Dependent Child and Income Tax Credit (Law'd)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Damn, this was quick coming up. I'll write up a proper version this afternoon.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is wrong with the current welfare policy in the other place?  It seems to have done away with most of the shiftless.

As a welfare system it's a total failure, but then again it was designed to be one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've got me together all the stuff I need... I think. The overall system will be quite simple. Things will be up here tomorrow.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So here's the basic idea; one benefit paid on a weekly basis (I was thinking around $7,000 a year for a couple (don't care if they actually married or not) and about half that for single individuals. But I pulled those numbers out of thin air; I'm not an American and have no idea what reasonable figures would look like here) to all households eligible (ie; out of work for whatever reason; this would also replace unemployment insurance). Also, about $1,000 per year per child (weekly payment again) for every household with children in Atlasia (irrespective of income). And in addition to that, another benefit for all households making under, say, $35,000 (again a relatively random figure) of something like $3,000 to $5,000 (half that for single individuals) a year (again, uncertain what sort of figure would be appropriate) which would also be paid weekly. The system would be administered on a regional level and two thirds of the funding would come from federal government, one third from the region in question. This would all be a very, very simple system with a very simple universalist principle behind it. Everyone (with children, anyway) gets something, anyone who falls on hard times will land in a safety net and not in a gutter.

I'm prepared to compromise a lot on details (and in fact I need some help on some of the most important details!) and to make big changes and additions where appropriate. But I won't compromise on the basic principle. One thing not addressed here is the issue of training and so on; that's something that, I think anyway, is better addressed as a seperate, but fundamentally related, issue. I suspect that this will fail, but it's worth a try anyway.

Flame away.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Everybody gets a check, non means tested,

Everybody with children, yes. And everybody out of work for reasons of circumstance or whatever technical term would no doubt be dug up and used.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 
Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On those figures (and on the information you've provided above) you would get something like $3,000 (though see comments about the actual figures) and another $3,500... though of course in reality you'd get nothing (unless you had a child). If you're retired you don't get the $3,500 and you would only get the $3,000 (or whatever) if you were in employment or unemployed in some way.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What definition of unemployment are we using here?

I think that out of work for reasons largely beyond own control should do as a reasonable definition. That would include both normal "unemployment" along with things such as raising young children and so on.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can you write that up into a semblance of legal language?

Sure. I just can't think in that way, so I had to write it down normally first.

===

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, this is going to be litigation city

Not exactly a very productive way of opening a debate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is hardly the only piece of fantasyland legislation to not go into great and absurd detail about technicalities. I think that you'll find that this is something that applies to almost every piece of fantasyland legislation I don't see why a special case should be made in the case of this bill just because someone threatens to sue. I might add the required detail if it seems necessary, but then again I might just quit fantasyland altogether. I don't see the point in wasting my free time on working out the most technical details of a welfare programme in a fantasy country with no reliable social and economic statistics*, just to stop a welfare bill in this fantasy country from being sued away into irrelevence.

Little rant over, this is only a sketch. Or perhaps an underpainting. Formal definition of terms used in the system will be tagged on the end of the bill.

On the inflation point, I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you mean that the introduction of something like this will result in high inflation, you're wrong; universalist benefits systems are hardly a radical new innovation, the cost of which can only be looked at through abstract theories. They have existed (in one form or another) in more than just a tiny handful of real life countries for, in most cases, over sixty years. I'm not aware of any reliable evidence that universalist benefits increase inflation in any meaningful way.
If you mean that inflation will mean that the real value of these payments will decline sharply over the next few years, then that is a responsibility of those authorities given the power to administer this policy (the Regions). Though I will, probably, add something saying that payment levels may not be lowered below that specified in the original legislation.

I should add that, as both someone used to being on the recieving side of the Welfare State and as someone who has looked (and looks) at historical welfare policies quite a bit, strict definitions can actually be a mistake. They give far too much power to the worst sort of petty-minded, bureaucratic dictators and can make things extremely stressful for those in need of relief. A set of looser definitions (with a set of clear general principles backing them up) tend to work much better.

*A task that would actually be impossible anyway.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Was that a long winded way of telling me to F off? 

Noooo... though it's not really a great idea to start something like that off with what looks like a not-very-well-disguised-attempt to kill legislation with the threat of legal action.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I was not threatening legal action. I was making a policy comment, as to how workable the legislation would be in practice. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ah, that's o.k. You weren't here when Bono ran riot...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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...)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye... and... I guess... Aye. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What's needed is for an American to tell us what the value of these payments are in real terms so we can adjust accordingly; the current numbers are just semi-educated guesswork. They might be far meaner, or far more generous, than I'd intended.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I can live with this, I think (ie; I don't especially mind how the money is paid out, so long as its paid out). Though there are a few things I'd like to check (after the vote, probably) and some further fiddling after that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Good