something forward.

But if you or any other senator would like to put forth an amendment that you feel keeps within the spirit of the law, I'm open...

I understand you may likely argue that this version is not "within the spirit of the law", but that is simply not correct for several reasons.

1) The amended version still has the same basic thrust as the original. Discouraging large conglomerate chains with a tax penalty related to size, and using the revenue raised to encourage the expansion of small business entrepreneurs. For reasons we've debated ad nauseum I understand the version passed did not go as far as you wanted (though the key word here may be "passed"; I frankly believe the original version would've been lucky to get more than 2 votes, and PS would've never signed it as was regardless), but the same result is indubitably "within the spirit of the law".

2) The changes in the amendment passed were hardly unexpected when you made the above statement agreeing not to withdraw an amended bill. The specific changes I proposed were: " to shield businesses from the tax until their number of outlets gets around triple digits, imposing the tax on a per store basis, and limiting the the use of such revenue to small business expansion without subsizing the already wealthy". This is exactly what the amendment did.

3) The President's proposed changes actually increases the tax rates that you felt the amendment had made too low. If you didn't withdraw the bill after the amendment passed (which, again, would've been contrary to your earlier promise) there's no reason to do so on what, from your perspective, is an at least slightly improved version from what the Senate passed.

I can understand concern over PS's request the revenue not be strictly allocated for small business development, but I gather that's not the reason for considering withdrawal of the bill as you describe the President's proposed changes as "a band-aid" rather than further undermining its goals. (IF that is truly an issue to you, maybe PS would consider signing a bill that limited the use of revenue raised pursuant to Section 6 for at least the first year of the Act?)

4) Ask yourself this:"Even if the amended measure doesn't go nearly as far as I wish, is it at least a slight improvement over the status quo?"

5) Even if you did ultimately withdraw this bill, PS's version could and probably would be submitted in the legislation que the same day. As we've already debated this to death I believe the Senate would have enough patience to simply pass the resubmitted measure without delay and get the darned thing signed.

As the amended bill is still unquestionably "within the spirit of the law", I sincerely hope you'll stand by your word and allow a vote on this measure.

[Badger]

On second look it appears that you had already reintroduced a similar version of the bill. All that typing for nothing...

At any rate, at first glance it appears the new version and the passed version are at at least in the same ballpark so there's room for further compromise, I guess (though I still think the taxation kicks in too early with as little as 15 stores).

BTW: Can you define "differential tax"? Is that simply a less wordy way of imposing the tax "per store"?