[SENATE] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

"O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, / O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?" - Francis Scott Key
User avatar
Snacks
rhetorical masturbation
Posts: 527
Joined: 21:22:18 Wednesday, 22 August, 2012

[SENATE] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by Snacks » 07:43:10 Thursday, 19 March, 2015

Representative Raymond Freeman, AR wrote:My esteemed friends. It is sad to know few of you will be surprised to hear me say that, on top of a sea of troubles, our cherished nation is in dire financial straits. A great many people, some in this House, would lead us to believe it is only in the span of a few years that this situation has come about. They would attempt to put this on their fellow public servants. I find both trains of thought unhelpful and that they miss the truth.

Simply put, my fellow Representatives, the issue is far beyond politicians or parties: it is an ethos, a philosophy, a way of life that has sprung up within part of our society. The great cancer, ladies and gentlemen, is an undemocratic subsidization of the rich: achieved by subverting the laws meant to protect everyone.

This nation faces an epidemic of workers who are underpaid for the labor they do, whose employers force them to turn to government assistance despite reaping millions in growing profits each year from government subsidies and tax breaks. Working mothers-to-be, denied the necessary time and resources for prenatal care or sufficient maternity leave, are expected to put the needs of their child on hold while creating the wealth that supports the well-being of their bosses' own children. All the while, many of these businesses receive generous government assistance and claim inability to pay.

Make no mistake: I am fully devoted to this government's oath to see to those who need to be pulled up and out of bad circumstances but that is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is that this situation constitutes a totally unearned subsidization of big businesses by the MSAmerican working class: that the employees of businessmen who refuse to pay a living wage are paying taxes to make up the revenue lost to their bosses' tax breaks. Those who engage in this sort of gaming of the system subvert not only the intent of government assistance programs but donate millions of dollars, billions even, to institutions that not only are not in need of more donations to support themselves, but that serve only the wealthy except in the rarest of circumstances, further concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. That is neither a free market nor a socially just one, and to describe this situation as unethical, as exploitation, is the epitome of understatement.

My proposal to you, my friends, is to not just halt but reverse this trend: to help forge a new civic ethos that embraces the benevolence of man. I present to you this bill with two goals: to not just preserve but improve the fair deal we have promised our children, and to improve their health, lift up their education, and brighten their economic future.
On Tax-breaks and charitable donations to educational institutions; federal funding to higher education
  • The Department of Health, Welfare, and Education will be charged with drafting guidelines on effective means of encouraging diversity in admissions of private primary and secondary schools, along with private colleges and universities. Federal tax breaks to private educational institutions will be contingent on adoption of these guidelines, or a demonstrable increase in admissions of students from minority populations or economically disadvantaged backgrounds, as well as the adoption of assistance programs for economically disadvantaged students and accommodation of students and faculties with disabilities.
  • These requirements will also extend to charitable donation to educational institutions: donations to schools which do not meet DoHW&E standards on diversity and accommodation for this disabled will not be tax deductible.
  • Private educational institutions shown to habitually under-perform in graduation rates and percentages of students capable of demonstrating acceptable academic progress will no longer be eligible for federal subsidization programs.
  • The Department of Heath, Welfare, and Education will be charged with creating regulations to legally classify so-called "For-Profit" institutions of higher learning. These institutions will not receive federal tax breaks or funding for institutions of higher education, or federal student aid.

On Corporate Wages and Tax-Breaks
  • Ordering the formulation of a Federal Living Wage Standard, based on the average cost of living, after taxation and adjusted for inflation, in the state where this cost is the highest. This Standard would be calculated by a Federal Wage Commission(FWC) organized by the Department of Labor and the Department of Health, Welfare, and Education based on relevant statistics compiled from the appropriate departments and revised every 5 years.
  • The Federal minimum wage will be set to 100% of the living wage
    Eligibility for corporate tax breaks will be tied to a company's payment into employee benefits including healthcare, maternity benefits, and pensions or other retirement plans. the Department of Labor will be charged with creating a framework in which available amount of federal tax relief is proportional to the amount paid into these programs and the percentage of employees these programs are made available to.
  • Exemptions will be set by the Department of Commerce adjusting these eligibility requirements in the case of family owned and operated businesses as well as non-profit organizations, or tax credits specifically to facilitate compliance for small businesses with few employees such as farms, independent hospitality businesses, repair-shops, etc.
  • The "Like-Kind Exchange" will be excised from federal tax code, and instead its intended function of helping farmers will be handled by specific exemptions less open to abuse, which the Department of the Treasury will be charged with drafting in consultation with the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce.
  • A one time expenditure of 1 credit to handle the cost of necessary studies and the enactment of these new requirements
On Tax-Sheltering by Businesses and Individuals
  • Amending the system of calculating taxable corporate income to count the profit of offshore subsidiaries and parent companies as that of the same company.
  • Banning MSA citizens from the use of offshore banks, or of registering a company or claiming residence in a foreign country when income is predominantly derived from transactions which take place in the MSA.
  • Banning MSA citizens from placing their assets in offshore trusts.
  • Increasing regular funding for the Internal Revenue Service by 1 credit[-1 Government: Administrative]
Representative Cecelia Ortega, House Majority Whip wrote: I have heard a great deal of talk lately, in the Halls of Congress and in the press, about how former President Stassen was fixing this nation's economy and how we ought to follow his lead: cut subsidies and relieve the people of the MSA from the burden placed on them by faulty economics.

I could not agree more: we must cut wasteful subsidization of the wealthy by the working class, and we must charge our public institutions with removing the graft that runs rampant in the tax code so that our nation might harness the wealth its men and women actually generate. We must end the unofficial subsidization of enterprises that contribute only to the quiet economic, gender, and racial segregation of MSAamericans, so that we might effectively subsidize the advancement of the agriculture that sustains us and the industry that allows us to shape our world.

We must trim wasteful spending and produce a solvent budget, and we must understand what that truly looks like: it does not look like austerity. It does not look like a slash and burn budget that allows us to say we have solved the deficit while leaving our fellow Americans in the cold. What it does look like is a complicated process: one that takes more than one bill, more than just a budget.

It looks like finally seeing the wealth that others have concealed from our people and claimed it unobtainable while really it was within reach the whole time-the revenue that could have and by law should have been contributed but that others were expected to compensate for. It looks like holding people accountable for their effect on society, a value my Republican friends hold dear.

It looks like fixing the holes Harold Stassen and David Cargo tore in this economy, that let this revenue flow out of the economy and into the hoards of their rich friends while stabbing the farmer and the common citizen in the back. It will be a long journey, especially if those who benefit from this broken economy seek to halt and reverse our progress, but it is a journey that has already begun: this omnibus is not the first step, rather it is only several more in the right direction.

User avatar
Coin
Mise, Pangur Bán agus PILOT WHALES
Posts: 1500
Joined: 14:15:01 Thursday, 02 August, 2012

Re: [House] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by Coin » 13:14:48 Thursday, 19 March, 2015

Representative Pearson, R-IA wrote:Before the omnibus is opened for debate on the floor, I would request the Speaker of the House split the omnibus into three bills, with their own debate and vote apiece. Otherwise, this omnibus shall doubtless not afford the debate on each individual bill the merit it deserves.
SpoilerShow
i.e. split into three threads?

User avatar
Flamelord
Old Man Veto
Posts: 902
Joined: 19:01:52 Thursday, 02 August, 2012
Location: America
Contact:

Re: [House] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by Flamelord » 14:41:09 Thursday, 19 March, 2015

Speaker of the House Jeanette Johnson, MO wrote:While the sentiment of Representative Pearson is appreciated, I am going to rule that dilatory at this time. An omnibus is a single bill covering many topics, and is permissible under currently legislative rules. So unless Representative Freeman would prefer that this bill be divided into it's separate components, debate will continue as normal.

User avatar
Coin
Mise, Pangur Bán agus PILOT WHALES
Posts: 1500
Joined: 14:15:01 Thursday, 02 August, 2012

Re: [House] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by Coin » 14:52:02 Thursday, 19 March, 2015

Representative Pearson, R-IA wrote:With respect to the Speaker, I did not deny it being permissible. But it is not conducive to proper debate, discussion and scrutiny when so many separate issues - the minimum wage, education grants and corporate income rules - are all put to the same vote in the same bill. The claim I am trying to cause delay by immediately, promptly and politely asking for the bills to be presented separately is an unfair and incorrect assumption.

We have already in this Congress done the very same thing for the Humanitarian Aid to Haiti bill. I therefore would ask Representative Freeman to support the separation of the omnibus into three separate votes.

User avatar
Snacks
rhetorical masturbation
Posts: 527
Joined: 21:22:18 Wednesday, 22 August, 2012

Re: [House] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by Snacks » 02:35:29 Friday, 20 March, 2015

Representative Raymond Freeman, TX wrote: With all due respect to Representative Pearson, this omnibus has been put together because the American people do not have time for piecemeal measures. Given his colleagues have repeatedly emphasized the belief among the Republican party that rapid action is needed and their vehement criticism of the Coalition for not having enacted it sooner, I'm a little surprised that of all things the right might object to with this bill, it's the potential for expediency. Quite honestly, I don't think it's reasonable to claim that the men and women of this Congress and their staffs are incapable of assessing this legislation and deciding to support it or stating their objections, nor do I think it's responsible to delay this needed relief to the economy and most importantly the people of the MSA. In short, I must respectfully maintain my opposition to separation.

User avatar
OYID
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Posts: 1422
Joined: 17:52:23 Wednesday, 22 August, 2012
Location: Huojin's Bathroom

Re: [House] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by OYID » 02:36:35 Friday, 20 March, 2015

10 Progressive Socialist votes IN FAVOR

EDIT: Accidentally edited the other night, returned to what it was. Needs to be reconfirmed by OYID(sorry).- Snacks
I am Fidel Castro and we have come to liberate Cuba.

Huojin
General Secretary
General Secretary
Posts: 3402
Joined: 07:30:29 Thursday, 02 August, 2012

Re: [House] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by Huojin » 11:07:11 Friday, 20 March, 2015

OYID wrote:
11 Progressive Hard Left votes IN FAVOR
[[*cough* (Pssst. OYID. You're not the Progressive Hard Left.]]

User avatar
Snacks
rhetorical masturbation
Posts: 527
Joined: 21:22:18 Wednesday, 22 August, 2012

Re: [House] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by Snacks » 11:26:02 Friday, 20 March, 2015

11 Progressive Hard Left votes IN FAVOR

User avatar
OYID
Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Posts: 1422
Joined: 17:52:23 Wednesday, 22 August, 2012
Location: Huojin's Bathroom

Re: [House] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by OYID » 17:29:38 Friday, 20 March, 2015

Huojin wrote:
OYID wrote:
11 Progressive Hard Left votes IN FAVOR
[[*cough* (Pssst. OYID. You're not the Progressive Hard Left.]]
((Psst. I know. The Socialists vote in favor))
I am Fidel Castro and we have come to liberate Cuba.

User avatar
Gesar
Social Justice Shah
Social Justice Shah
Posts: 1463
Joined: 00:18:50 Thursday, 02 August, 2012

Re: [House] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by Gesar » 17:46:42 Friday, 20 March, 2015

14 Progressive Liberals vote IN FAVOR
آمریکا هیچ غلطی نمی تواند بکند‎

User avatar
RinKou
Jackbooted Swinelicker Fascist
Posts: 843
Joined: 06:18:32 Wednesday, 08 August, 2012
Location: OC, CA
Contact:

Re: [House] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by RinKou » 18:36:44 Friday, 20 March, 2015

6 Progressive Conservative votes IN FAVOR
Heartache by the Numbers: Caravan Master

If you say that prancing mailman of a GM is ever going to run the gangster game WELL THEN I SAY GOOD DAY SIR -oyid

I write things!
I post things!

User avatar
Flamelord
Old Man Veto
Posts: 902
Joined: 19:01:52 Thursday, 02 August, 2012
Location: America
Contact:

Re: [HOUSE] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by Flamelord » 21:19:40 Saturday, 21 March, 2015

10 Progressive Moderate votes IN FAVOR.

User avatar
Coin
Mise, Pangur Bán agus PILOT WHALES
Posts: 1500
Joined: 14:15:01 Thursday, 02 August, 2012

Re: [HOUSE] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by Coin » 15:39:21 Tuesday, 24 March, 2015

Representative Goodwin, R-SD wrote:My colleague from Iowa, in voicing his concern regarding proper debate being had on this omnibus, was quickly dismissed by the "progressives" of this Congress. A reasonable request to split three entirely different bills into three different votes was ignored, and now we see the result. This bill might have been excused scrutiny by the entirety of the congressional left, but they shall not rush it's more questionable aspects past scrutiny from this party. Cloaked under dubious claims of economic relief, what this omnibus actually does is trample on the rights of business and individuals. From a coalition in bed with communists and those who still refuse to condemn Roux-Johnson's lying to the American people, we can scarcely be surprised, but that does not make it any less an assault on common sense in the MSA.

Representative Freeman, in his opening comments, speaks truly in stating that this nation is in dire financial straits. It is therefore disappointing that this is the only reaction the regressive left can come up with. Quite apart from the more economically damaging sections, I raise the poorly explained "On Tax-breaks and charitable donations to educational institutions; federal funding to higher education" section of this omnibus."

It is no surprise that - just as with their equally regressive agriculture bill - the Progressives wish to draft guidelines without any real idea of what they might be. I would request an explanation, even if explanations are in short supply from the present coalition.

Likewise, there is no explanation of the timescale that universities and schools would have to conform to these new guidelines. The language is equally unclear. We are told that they must increase the admission of minority or poorer students - or perhaps they need only "adopt" the guidelines. Precisely how this is all to be judged, we do not know. The wholesale abandonment of any for-profit institutions is likely to be damaging to the education sector if not properly thought through or put on a timescale; I encourage answers on all points.

That this country needs reform of the education sector is not in doubt. What is doubtful, however, is that this would do anything except buy the coalition the support of a few far-left think-tanks and potentially damage the number of donations to our educational institutions. In the short-term, the Progressives may see this as beneficial. But in reality, it would only increase the pressure on an already overloaded education sector.
Representative Hanson, R-TX wrote:If I might thank Representative Goodwin for giving way, I would raise the sections of the bill damaging to our economy that he mentioned in passing but now in detail.

Representatives Ortega and Freeman, in introducing this omnibus, attempted to present it as being in some way helpful to MS American economic recovery. Quite aside from the usual partisan comments which blame a loosely defined "right" as being the cause of all our problems, there is a further motive here which I am not convinced is known to their fellow party factions.

Firstly, this bill would place massive pressure on businesses at a tough time. We are all in favour of decreasing inequality, of more jobs, of better jobs. The way to do this is, however, to grow our economy. I hope the Coalition will listen to Republican calls for a budget promptly, and some kind of measure to stimulate growth, whether taking the form of temporary tax breaks on exports, or indeed renewed trade deals.

The way to scuttle our growth is to force businesses to increase the wages they pay their lowest paid workers, and as a consequence the wage they will likely pay all their workers in the short to medium term. While a rising wage is in itself a good thing, it is only good if done when economic growth allows it to be done; it is only acceptable if affordable. This is neither.

The end result would be that businesses could not afford to keep as many staff on when orders or contracts dry up. As if this were not bad enough, companies would also now be forced to pay for all employee benefits - the legislation makes no difference between contracted or permanent staff - whether maternity, pensions or healthcare. This, representatives, would not make it easier for women to be hired - it would make it more difficult, as a business would naturally be faced with increased automatic costs for hiring a female worker even on the shortest of contracts.

But finally, and most questionably, this bill seeks to give an unfair advantage to the "cooperatives" over private American companies. This bill seems to have very little to do with solving our economic problems. Instead it wishes to compensate for the failure of socialist and progressive cooperative encouragement by giving them un-American government support.

This republic needs growth, Congressmen, not more red tape and hostile, anti-business legislation.
Representative Warner, R-OK wrote:I agree entirely. In addition, I am not convinced that the third section of this omnibus has been scrutinised properly. Precisely what is an "offshore" account? Many MSA citizens with dual citizenship, or who regularly visit abroad, would find their legal rights limited by the administration saying they cannot hold any money abroad.
House Minority Leader Matthew J Carpenter wrote:My four colleagues have spoken sensibly and punctually on this omnibus. Without repeating their statements, they have proven it to be lacking consistency and common sense on a number of issues. Individual measures proposed herein have merit, which on there own might win cross-aisle support - but not thrown together with merit-less ideological market-bashing, and not rushed through so brashly, in an economic climate where the markets are already sensitive. This might not matter to those who do not believe in a free market, but the Republican Party does, and we believe this omnibus to be a step to the far-left down a path the MSA does not wish to tread.
12 Republican Conservative votes AGAINST

User avatar
BgKnight
George R. R. Martin in space and with less talent
Posts: 1214
Joined: 23:30:02 Wednesday, 01 August, 2012

Re: [HOUSE] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by BgKnight » 20:53:51 Tuesday, 24 March, 2015

Representative Olivia Pina wrote:
I cannot support in any way another bill, which is once again vague in its language and will do nothing but harm the economic situation which I would like to remind the house is in such dire state because the progressives have yet to present a budget. We are in a recession, we cannot allow ourselves such luxuries. Unfortunately, neither me nor my colleagues are interested in voting in support of this omibus.
12 Republican Moderates votes AGAINST
Image

User avatar
Smyg
GETTIN' REAL TIRED OF YOUR MACHIAVELLIAN BULLSHIT, GESAR
Posts: 3114
Joined: 23:01:40 Thursday, 02 August, 2012

Re: [HOUSE] Tax Reform and Tax-Avoidance Prevention Omnibus of 1981

Post by Smyg » 21:13:22 Tuesday, 24 March, 2015

Peter Henderson, Minnesota (R-L) wrote:I cannot, with a good conscience, support this bill. Much of the proposed omnibus is good, but many other proposals can be described as nothing but a disaster for the American economy amid this recession of ours - even some of the good one won't function at present. Representative Hanson in particular makes a good case against the cooperatives, which quite simply is not a rational form of enterprise no matter how many tax dollars we pour into the idea.
4 Republican Liberal votes AGAINST.

Locked

Return to “Mountain States of America”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests