SENATE BILL: Glasses are Good to See Act (Passed)

[Former President tack50]

Thank you!

As you probably already know, there are huge numbers of Atlasians that have visual problems. Depending on the exact estimates, roughly 40-50% of all Atlasians have visual problems and this number is expected to increase.

Every one of these persons depends on glasses or visual aids to do pretty much anything in their daily lives; from reading, to driving, to even just seeing anything further away than a handful of inches.

This bill tries to make the process of getting glasses, which can often be expensive, cheaper for all Atlasians, by partially subsidizing the cost.

By far the hardest part of this bill was finding the funding for it. I decided to go with "sin taxes" on certain kinds of electronics and lighting (which I think have been linked to higher rates of myopia, as time indoors helps contribute to it) instead of increasing other taxes, like say the corporate tax or the income tax.

However I'm very open to changing the funding if other senators feel it appropiate to find the funding elsewhere.

I also thought whether going with a tax credit or a subsidy would be better. In the end I went with a subsidy as it's easier for people to get and more direct.

Finally I actually wanted to have the subsidy be much higher, to cover most of the cost (around 200$ instead of the 110$ in the bill, which depending on specifics would cover 30-50% of the cost), but after realizing how much it would cost I went with the smaller subsidy. I also increased the waiting period to 2 years (my original plan was 18 months). That's fiscal responsability I guess.

[Former President tack50]

Would the sponsor be opposed to means testing? I doubt Bill Gates needs a $100 handout for new glasses.

On principle, I wouldn't. In fact, that's probably a better idea than a general handout. I guess it would look something like "this subsidy shall only be available to households earning less than x dollars a year" or something of the sort?

Adding three additional thoughts I have on this:
1. As a taxpayer with decent vision (knocks on wood, says a prayer), I'm not too keen on getting more taxes thrown on me for something I don't have a need for. GM estimates should confirm this, but my suspicion is that these taxes will draw in a lot more revenue than what this program will cost, especially if we downsize the pool of eligibility.
2. The effects this will have on vision insurance, something many who require glasses have.
3. I would consider revising the amount subsidized back to a smaller number (maybe won't fully cover the cost) and to never exceed the cost of the glasses. My family gets glasses from Zenni (and similar competitors) all the time and it almost never costs more than $50 per pair.

Regarding each point:

For 1 I don't think there is really much of an alternative. I considered funding this through cuts in the budget as opposed to tax increases (or new taxes), but in the end the pricetag was too large to do the required cuts blindly (maybe when we start dealing with the budget I'll have a better idea of where to cut). I guess it could be funded through an increase in a "general" tax (say, income tax) as opposed to the new taxes I proposed, but that's probably the opposite of what you want.

2 is indeed something I did not consider, and it's probably a good concern.

As for 3, I actually got a new pair of glasses fairly reciently and they cost me around 150€ (I guess I got scammed?). Looking around in the internet, some website pointed out (wrongly I assume) that glasses in the US cost upwards of 200$ and can cost up to 400$!. While the numbers looked weird, I did assume prices were significantly higher than here.

If they aren't, I imagine we could get away with a lower subsidy, on the order of 75$ or so?

[Former President tack50]

The discussion we should be having is to what extent this would supplement that coverage and if clarifications should be made to the 2017 healthcare law as it relates to vision.

Would Atlascare include the glasses themselves or just the visits to the doctor?

[Former President tack50]

Also worth noting that if we were to put this as part of Atlascare, I imagine it would probably be more expensive than the current bill as it would have to cover the entire cost (instead of being a fixed amount like with this bill)

Though the route of making this through Atlascare instead of separately is certainly interesting.

[Former President tack50]

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Cheaper_Medicine_Helps_The_Poors_Act

Being an over-the-counter product only means that you don't need a prescription for them right? Or am I missing something?

Also, technically that only applies to contact lenses?

[Former President tack50]

So where are at with the underlying bill?

From what I can tell, there are 2 possibilities going forwards:

1: Start this bill almost from scratch and incorporate this somewhere in Atlascare policy; probably by either including some sort of clarification or outright including them as a new item.

2: Keep the bill as a subsidy like it is now. In this case, we would need to discuss the exact amount of subsidy needed (currently at 110$ and a limit of once every 2 years but could change).

If we pick scenario 2 we probably also need to wait for input from the GM team to check if the funding checks out. I think it does and did some rough calculations when I wrote the bill, but input from the GM team is probably necessary.

If we go with option 1, we might not need to wait for the GM team (especially if it's done as a clarification) but the rewrite would be longer.

[Former President tack50]

Sorry, Im looking at this now. I am seeking guidance to sort of focus my research.

Does video game sales include online games, and phone apps?

Lightbulbs broadly interpreted could be expansive. Fluorescent tubes? Each individual bulb on a string of Christmas lights? Bulbs in appliances like refrigerators and microwaves? Bulbs in vehicles? With just preliminary numbers the other taxes will amount to a lot.

Yes, video game sales definitely includes online games and phone apps (as long as the customer is Atlasian of course)

As for lightbulbs, I was pretty much just thinking about illumination devices for the home. So fluorescent tubes would be included while bulbs on Christmas lights, appliances or vehicles would not.

Maybe I should have used "(home) illumination devices" instead? Though taxing all lightbulbs, including those used in appliances does sound like a good idea to get some revenue, but it would probably be too expansive and keep everyone in the dark

[Former President tack50]

Looks like about 60% of the population needs glasses.

330 million x 0.6 X $110.00 = $21.806 Billion cost

tax on video game sales - $2.150 Billion
tax on movie ticket sales - $630 Million
tax on TV sales - $840 Million
tax on the sale of PC desktops and laptops - $1.136 Billion
tax on Netflix - $200 Million

Revenue from Video Games, TVs, movie tickets, and Netflix = $4.956 Billion

I assume that means the bill doesn't pass paygo?

[Former President tack50]

Well, in that case I guess it's time for an ammendment

SENATE BILL

to help people with sight problems get their much needed visual aids

Be it enacted by both houses of Congress assembled:

SECTION I: NAME.
1. This Act may be cited as the Glasses are Good to See Act.

SECTION II: BENEFICIARIES
1. All Atlasian citizens or permanent residents shall be elegible for this bill as long as they have one or more of the following visual problems:
a) Myopia lower than -0.5 dioptres
b) Hypermetropia higher than +0.5 dioptres
c) Astigmatism
d) Any other kind of visual problem where the most adequate solution is the use of glasses or contact lenses, as prescribed by an ophthalmologist

SECTION III: IMPLEMENTATION.
1. All beneficiaries described in Section II shall be given a 110 75$ subsidy after they buy a new pair of glasses
2. No single beneificiary shall receive this subsidy more than once every 24 months.
3. This subsidy shall only be given to individuals living in households with annual earnings lower than 39200$ a year

SECTION IV: COST
1. This bill shall be funded through the following new taxes:
a) A 5% tax on video game sales
b) A 5% tax on movie ticket sales
c) A 5% tax on TV sales
d) A 5% tax on the sale of PC desktops and laptops
e) A 5% tax on the sale of lightbulbs

SECTION V: TIMING
1. This Act shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

According to this website, the 33rd percentile for household income should be 39202$ a year.

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

From the previous calculations:

330 million x 0.6 x 75 x 0.33 = 4900.5 billion $

The subsidy is lower than what I initially wanted and only covers 1 in 3 households (I always thought of it as a more general subsidy); but since we have to pay for it somehow, I think this is as good as it can get.

Another possibility I tested (with round numbers) was 100$ subsidy for 25% of households, but I think 75$-33% works better

[Former President tack50]

what is the new estimate for the balance after the amendment?

According to the Game Moderator, the taxes included in the bill will raise 4.956 billion $. After the ammendment, the program now costs 4.901 billion $.

So we technically have 55 million $ to spare.

[Former President tack50]

The ammendment is friendly.

For the interest of the public, this ammendment has been talked about and is intended to make the budget process easier by making this bill only apply starting in FY 2020 (and thus, this bill wouldn't need to be accounted for for the 2019 budget).

[Former President tack50]

I motion for a final vote

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[Former President tack50]

For the record, I am fine with all the proposed changes.

I would also like to see some further discussion about the funding for the bill, especially as we now have an up to date budget and as I think the House, as well as the president raised some concerns about the tax increases.