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

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fellow Senators,

I have, of course, a lot to say on a bill, which is probably one of the longest ever introduced in Atlasia. That's why I will try to be as brief as possible.

Our Atlasian welfare system is established on a certain number of specific bills that have been added on a common base which is the US system. In one word, we have a confused cluster of legislation which certainly contraddict each other. This is not a situation our country can afford. What we need is the establishment of a unified legislation relative to social protection, of a new unified Social Security bill which can be used as the sole valid reference on this domain. In some way, we need to do for Social Security what we have recently done for our Constitution : a massive cleanup, clarification and improvement. This is an enormous ambition, I know that. Such an ambition needs a huge bill, and I hope mine is huge enough. But it's a too big task for me to do everything alone. My first draft probably requires to be improved, and this will be your job, fellow Senators.

My second ambition is not less great. I wish to endow Atlasia of a welfare system worthy of a developped country. Let's face it : Atlasia has a considerable retardation compared to most of Western societies. This retardation is due to the US's legacy : the legacy of a never achieved Great Society, of the disastrous Reaganomics and of 30 years of regression. Recently, important progresses were made, like the establishment of a Universal Health Care. But this is not enough : we need to extend the efforts made on health to other social risks like old age or unemployment. Our current system doesn't grant Atlasians their fundamental rights : the rights to a minimum standard of living, and to the protection against the unfairness of life. This bill is aimed to cover those different risks, through the work of the National Social Security Agency. Thanks to the NSSA, ill people will have their cure financed ; unemployed people will be granted a shelter against extreme poverty ; parents will have the possibility to raise their child(ren) in decent condition ; old people will not see their standards of living shrink after leaving their job ; people suffering from a loss will be duly compensated. Every society has its social safety net : it's time for us to have our own.

These, fellow Senators, are the reason which led me to work hard in order to draft this bill. This is a bill we need. Obviously, many questions remain to be asked. How much social protection do we need ? How to ensure a balanced budget for the NSSA while at the same time keeping the tax burden reasonable ? All of you will have the possibility to answer these questions through Amendments. I expect a passionate and constructive debate, which will allow us to make this bill better for everyone. I hope you all will enjoy engaging in this discussion with me. I'd just like to make a little premise before we start a debate. Some will claim we can't afford raising the tax burden in a period of recession, because this could harm consumption. To this objection, I will respond with two points. First of all the raise in the tax burden should be limited due to the repeal of a number of preceding bills : most of this work will result in replacing an existing tax with a new tax. Secondly, it's true this bill will result in a limited growth of the tax burden, but this raise will be more than compensated by the new allowances, pensions and indemnities we will establish, as they are going to benefit to the poorer people. Keynes teach us that giving money to low incomes is far more effective to stimulate growth than giving it to high incomes, because poor people tend, proportionally, to spend more money for consumption than wealthy people. Thus, I am certain that my bill will have a positive impact on growth.

So, I think it is time for the debate now. Please discuss this bill in every detail, propose dozens and dozens of Amendments, ask as much questions as you want. If you are ready to work as much as I did, we will have improved Atlasia more than most Senates have.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow ! It seems that, once again, we have a lot to discuss...

I like the idea of a tiered (I know thats not spelled right, its just one of them days. ) unemployment based on time length as an incentive to find keep looking for work. However, I don't like the idea of setting up an open ended insurance comittment (yes even at 50%). There needs to be a cut-off date lest we encourage people to take advantage of this system in such a way that deprieves the needy and bankrupts the treasury. There should not be a need for >4 years of unemployment unless there is a seriously economic problem in the country, in which the root causes should be addressed and any such programs temporarily expanded as needed for the duration of the problem. If the person's occupation is dead, they should be encourage to enter into retraining of some kind. In normal times, a year at most should be the maximum with exceptions for retraining workers etc etc, and lengthened only in times of severe pro-longed unemployment.

I agree with the problem you point out but disagree with what you think would be the solution. Yes, we need to encourage unemployed people to recover a job and try not to sustain them eternally. However, what if someone really doesn't manage to find a job for more than 4 years, should we let him without any help ? If we do, it can only be worse for him : extreme poverty is the best way to lose any qualification and become a "parasite".

However, part of the solution could be IMO already in the bill :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Simply : if you are not interested in recovering a job, you will lose your unemployment benefits. I think this is the best incentive the government can provide. In this case, I think it's strong enough to discourage any "parasite" behaviour. Maybe my criteria for a reasonable offer are too strict, do if you think loosening them would be better, I'll see your proposal. Also, we can add retraining programs to this list of obligations in order to encourage them too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'm not an expert on tax policy, so my form of funding was just a proposal. I came with that because that's the system used in France, but there's certainly something better to propose. Do you have any suggestion on how to fund it alternatively ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here I guess you misunderstood. The 10% raise funded by the government doesn't apply to one's previous salary, but instead to the unemployment benefits he received as unemployed. Ie to the income he percieved immediately before recovering a job.
For example, let's say Joe has just been fired and becomes unemployed. He perceives 90% of his previous salary. However, the market is good and Joe finds another job a couple of months later. Thanks to the clause, Joe is entitled to 10% more than what he received as unemployed, ie 90%x110%=99% of his previous salary. Which is still less and of course, with time, this amount decreases to 88%, 77%, 66% and 55%.
You said this would be an incentive to get fired : to the contrary, it's meant as an incentive to get a job. Indeed, with an equal revenue, someone would prefer to get it while doing nothing instead of while working. The small 10% incentive means that, whatever job you get, it will always be beneficial for you to get working again. Don't forget also that recovering a job implies some additional costs (the cost to commute, maybe to have a better hygiene, etc...), so maybe this only ensures that you don't lose buying power by getting a job.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are 100% right, we can't only rely on the safety net to get us out of the recession. Incentives to businesses are important, and that's what stimulus bills are for. I hope this bill won't be detrimental to growth, at least that certainly wasn't its purpose. Maybe the GM could help us with that. As for the corporate tax, I wouldn't mind reducing it if we can compensate it by the creation of a new income tax bracket. See my next bill, maybe we could reach a nice bipartisan agreement on this one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, thank you for spending some of your time trying to improve the bill, it's highly apreciated. I long forward your next reviews, and hope we will be able to reach agreements.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I'm again open to suggestions. Do I have to remember that English isn't my native language ?

Does "income" fit well ? "income recieved immediately before", would it work ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

10. Any registered individual previously unemployed recovering a job with net/gross (one of the two would need to be used) income inferior to 110% of the total benefits he received as an "actively unemployed" worker, as defined in (insert Section and Clause), shall receive an allowance for the difference between his new employment's net/gross (Choose the same one you choose above) income and 110% of total benefits last received as an "actively unemployed" worker.

Fine then, accepted as friendly. And I'd say net.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I checked it in order to verify if you furtively added some evil clause, but apparently you didn't.

So, accepted as friendly.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What is with the constant use of the word "perceive" in place of words like contribute, pay, etc etc?

Dunno, I had to find some word and I came with this one. Doesn't it fit ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

lol, Ironically, perceive means to "understand" something.

Webster New World Dictionary definition:
Perceive - 1. To understand. 2. to become aware of through the senses.

Oh sh*t. In French, "percevoir" means both "understand" and "take money from".


Could it be replaced by "receive" or "collect" ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, what would you think about adding training in the proposals ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would have to be done in a more substantial way to integrate it in effectively. This could take a while to get done right, and certainly longer, if we remain an effective Senate of two on this.

Indeed, contribution from other fellow Senators would be much welcomed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the clause is this one, but what do you want to amend exactly ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

That looks fine, thank you. I'm waiting for your next draft.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh yeah, you're right.

Ok, it hereby reads :

5. Any registered employee losing its job shall receive from the Unemployment Insurance Administration a monthly revenue amounting to :
    a) 90% of the individual's previous salary during the first year following the loss of its job
    b) 80% of the individual's previous salary during the second year following the loss of its job
    c) 70% of the individual's previous salary during the third year following the loss of its job
    d) 60% of the individual's previous salary during the fourth year following the loss of its job
    e) 50% of the individual's previous salary after four years of unemployment

[Antonio the Sixth]

Looks fine to me.

To make things clearer, here is how the section reads now :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's just something I don't understand. As section 3 reads currently, it seems that a person needs to both research a job and to be enrolled in a training program. Shouldn't we say : b) or c) ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

First off, that is what it would look like. Neither my amendment (hasn't even been offered yet) nor yours with the lettering issue has been adopted yet.

Nobody has objected in the 24 hours following its offering.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both are fine with me. You can pick the one you prefer.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The second one, looks less grotesque but I would prefer another Senator's opinion. Unfortunately we seem to not have but two these days, atleast as far as this bill is concerned.

Let's go for the second one.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I offer the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We should probably replace the instances of the word perceive with something that means filch.

The Amendment is accepted as friendly. Amended section (to ease future references) :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for "perceive", could it be replaced with "collect" ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank you a lot Lief for getting into the debate.

Section 1: Is it really necessary to create another level of bureaucracy? I feel like most or all of this bill can be handled through the Department of Internal Affairs. I do like the corporatist (in the traditional sense of the word) arrangement/composition of the Council, though I'm a curious how exactly the labor representatives would be elected.

I'm not really sure my system is the best one, but I think it offers a couple of interesting ideas and would be worth considering, like indeed a "corporatist" representation. Maybe having an institution with the direct task of managing the NSSA's budget could allow managers to focus more on these goals, while giving this responsibility directly to the DoIA would make the task more difficult to organize. Plus, it should prevent the exploitation of the social welfare by the executive for politician purposes. As for bureacracy, that's certainly an important problem in terms of cost, but it could significantly improve the quality of the services provided.
I guess labor representatives would be elected the same way as labor representatives in businesses are. Maybe some kind of PR among lists formed by labor unions, or maybe STV would be fairer. As for their management, I think it's up to labor unions themselves. This could be a problem considering that there is always a risk of frauds/corruption, so maybe there is something to do there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, as it is put up, the passage of this bill would cause the repeal of the Atlasian National Healthcare Act (preamble, subsection 1). That's not because I think it was a bad law, simply because I'd like this bill to encomprise every branch of social protection and make up for a unique reference in this domain. As you can see, the intent of the section and the way it works is pretty similar to the ANHCA, with a few precisions, a few simplifications and a few changes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, maybe here I am too influenced by the european situation, where the demographic depression leads the goverment to enact (more or less) natalist policies. But since the USA and Atlasia have a pretty decent population growth, maybe this is not as important as in Europe. So you're right, maybe there is some threshold to set on the maximum sum a household can get. I'd say $900 in the first case and $1500 in the second would be nice : it equates to 3 childs over 8.

(On a side note, something really crazy about French natalist policies : I've discovered than in France, these child allowances are actually progressive ! Ie your allowance increases more when you have your 3rd child than when you have your 2nd one ! This is, indeed, basically paying people to reproduce, and that's pretty silly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have assumed there would be some paper proving you have worked for a month. If there isn't any other, I think a simple payroll could be sufficient. Otherwise, I guess people who can't prove their work will simply get the minimal pension, ie $1000.

Also to note, I guess there is a little loophole in this section, as nowhere it is specified how often you are supposed to get your pension. It was of course supposed to be monthly, so here's the Amendment :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, Yank already raised this point and I guess we'll start working on taxation as soon as we've finished with the most boring things like correcting translation errors. As I said, I've no preconceived idea on taxation so I've no problem considering alternative solutions. The income tax method can work I guess, that's the method I used for most of insurances so we can generalize it. I tend to be mistrustful of VATs, but if we can exclude basic necessity goods I think it can work well too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

[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.