Break the Chains Act [WITHDRAWN]

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The decline of small family business in favor of big business and corporate chains has been one of the more lamentable trends of the modern era. In the past, it has often been government policy that promoted this development, made possible by the large lobbying budgets of this big chains.

Thus I do not think it unfair to introduce a policy that would attempt to reverse this trend before all of Atlasian small business is overtaken by the corporate giants. Upon a company that is struggling and losing money, this bill will have no effect. Rather, as a tax on profits, it will only take from those with excess revenue to begin with. The incentive to maximize profits then is to sell off individual outlets. Each time this occurs, the the ownership class of Atlasia increases in size, while the number of wage-slaves decreases.

With the credits from these taxes being provided to small businesses, we will see more of them survive and thrive, and new ones be founded, each providing better quality jobs that give people more power over their own lives and workplaces.

As I am sure many of you have experienced, the service, the quality, the sense of community, and the overall uniqueness of a small local business as compared to a corporate chain is something that should be treasured, and it's value cannot be measured in either dollars or words.

Therefore I ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider seriously supporting the Break the Chains Act which I have proposed.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

An interesting idea, and one that I think has merit. I think the 4% and 7% might be a little steep, though. Also, I'd like to explicitly give the process some oversight to prevent companies from trying to receive credits illegally. I'm offering this friendly amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would accept that amendment.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Maybe there should be higher brackets for companies that have over 50, 100, and 500 chains? I mean that's just grotesquely large.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'd like to offer another friendly amendment below; Marokai's concerns make sense.

the following be changed:
"2 to 3" in Section 1 to "2 to 9"
"4 to 6" in Section 2 to "10 to 29"
"7 to 9" in Section 3 to "30 to 49"
"10 or more" in Section 4 "50 or more"

Marokai is just here to represent the interests of Big Business over small.

The goal of this tax is not to collect revenue but to incentivize selling off excess properties to create more individually-owned businesses. If we were to reduce the numbers any lower than they are in the original proposal, it would not accomplish that goal. The CEOs of conglomerates should feel at least a slight burn to encourage them to make themselves eligible for a lower bracket.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'd like to offer another friendly amendment below; Marokai's concerns make sense.

the following be changed:
"2 to 3" in Section 1 to "2 to 9"
"4 to 6" in Section 2 to "10 to 29"
"7 to 9" in Section 3 to "30 to 49"
"10 or more" in Section 4 "50 or more"

Marokai is just here to represent the interests of Big Business over small.

The goal of this tax is not to collect revenue but to incentivize selling off excess properties to create more individually-owned businesses. If we were to reduce the numbers any lower than they are in the original proposal, it would not accomplish that goal. The CEOs of conglomerates should feel at least a slight burn to encourage them to make themselves eligible for a lower bracket.

What big conglomerates don't have more than fifty locations? Also, there are plenty of smaller family-owned chains that have their number of locations in the 10's or 20's. I think this amendment actually fits your vision pretty well.

One owner who owns two businesses deprives a worker of the chance to own one. From my perspective, anything greater than 1 is a chain, family-owned or not. They're putting other families who would have owned and run those businesses out.

But what percentage tax would you propose to put on chains that have 100s of outlets?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

One owner who owns two businesses deprives a worker of the chance to own one. From my perspective, anything greater than 1 is a chain, family-owned or not. They're putting other families who would have owned and run those businesses out.

That's absurd.  Not everyone wants to own a business; this needlessly puts an extra burden on business owners.

Having too many opportunities for people to own their businesses and livelihoods is not going to be a 'problem' anytime soon.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

A 1% tax on the profits of a chain of 2-3 outlets is not punishing, nor is a 4% tax on 4-9, nor a 7% on 10+.

A company that is expanding to include multiple outlets has excess funds that would be better off spent on improving their own service, providing increased wages and conditions for their employees, and investing in technological improvement. Money spent on accumulating property that was previously owned by others is a double loss for society.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, companies do not necessarily have that much income to spare, and your tax will hurt them a hell of a lot - not that you care, but this will cause fewer people to open businesses, because they're scared of being taxed too much.

This tax doesn't even affect someone opening up a new business. Stop making up lies.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I believe the key thrust of this bill is/should be to allow small business to open and develop (thus the tax credit for owners of a single location), not to directly punish big businesses through taxation. I fear anything bigger than a single digit tax on profits would be too excessive, especially if added immediately rather than phased in. With the current economic climate, such a new tax could have pretty negative short-term effects on the stock market.

I agree with your principle of economic decentralization here, but I see nothing wrong with small firms. There's not much difference between, say, a restaurant that owns five locations and a restaurant that owns ten. There is, however, a huge difference between a restaurant that owns five locations and a restaurant that owns fifty locations. I think that difference should be what's reflected in the tax brackets here, and that's why I wrote that last friendly amendment.

Also, an idea; would you be up for allowing part of the fund to go towards low-interest loans for people starting a new business? If so, I'll type up another amendment.

I would support that.


As for the numbers, how about these?

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 4 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 5 to 15 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 3% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 16 to 45 retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 5% on their annual profits.

4. Companies or individuals which possess 46 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% on their annual profits.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

No they aren't.

And the credits are to be used to reduce or eliminate the tax burden on small businesses which are already at a disadvantage against big business.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even a 2-store chain deprives someone of the opportunity to own control over their own business and workplace. The difference between a single-store business and a chain of half a dozen is quite clear.

A chain is not a small business, and any concentration of power and wealth into the hands of the few rather than the many is undesirable in my view.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A 'multi-store' owner has a chain. It may not have as much power as a chain with hundreds of stores, but such differences are already allowed for in the multi-tiered system that has been proposed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't address anything. Whatever your idyllic vision of the past might be is not relevant to the goals of this legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just stating a bunch of opinions again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no absolutely reason to complicate things like that. A company that owns 16 stores is a company that owns 16 stores; taxing the profits only of individual stores that get added makes no sense and would increase the associated accounting costs dramatically.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Opposed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More like ridiculously overcomplicated, and needlessly so. It would accomplish nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still missing the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As was mentioned already, the credits would serve to defray, if not eliminate, the tax burden on small businesses. With the increased profits, they invest in improving their services, workplace conditions, technology, wages, benefits, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ultimately this epic you wrote was a whole lot of nothing. Just some baseless opinions and poor suggestions that reveal you missed the point of this proposal.

I hope the educated people of this body can see through the idea that lots of words = good argument.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You know, Libertas....the way you talk to people isn't particularly helpful to getting their votes.

I don't expect I'll get the vote of Senator Badger anytime soon. His proposed amendments would undermine the purpose of the bill.


That said, this whole debate would be much more dignified had our mature VP-elect not come in here to taunt and obstruct any progress.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Wow Badger, you really pushed it to limit in terms of how big a post can be. Unfortunately my eyes started to hurt by the time I got half way through.


As the PPT said yesterday (ironically in a dust up between Badger and myself), please use conduct becoming of a Senator.

You know, Libertas....the way you talk to people isn't particularly helpful to getting their votes.

I don't expect I'll get the vote of Senator Badger anytime soon. His proposed amendments would undermine the purpose of the bill.


That said, this whole debate would be much more dignified had our mature VP-elect not come in here to taunt and obstruct any progress.

Do you expect this to pass, cause I certainly won't vote for this unless its amended?


You sir are no judge of what is mature especially after insulting a collegue by calling him the Senator from McDonald's.

Well I already named you Blanche Lincoln, what should I have called Badger?


Anyway, you didn't even read through half of Badger's post? The earlier amendments proposed by Bacon King may be workable. The amendments proposed by Badger seem unreasonable and overly-complicated.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Wow Badger, you really pushed it to limit in terms of how big a post can be. Unfortunately my eyes started to hurt by the time I got half way through.


As the PPT said yesterday (ironically in a dust up between Badger and myself), please use conduct becoming of a Senator.

You know, Libertas....the way you talk to people isn't particularly helpful to getting their votes.

I don't expect I'll get the vote of Senator Badger anytime soon. His proposed amendments would undermine the purpose of the bill.


That said, this whole debate would be much more dignified had our mature VP-elect not come in here to taunt and obstruct any progress.

Do you expect this to pass, cause I certainly won't vote for this unless its amended?


You sir are no judge of what is mature especially after insulting a collegue by calling him the Senator from McDonald's.

Well I already named you Blanche Lincoln, what should I have called Badger?


Anyway, you didn't even read through half of Badger's post? The earlier amendments proposed by Bacon King may be workable. The amendments proposed by Badger seem unreasonable and overly-complicated.

Oh no what a nightmare, How dare this Senate possibly consider something "overly complicated". For heaven sake it might require the regular cadre of sleeping Senators to be disturbed in their slumber and actually participate in the debate. Oh no no no no we can't possibly have that occur. It's just simply barbaric, BARBARIC!!!!

That was in a different thread and technically not on the floor of the Senate.

I've been debating; it's not my fault there is inactivity in this Senate.

If you read through Badger's post, and my response, I made clear why I felt his proposal would needlessly complicate the legislation.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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...

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

Well you could always let me do the work on this bill and you just vote 'aye', if that's what you want.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

That proposed amendment appears to be just a re-assertion of everything you stated earlier, not an attempt to compromise at all. I'm sorry, but it's clearly not in keeping with the intended spirit of the law, and it's watered down to the point that the thought of it would put sly grins on the faces of chain CEOs across the country.

This is the the Break the Chains Act, not the Maybe Slightly Loosen The Chains But Probably Have No Effect Act.



Also, why eliminate the small business Fund?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I like the idea of increasing the number of stores necessary... but I don't understand why the tax rates need to be lowered so drastically. Considering we are merely debating a tax on profits, I don't see how we would really be discouraging business expansion so much.

And Badger's still talking about only applying the dramatically reduced tax rate to the profits of the few additional stores above the bracket, rather than upon the owning corporation as a whole.

All-in-all, it seemed like a 3-way assault on the effectiveness of the proposal.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

NAY

Why are people voting aye on this horrible, horrible amendment? Senator Badger has addressed zero of the concerns put forth about his proposals.

This amendment will KILL the Break the Chains Act.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The bill as it currently stands serves to do nothing except require lots of tedious accounting to manage the burdens of a complicated but pointless tax bracket system.  Not to mention all the paper this will waste.

The net costs of this proposal are not worth it. It will not accomplish the social benefits intended by the authentic Break the Chains Act. Sadly I must urge my fellow senators to reject this impostor version of the bill I proposed. As I said, this amended bill would be better named the Maybe Slightly Loosen The Chains But Probably Have No Effect Act.

It is disappointing that members of the Senate who either A) voiced concerns about Badger's amendment that were not addressed or B) did not partake in the debate at all, voted AYE on this bill-killing amendment.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't think this kills the bill. In fact, I think it makes the bill stronger. It taxes the companies that are legitimately too large, but not to such an extent that it will cause financial chaos, while still funneling huge and unprecedented sums of money into the existing programs of the Small Business Administration that will be used much more comprehensively than simple tax credits and loans. This will allow a new era of never-before seen small business growth in Atlasia. A useful and well-funded SBA will basically let anyone who desires to own their own company their own chance at the American dream.

As was mentioned, the tax amounts are so infinitesimally small that they will have no effect on the big chains. The goal of the Break the Chains Act was to convince chains not to over-expand and over-concentrate property and wealth lest they damage their own profits. At the current rate of taxation, they will just write-off the laughably minor loss in profits when they expand. It is at this point just a nuisance upon business that does not carry with it any social benefit.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't think this kills the bill. In fact, I think it makes the bill stronger. It taxes the companies that are legitimately too large, but not to such an extent that it will cause financial chaos, while still funneling huge and unprecedented sums of money into the existing programs of the Small Business Administration that will be used much more comprehensively than simple tax credits and loans. This will allow a new era of never-before seen small business growth in Atlasia. A useful and well-funded SBA will basically let anyone who desires to own their own company their own chance at the American dream.

As was mentioned, the tax amounts are so infinitesimally small that they will have no effect on the big chains. The goal of the Break the Chains Act was to convince chains not to over-expand and over-concentrate property and wealth lest they damage their own profits. At the current rate of taxation, they will just write-off the laughably minor loss in profits when they expand. It is at this point just a nuisance upon business that does not carry with it any social benefit.

Is the point of the bill to destroy larger firms, or grow smaller ones? I much prefer the latter aim to the former, even though if you did want to go with the objection of destruction directly, this upswing of new businesses the amended bill would allow would be far more efficient at evening out the marketplace than a tax on a tenth of total profits would. Just saying.

The point is not to destroy firms, but rather to encourage wealth and property that had been concentrated to be more widely distributed. Providing funds to smaller businesses was the secondary goal. In its current state, the bill accomplishes none of the original goals.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't think this kills the bill. In fact, I think it makes the bill stronger. It taxes the companies that are legitimately too large, but not to such an extent that it will cause financial chaos, while still funneling huge and unprecedented sums of money into the existing programs of the Small Business Administration that will be used much more comprehensively than simple tax credits and loans. This will allow a new era of never-before seen small business growth in Atlasia. A useful and well-funded SBA will basically let anyone who desires to own their own company their own chance at the American dream.

As was mentioned, the tax amounts are so infinitesimally small that they will have no effect on the big chains. The goal of the Break the Chains Act was to convince chains not to over-expand and over-concentrate property and wealth lest they damage their own profits. At the current rate of taxation, they will just write-off the laughably minor loss in profits when they expand. It is at this point just a nuisance upon business that does not carry with it any social benefit.

Is the point of the bill to destroy larger firms, or grow smaller ones? I much prefer the latter aim to the former, even though if you did want to go with the objection of destruction directly, this upswing of new businesses the amended bill would allow would be far more efficient at evening out the marketplace than a tax on a tenth of total profits would. Just saying.

The point is not to destroy firms, but rather to encourage wealth and property that had been concentrated to be more widely distributed. Providing funds to smaller businesses was the secondary goal. In its current state, the bill accomplishes none of the original goals.

This bill gives billions and billions of dollars per year to programs that assist new businesses! How does that not accomplish at least the secondary goal? Also, with money being taken directly from larger companies to allow smaller companies to start and develop, how is the first goal not being met as well?

Because a corporation is not going to bother selling a property or even ceasing to buy out new properties over an infinitesimally small amount of potential tax savings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, if you'd like, go ahead. I think it's clear how I'm going to vote.