Wages for Housework Act

[TNF]

Too often we ignore the very real contributions made by stay-at-home parents to our labor force. Without their unpaid labor, modern capitalism probably wouldn't function. This recognizes that labor and provides families with additional aid to help them make ends meet.

[TNF]

Okay, but $31,200 a year seems a bit much, yes? In addition this also applies to children over the age of 16, so in a family like mine were talking $62,400 a year! Surely you recognise this is a lot of money?

If anything, $31,200 a year is too little. But it's a start. And so what if it's a lot of money? This is a nation awash with cash. Tax the millionaires and the billionaires and give stay at home parents the recognition and aid they deserve.

[TNF]

This assumes that every non-working member of the family a) does housework and b) does enough housework to earn over $30,000 a year - above the current minimum wage IIRC, does it not?

Yes, it does. It doesn't matter if they actually do housework specifically, though. There are a lot of unpaid labor activities that are absolutely necessary for capitalism to function, and yet they don't get any real recognition by society. And yes, it would be a higher salary than that of the minimum wage. Which is all well and good, because it will cause wages to rise along with it.

If families can afford to have a spouse stay home and take on the majority of the housework, can't we safely assume that the individual with formal employment covers all the living costs (and then some) of the houseworker? To provide a minimum wage salary to a person whose needs are already covered just doesn't make sense.

Not to mention, wouldn't this basically be a grant for rich people? I mean, I like that these folks would be getting back some of the money we take from them with our ridiculous tax rates, but I think this money is much better spent on other projects.

This isn't a grant for rich people, it's a grant for everyone. This is going to help a lot more young people and people between jobs than it is going to help a lot of rich people who don't work. But beyond that, this is a bill designed to give people the option of staying at home to help raise children, something that has increasingly been less of an option since the 1970s. It does so without penalizing looking for a job either, because one can still receive the aid that comes with it if they have children old enough to help out around the house.

[TNF]

So then let's turn this into a discussion on a UBI, then. That's something I would be fine and dandy with, as it would be much more inclusionary than this bill is.

[TNF]

Is Nixcome not a full UBI? I've been under the impression that it was. If it's not, it should be, and probably at or around the poverty line.

Nixcome is a negative income tax, which is not the same thing. It's use is limited to persons receiving welfare, if I recall the debates surrounding it's implementation correctly. I don't think that we should limit ourselves to pegging the UBI to the poverty line, personally. I think, if anything, it should be enough to permit someone to choose not to work if they don't want to. This will not only have the effect of making work a choice rather than something that is forced on all of us, it will force wages upward, because employers will have to offer something to their employees to get them to choose employment, rather than choosing just to collect the UBI.

[TNF]

Why would prices increase? It's not as if a UBI would dramatically increase labor time, cause supply to fluctuate, or interfere with distribution.

[TNF]

I really think our best number here is 30K. That pushes someone above the poverty line (easily) and allows them some extra spending money, to boot.

[TNF]

The Midwest or the Northeast seem to be the best candidates for a pilot program, given their respective ideological tilt and willingness to work with the federal government.

[TNF]

Does anyone have a rough idea of what they would want the pilot program to look like? I have a few ideas, but I'd like to see some input from everyone else before I present them to the whole Senate for consideration.

[TNF]

How about somewhere between $1500 and $2000 a month for the pilot program? I'll check with my Northeastern buddies and see if they might be willing to take on the program.

I think $2400 per month would probably be a good start. $600/week is a good benchmark.

[TNF]

Bumping this before I introduce an amendment outlining a process by which to turn this into a pilot program.

[TNF]

Not a region, maybe like a a county?

I am fine with either. Perhaps the Secretary of Internal Affairs could provide us with the counties with the highest poverty rates in the country? Those seem like they would be good places to test out such a program.

[TNF]

Hagrid?

[TNF]

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

[TNF]

Thank you for your input, Hagrid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3. The BIPP shall be administered via the local affiliate units of the Department of Internal Affairs. Said program shall be 'opt-out', meaning that the Department of Internal Affairs (hereafter DoIA) shall send checks to all residents of the above counties over the age of 16 unless said residents fill out a form (designed and provided by the DoIA at regional offices) requesting to opt-out of the program.
4. All income derived from the BIPP shall not be subject to local, regional, or federal taxation.

Section 3: Funding
TBD
[/quote]

[TNF]

Senators have 24 hours to object.

[TNF]

The amendment has been adopted.

[TNF]

Alright, so how are we going to fund this thing?

[TNF]

Might we be able to fund this via a partnership with the Regions in which it applies?

[TNF]

Once we come up with a figure for this, we could simply slap a wealth tax on all income over $1,000,000,000 to fund this.

[TNF]

Once we come up with a figure for this, we could simply slap a wealth tax on all income over $1,000,000,000 to fund this.

You mean a 100% income tax on all income >$1 million? Or anyone with an income >$1 million would have their total wealth taxed by a certain percentage?

The latter, although I would definitely favor the former.

[TNF]

Am I the only one thinking this has gone off on a bit of an odd-track?

No, but the right likes to waste time on debates that are neither here nor there. Unfortunately, until we get a new Game Moderator, we don't really have much of an idea on how much this proposal is going to cost us, and so for the time being, we're kind of stuck.

[TNF]

I would be fine with tabling it until we can get some numbers, provided that the rest of the Senate concurs.

[TNF]

Senators, a vote on the motion to table the Wages for Housework Act has been filed by Senator bore and seconded by Senator Lumine.. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


AYE

[TNF]

With no votes cast to the contrary of the majority, the Wages for Housework Act has been tabled.