Dependent Child and Income Tax Credit (Law'd)

[minionofmidas]

Welfare Reform (Placeholder) Act

1. The existing welfare system in Atlasia is a disorganised and needlessly cruel shambles that penalises the genuinely poor and needy for reasons of penny-pinching and pseudo-Victorian faux-moralism.

2. The previous (before the mid 1990's) welfare system, however, was an expensive farce with many counterproductive features (not least its contribution to the destruction of the black family). It was not an effective welfare system, was easily (and far too often) abused and its main achievement was to foster an enourmous backlash, producing the joke of a system that we have at present.

3. Recent Atlasian policy has entrenched this folly. The Modified Welfare Reform Act and the Welfare Reform Act are both hereby repealed.

4. A successful welfare system must be at least partially universalist (in part to avoid an ugly backlash, in part because universalist schemes tend to be more effective anyway) but should not greatly reward behavior that is detrimental to society. Fundamentally, it should be about liberating as many people from poverty as possible, while also providing a basic level of dignity to all members of society.

5. Because I don't have everything I need to write this properly at the moment (but will have in a week or so) I'm introducing this as placeholder bill, intended to be heavily modified when it reaches the Senate Floor.


Sponsor: Al.


F.L. 4-9: Welfare Reform Act
F.L. 12-12: Modified Welfare Reform Act

[minionofmidas]

From the gallery

Perhaps it cold be an opportunity to reflect in the provision of welfare, the changes made to the taxation system as a result the Income Tax Reduction Act.

I promise I won't interrupt again.

No worries. The Fierce Bad Rabbit has commenced chewing on your achilles tendon as a means of telling you you're not welcome here.

Except he hasn't, because you are. But that's what he does to unwelcome interruptors.

[minionofmidas]

I say we pass the bill right now as it is.

(fierce bad rabbit commences tendon chewing action)

[minionofmidas]

Can you write that up into a semblance of legal language?
We might then amend it further, but we need something to work on.

[minionofmidas]

Al, this is going to be litigation city, or you are going to have to give the feds ruling making authority to define all the terms that you have left undefined, and such regulatory authority would have to have the force of law, and not be subject to judicial review as to whether such definitions are "reasonable" or "have a rational basis" or other such cant.

It belongs in litigation city. Germany's Hartz IV reforms have been reworked in many details, largely to the better, in litigation city.
I would very much oppose giving some bureaucrat's ruling the force of law - it is quite enough that the burden of proof is effectively on the denied welfare claimant.
If this needs to be more formally encoded - ie what courts are responsible exactly and stuff - yeah well, write it up. It's all a theoretical debate anyways as noone's receiving Atlasian welfare payments in real life (although that'd be a great idea! )

I agree with Torie on inflation - the process for reviewing these payments, ideally an automatic CPI adjustment, needs to go into this bill.

[minionofmidas]

I agree with Torie on inflation - the process for reviewing these payments, ideally an automatic CPI adjustment, needs to go into this bill.

I did like the idea of giving the regions something to do, but, yeah, I guess they might just play at neglect.

Oh, so that's what you meant by "will be administered at the regional level"? To me that meant the people making the decisions would be regional employees.

[minionofmidas]

Strongsville, I think.

Al didn't introduce his amendment to his own bill as a friendly one, so we'll vote on it now.

Please vote aye, nay or abstain.

S. 5 is striken and replaced with:

5. All households in which there are at least two adults of working age in a relationship and where the principle earner is legitimately out of work for reasons largely beyond their own control shall recieve a weekly payment of $134. All households in which there is only a single adult of working age and where the same economic circumstances apply, shall recieve a weekly payment of $70.

6. All households in Atlasia with dependent children shall recieve a weekly payment of $20.

7. All households in which there are at least two adults of working age in a relationship and where the total annual household income is below $35,000, shall recieve a weekly payment of $100. All households in which there is only a single adult of working age and where the same economic circumstances apply, shall recieve a weekly payment of $55.

8. This system will be administered on a Regional level and the Regions would also be responsible for one third of the funding for the system in their Region. The other two thirds will come from the Federal government.

Aye.


I'll probably come up with later amendments of my own, though.

[minionofmidas]

Current vote count:

Aye 4 (Lewis, Jas, Al, Torie)
Nay 0
abstain 0
yet to vote 6 (Dtwl, Bacon, Culture, Sensei, Verily, Meeker)

[minionofmidas]

Someone ought to offer a friendly amendment to change the title of this to Welfare Reform Act, since it's no longer a placeholder.

Friendly amendment offered.


Current vote count:

Aye 5 (Lewis, Jas, Al, Torie, Bacon)
Nay 1 (Culture)
abstain 0
yet to vote 4 (Dtwl, Sensei, Verily, Meeker)
[/quote]

[minionofmidas]

Someone ought to offer a friendly amendment to change the title of this to Welfare Reform Act, since it's no longer a placeholder.

Friendly amendment offered.

Accepted (that's how this works right [qm]. I don't remember this setup from before...)

Yes.
It was introduced at some point. Before that, PPTs sometimes skipped votes on really minor amendments like spelling errors etc without explicitly having the right to do that according the the OSPR. Friendly amendments can however be offered for more major changes as well (hence why it's possible to object to them, in which case it goes to a vote like a normal amendment). You can of course offer your own amendments to your own bills as friendly, in which case you don't have to mention you're also accepting them as such.

Yadda yadda yadda senators have 24 hours to object.

[minionofmidas]

This amendment has passed.

Final vote count:

Aye 7 (Lewis, Jas, Al, Torie, Bacon, Sensei, Verily)
Nay 1 (Culture)
abstain 1 (Dwtl)
did not vote 1 (Meeker)

[minionofmidas]

Tomorrow. I'll try writing something up tomorrow.

[minionofmidas]

La la la. I'll start on it now.

[minionofmidas]

Welfare Reform (Placeholder) Act

1. The existing welfare system in Atlasia is a disorganised and needlessly cruel shambles that penalises the genuinely poor and needy for reasons of penny-pinching and pseudo-Victorian faux-moralism.

2. The previous (before the mid 1990's) welfare system, however, was an expensive farce with many counterproductive features (not least its contribution to the destruction of the black family). It was not an effective welfare system, was easily (and far too often) abused and its main achievement was to foster an enourmous backlash, producing the joke of a system that we have at present.

3. Recent Atlasian policy has entrenched this folly. The Modified Welfare Reform Act and the Welfare Reform Act are both hereby repealed.

4. A successful welfare system must be at least partially universalist (in part to avoid an ugly backlash, in part because universalist schemes tend to be more effective anyway) but should not greatly reward behavior that is detrimental to society. Fundamentally, it should be about liberating as many people from poverty as possible, while also providing a basic level of dignity to all members of society.

My first amendment is to strike all of this except the bolded part, to renumber the remaining sections accordingly, and to add the relevant references (F.L. 12-12 for the Modified, and F.L. 4-9 for the original.)

[minionofmidas]

8. This system will be administered on a Regional level and the Regions would also be responsible for one third of the funding for the system in their Region. The other two thirds will come from the Federal government.

I don't think we can constitutionally mandate that the Regions pay this money. And I'm not going to go down the "matching grant" route either with this... so I would advocate that the Federal government foot the entire bill (how much more expensive than the current system is this going to be, extremely approximately? Oh well. We don't have a budget process anyways. Still, somebody probably should propose something to send taxes on the upper classes through the roof. )

So yeah, replace with

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If someone has a better idea, go ahead and mention it. I'll wait til saturday before opening the votes.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My first amendment is to strike all of this except the bolded part, to renumber the remaining sections accordingly, and to add the relevant references (F.L. 12-12 for the Modified, and F.L. 4-9 for the original.)
[/quote]

8. This system will be administered on a Regional level and the Regions would also be responsible for one third of the funding for the system in their Region. The other two thirds will come from the Federal government.

To be replaced with

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The vote is on the Amendments. Note that these are two separate votes.

Please vote aye, nay or abstain on each amendment.


Strike early sections: Aye

Scrap regional envolvement: Aye

[minionofmidas]

Vote count:

Early sections:
Aye 4 (Lewis, Jas, Torie, Dwtl)
Nay 0
yet to vote 6 (Al, Meeker, Sensei, Verily, the Kings)

IRS:
Aye 3 (Lewis, Jas ,Torie)
Nay 1 (Dwtl)
yet to vote 6 (Al, Meeker, Sensei, Verily, the Kings)

Nay, laughable to think the IRS should do this over regional governments

Yes, we know you have no understanding of and no respect for regional rights.

Such as, in this case, not to be forced to run expensive programs for the Federal Government without their consent.

[minionofmidas]

Vote count:

Early sections:
Aye 6 (Lewis, Jas, Torie, Dwtl, Culture, Al)
Nay 0
Abstain (did not vote) 4 (Meeker, Sensei, Verily, Bacon)

IRS:
Aye 5 (Lewis, Jas ,Torie, Culture, Al)
Nay 1 (Dwtl)
yet to vote 4 (Meeker, Sensei, Verily, Bacon)


The former amendment has passed.

Voting remains open on the latter amendment.

[minionofmidas]

The other amendment has passed as well.

[minionofmidas]

So. Everybody's minds made up, either to vote for or against? Or is there anybody out there who will vote against the current version, but might be swayable by further amendations?





I'll now go piece the current version together.

[minionofmidas]

This is the current version:

"Welfare Reform Act

1. The Modified Welfare Reform Act (F.L. 12-12) and the Welfare Reform Act (F.L. 4-9) are both hereby repealed.

2. All households in which there are at least two adults of working age in a relationship and where the principle earner is legitimately out of work for reasons largely beyond their own control shall recieve a weekly payment of $134. All households in which there is only a single adult of working age and where the same economic circumstances apply, shall recieve a weekly payment of $70.

3. All households in Atlasia with dependent children shall recieve a weekly payment of $20.

4. All households in which there are at least two adults of working age in a relationship and where the total annual household income is below $35,000, shall recieve a weekly payment of $100. All households in which there is only a single adult of working age and where the same economic circumstances apply, shall recieve a weekly payment of $55.

5. This system will be administered by the IRS. Decisions to refuse payment shall be subject to judicial review."

[minionofmidas]

I have issue with section 4, in that potentially it rewards people to fall just short of earning $35k, to the benefit of $6,968 - which I think is unfair on those people who would be earning in the $35k-$42k bracket.

I'd look for an amendment to deal with this. I'll put forward the following, though am happy to discuss alterations to it as may be appropriate.

Amendment:
1. Section 4 to be renamed Section 4a.
2. Section 4b to be added as follows:
"Persons benefiting under section 4a of this Act, shall be limited in their entitlements such that their total annual household income may not be exceed $35,000."

I don't like your numbering scheme. Please make 'em 4 and 5, or just 4!

[minionofmidas]

The vote is on the amendment. Please vote aye, nay or abstain.

Amendment:
That the following be added to section 4:
"Persons benefiting under this section, shall be limited in their entitlements such that their total annual household income may not be exceed $35,000."

Aye.

[minionofmidas]

And if this passes, I'll offer a friendly amendment to correct the spelling next, and add a clarifying "yearly".

[minionofmidas]

Current vote count

Aye 4 (Lewis, Jas, Bacon, Sensei)
Nay 0
yet to vote 6 (Torie, Al, Meeker, Culture, Verily, Dwtl)