Act of Congress Reduced Balance Tax Amendment Act

[Gwi]

A
BILL
To
Amend the Taxation Act​

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Reduced Balance Tax Amendment Act'.

(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

(3) This Act has been authored by Rep. gwiis.

(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Rep. EATB, Rep smokeyybunnyyy, and Rep. Rubilubi55.

2 - Reasons

(1) The Treasury enjoys a healthy surplus and can afford to reduce taxes.

(2) Banks should be encouraged to provide incentives to depositors other than serving as a means of avoiding balance tax.

3 - Amendments

(1) §4.2 of the 'Taxation Act' shall be amended as follows:

" (2) The following bracket amounts are inclusive and shall be taxed at the following rates weekly:

Taxation Bracket	Taxation Rate (%)
$0.00 to $49,999.99	0
$50,000.00 to $99,999.99	1
$100,000.00 to $199,999.99	1.2
$200,000.00 - $399,999.99	1.4
$400,000.00+	1.8

Taxation Bracket	Taxation Rate (%)
$0.00 to $99,999.99	0
$100,000.00 to $199,999.99	1
$200,000.00 to $299,999.99	1.2
$300,000.00 - $499,999.99	1.4
$500,000.00+	1.8

 

[juniperfig]

Since the Senate is tied, I’m casting the tiebreaking vote.

I have one major concern with this bill: lowering the balance tax threshold could reduce Treasury revenue at a time when we’re already stretched thin covering the fallout from recent bank failures. And yes, the current 50k cap encourages use of banks and supports the rebuilding of our financial sector.

However, banks right now are primarily used for tax evasion, not economic growth. As soon as players receive balance tax, they dump their excess into bank accounts. Not out of trust in the banks, but out of necessity. We're rewarding avoidance, not encouraging educated participation with the financial sector.

Worse, the banks we’re relying on to hold these funds have proven unstable. It’s not reasonable to ask citizens to entrust everything over 50k to these institutions. If we had functional finance regulation, my viewpoint may be different, but we don't. By raising the balance tax threshold, we shift the balance of power back toward the individual. We give players more freedom to spend, to save, and to engage directly with the economy without relying on financial intermediaries that may not deserve their trust.

I vote AYE.

 

[Moyfr]

TOTAL JUNIPER VIC- oh...​

 

[CoolCat]

Since the Senate is tied, I’m casting the tiebreaking vote.

I have one major concern with this bill: lowering the balance tax threshold could reduce Treasury revenue at a time when we’re already stretched thin covering the fallout from recent bank failures. And yes, the current 50k cap encourages use of banks and supports the rebuilding of our financial sector.

However, banks right now are primarily used for tax evasion, not economic growth. As soon as players receive balance tax, they dump their excess into bank accounts. Not out of trust in the banks, but out of necessity. We're rewarding avoidance, not encouraging educated participation with the financial sector.

Worse, the banks we’re relying on to hold these funds have proven unstable. It’s not reasonable to ask citizens to entrust everything over 50k to these institutions. If we had functional finance regulation, my viewpoint may be different, but we don't. By raising the balance tax threshold, we shift the balance of power back toward the individual. We give players more freedom to spend, to save, and to engage directly with the economy without relying on financial intermediaries that may not deserve their trust.

I vote AYE.

Haven't read it, but noice text.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Presidential Assent

This bill has been granted assent and is hereby signed into law.