Break the Chains Act [WITHDRAWN]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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

*slow standing applause*

My God, badger. I'm in love.

[Badger]

*slow standing applause*

My God, badger. I'm in love.

Errr, and I'm suddenly a little uncomfortable.

(Thanks though )

[k-onmmunist]

Oh Maro. Obviously it is all just in the interests of your real backers, big business. Because you are always out to protect them over everyone else Haha.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Franzl]

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

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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

[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?

[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?

[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.

[Bacon King]

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

[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.

[Bacon King]

I honestly believe that your ideas fit the purpose of this bill very well. The loans and tax credits should go to small businesses, not simply establishments that happen to have a single location- that would allow the bill to benefit newer businesses rather than, say, something like a high-end non-chain department store in New York City that makes millions a year and definitely doesn't need the assistance this bill provides. The fund should go towards helping people to enter the business market and better establish their fledgling companies. Small multi-location firms also shouldn't be taxed in the same manner as something like Walmart.

Also, a note on Senate protocol- if the sponsor of a bill wishes to withdraw it, any other Senator can move to assume sponsorship (with a simple majority vote if that motion is contested) to keep the bill on the floor.

[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...

[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.