OLD: Comprehensive Social Security Reform Act (See new thread: Reference Only)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I still think 50% of the previous salary is a reasonable minimum for someone who lost his job and genuinely wants to get back working. Of course it makes no sense if the guy earned $20,000 a month and would get $10,000, but that's why I've set a maximum of $4,000 per month. I really don't see what would be the problem, as the provisions we've set clearly make it impossible for someone who doesn't want to work to get the benefits.

I still oppose it. Anyone that's been out of work has had sufficient time to make changes to his lifestyle. There's no reason society should be financing his previous standard of living after that point.

There are certain jobs (particularly blue collar ones) where a person could legitimately be looking for new work for many many years because the jobs aren't coming back. It seems absurd that the taxpayers should pay that amount for an extended period of time. (And it's actually 90% for a whole year in your proposal.)

I like the German Hartz IV system....after a certain point cut them off and put them on a base welfare rate.

Could you give some details on how that system works, what the lengths of time at different levels are, etc etc?

[Franzl]

Could you give some details on how that system works, what the lengths of time at different levels are, etc etc?

Basically, "unemployment benefits" are only given for 12 months (60% to 67% of former pay)....the time frame is extended to 18 months for people over age 55.

After that point, it goes to pretty normal welfare payments....that are also subject to looking for a job and accepting a job if any offer is made, pretty much (like you're both proposing for this law). Those payments are about 360€ a month. In addition to that basic money, "adequate" housing is provided by the state. Actually Hartz IV is quite strict....even savings, whether you own a car, whether you own a house....etc, are all factors in your eligibilty for welfare payments. It's entirely a needs based system.

I'm willing to discuss (well....I'm not a senator, so nobody should care what I'm willing to do....) somewhat higher rates for the first year or so than Hartz IV offers. I think that might be warranted, but it's really not a big factor for me. The more important thing is that salary based unemployment benefits aren't payed after that first year.

Anyone that's out of work for that amount of time, in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of those that created this system.....needs to change his lifestyle. I understand he thinks he needs to pay for his car, his home, whatever else, but I don't think it's fair to make society pay for the continuation of a lifestyle he's no longer able to support himself. I support a safety net that makes sure nobody sinks into extreme poverty or hardship, but beyond those basic needs, I don't see why we need to offer anything. We can't have society at large subsidizing the lifestyle of someone that might not ever get back the job he previously held.

We're just asking for trouble with indefinite payments.

(And BTW...the welfare reform in Germany (which changed the system from something more similar to what Antonio is proposing to the current Hartz concept) was actually passed under the Social Democratic/Green government. In 2003, IIRC. It's just one of those things that a left-wing party has to pass for it to be taken seriously. Somewhat like it being necessary that a Republican commence relations with China for the United States. Sometimes the biggest defender of a particular policy has to realize it's not effective in order for it to changed and widely accepted.) That said, left-wingers still hate the Social Democratic Party for these reforms. There's a reason Antonio was cheering for the Communists in the last election and not the SPD

[Antonio the Sixth]

I just think we don't have the same logic, Franzl. You think the role of the welfare State is merely to prevent people from falling into extreme destitution, and that any dollar spent otherwise is illegitimate. I think that victims of unemployment have the right to keep, to some extent, their previous standard of living. No person should suffer the consequences of something he isn't responsible of, that is my view. A permanent 100% indemnization would be the ideal theoretically speaking, but we probably can't afford it and it would probably generate some problems. So, I think my proposal is a nice compromise, with a degressive indemnization stopping at 50%.

If we have to compare countries, I guess you know the Danish system gives 90% benefits for 4 years. I don't think it has caused the country to go bankrupt... So yeah, Schröder was a moderate hero so maybe he cared too much about "being taken seriously" and not about what was the best for his country. In any case, the fact a left-winger did it doesn't mean it's a common sense measure, unless you define common sense ideologically.

And please, you're far too intelligent to call Die Linke communist.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think that a wise policy would be one that is closer to what Franzl has described. I beleive in the concept of a safety net, but I don't beleive in either guarranteed outcomes or a welfare state. With exceptions for those who can't (disability, age etc etc etc), policy should always have the utlimate aim of restoring someone's financial independence as soon as possible. The problem with "preserving a standard of living" is that it seeks to make the state responsible for ensuring equal outcomes and it removes any incentive towards re-education and retraining for people who were laid off in certain dead industries, and in general reduces or removes entirely the incentive to strive for "self-betterment".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also, I will point out that little consistent effort is made to relate or some way condition the amount of re-imbursement on the method or cause which produced a state of unemployment. Not all "unemployed" people are "victims" as this bill presents them or assumes them to be. Inspite of the recession, and thus the large increase in the number of people who are "innocent" victims, there still remains a significant number who are unemployed as a result of incompetence, insubordination, tardiness, misuse or damaging of machinery, or just plain quit. I don't think that tax payers should be responsible for the subsidization of these people at their" previous standard of living". That would be "unfair", especially to those innocent victims, but also to the tax payers.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I motion to continue debate on this bill for another 72 hours.

I think there is still plenty that needs to be worked out in it before we move to a vote.

Anyone want to second that motion?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I second the motion.


We probably will need longer then 72 hours.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Antonio, in Section 4 you didn't use the word "percieve", you didn't start using it till Section 5. Why was their such a shift form the the less awkward language in Section 4 to Section 5. This is more then just perceive being used, but the wording. I think the wording used for the funding clause of Section 4 is stronger then what is used in the following sections. What is your opinion on this section? Of course one of you other lame Senators is free to offer opinions here as well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I second the motion.


We probably will need longer then 72 hours.

Indeed, we can already prorogate it by three months at this point.


And NCY, sorry but I don't have the time to adress all the issues you brought up right now. School has began and I had a lot of work last weekend. I should be able to keep the discussion going either thursday or friday.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay then I am going to experiement with different ways to fix some of the language, starting with percieve.

Time to make Word, howl.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bold is what word corrected. Spaces before colons and a few mispellings. I also replaced perceive with receive.

Part 2 coming up.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Used received except for the last section where I used collected. Also removed some more uneeded spaces.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I've updated the original post to include the changes NCY made.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For the, record, the changes are accepted as friendly.


I also urge the PPT to correct a minor mistake in section 7 :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ban my account ffs!]

While that is more than a simple correction, I put it in there because you are the sponsor and you did intend that word to be there from the start... so technically, the spirit of the bill has not changed.

If anyone objects, please do so within the next 24 hours.

[Junkie]

Don't mean to barge in too much, but I guess it is too late for that.   First of all, I want to express my admiration as to this bill.  It is complex and from a legal standpoint, beautifully written.

I just have one question that I hope will be considered.  As far as this "Council," I think that it might be a little unworkable.  One third are to be representative of workers, with elections administered by the unions.  However, large numbers of workers are not in unions.  I worked at hotel with about 100 employees and we were not unionized.  Under this bill, a union would have the right and the duty to come into the business and organize an election for the council.  I see two problems: (1) in cases of non-unionized employees, which union is responsible for the elections and (2) many businesses might view this as a way to backdoor unions into their affairs.  While I am sure that is not the point of this bill, in effect, unions will have roles in every business where there are employees.

The same can be said for the business communities.  Many small business are not members of organizations, or if they are, they are just local affiliations.   This bill would necessitate these business to join larger organizations in order to have their voices heard on this council, of course brining along the fees that come with that.

I just wanted to air these concerns.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You raise valid points, and there's probably something to be fixed about this part of the bill. Personally, I considered unions more as a mean than as an aim for employee representation. FTR, this is not necessarily unworkable even in low-unionzed countries, as France has one of the lowest unionization rates in Europe. But still maybe that's not the best thing to do. Do you have any alternative suggestion of a system to ensure representation of the two components ?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Don't forget that we need to look at the funding mechanisms in this bill, a tad closer. There are substantial fica/payroll taxes utilized to pay for this but no mention of utilizing a current rate or repealing a current rate, so the effect would be that all of these would be on top of current rates.


If I have time today, I will make a list of all the different tax hikes in the bill. That way we can measure the some total and see how much it is and if there are alternatives.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, I'll have a look at your proposals and tell you my feeling. I think the GM's help will be necessary though.

[Junkie]

You raise valid points, and there's probably something to be fixed about this part of the bill. Personally, I considered unions more as a mean than as an aim for employee representation. FTR, this is not necessarily unworkable even in low-unionzed countries, as France has one of the lowest unionization rates in Europe. But still maybe that's not the best thing to do. Do you have any alternative suggestion of a system to ensure representation of the two components ?

Sorry, but I was taking time to look at how the original board for the SSA was set up.  In order to keep with the intent of your bill's council, how about the following:

(1) Make the council 7 members all appointed by the President subject to Senate approval
(2) The council must have at least one member from each major party
(3) Two must be employees (with nominations for the President coming from the unions) two must be business (with nominations from business organizations) and the remaining three up to the President subject to the above limitations.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I like your idea, but is it really a good thing to make the council partisan ? I mean, I think the councilors should have nothing to do with the political sphere, and come from the civil society.

As for the nomination, I'd rather have the councilors appointed by the SoIA and not confirmed by the Senate. For the same reason to make the council an administrative body and not a political one.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Section 4: Health Insurance

3. Any household registered to the Health Insurance Administration shall pay a contribution amounting to 2% of its salary and 5% of its other incomes.



Section 5: Unemployment Insurance
4. The Unemployment Insurance Administration shall receive contributions, amounting to 6% of a registered employee's salary. Such contributions shall be paid monthly, by half by concerned employee, and by half by the business employing it.



Section 6: Parenthood Insurance

3. Any household registered to the Parenthood Insurance Administration shall pay a contribution equivalent to one twentieth of the amount of its income tax. Said contributions shall be paid concurrently with the income tax.



Section 7: Old Age Insurance

3. The Old Age Insurance Administration shall receive contributions, amounting to 10% of a registered employee's salary. Such contributions shall be paid monthly, by half by concerned employee, and by half by the business employing it.


Section 8: Minor Insurances
3.  Any household registered to the Minor Insurances Administration shall pay a contribution amounting to 2% of its salary and 5% of its other incomes.
4. Contributions shall be received by the Minor Insurances Administration, monthly for salaries an annually for other incomes.



Section 9: Limitation of the tax burden

1. In order to avoid an excessive raise of government taxes, it is the will of the legislator that the passage of this bill doesn't result in an augmentation of the total amount of money collected by the government and its agencies of more than 10%.
2. This goal shall in priority be pursued through the repeal of any legislation regarding Social Security prior to this bill, thus nullifying the taxes established under this legislation.
3. One year after the passage of this bill, an independent commission shall be nominated by the Department of Internal Affairs, in order to calculate the amount of money collected by the government and its agencies in the previous year and what it would have been without the passage of this bill. The conclusions of said commission shall be published by the Game Moderator.
4. If the commission determines that the raise in the tax burden due to the passage of this bill has exceeded 10%, the Senate shall implement legislation in order to reduce its amount so that the raise in the tax burden doesn't exceed 10%.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

While this bill does repeal all previous welfare legislation. I am not sure that is adequate to ensure all other payroll taxes imposed to fund such programs are also repealed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

While this bill does repeal all previous welfare legislation. I am not sure that is adequate to ensure all other payroll taxes imposed to fund such programs are also repealed.

The bill states it pretty clearly, so why shouldn't it work ? And anyways I don't know how we could proceed otherwise.

[Junkie]

I like your idea, but is it really a good thing to make the council partisan ? I mean, I think the councilors should have nothing to do with the political sphere, and come from the civil society.

As for the nomination, I'd rather have the councilors appointed by the SoIA and not confirmed by the Senate. For the same reason to make the council an administrative body and not a political one.

I understand your concerns about not making the body political.  However, as the SoIA is a political office, any appointments will be political in nature, confirmed or not by the Senate.  I actually got the idea from FDR's first creation of the SSA.  One problem with appointed boards is that when a new administration comes into power, they replace everybody.  By having political party representation, there is a greater chance that someone with institutional knowledge will stick around.  It will also give all parties a say on the board, and hopefully reduce gridlock.  Although I may be an idealist.