Break the Chains Act [WITHDRAWN]

[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.

[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".

[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?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I thought increasing the number of stores for the tax rates a good idea, or I thought lowering the amount of taxes on the stores to be a good idea, but I shockingly find myself in the Libertas camp commenting on this legislation, because you've greatly increased the number AND dramatically lowered the taxes. What noticeable effect will it have at this point?

[Franzl]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am sure some will reach out for more then just antacids.

[Bacon King]

I like the amendment, Badger.

[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?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I just returned after a few days of vacation and play time with my best friend. In the interest of all, and for Badger especially, I'll just abstain.

[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.

[Bacon King]

Senators, there is now a vote to amend the bill as listed below. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bacon King]

Aye.

The increased number of firms will prevent smaller businesses from being punished, the smaller tax raises more than enough money, and placing the money directly under the purview of the Small Business Administration will allow for the most effective use of the funds rather than us establishing an unnecessary parallel program.

[Franzl]

Aye

[Badger]

Aye.

[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.

[bgwah]

abstain

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[bullmoose88]

Present and Abstaining.