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

[Bacon King]

Vote is currently 3-3; 4 left to vote...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AHDuke99, JBrase, officepark and Snowguy have yet to vote.

I wouldn't want to be looking in their PM boxes today.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have been working on the pension issue, and I will have a preposal ready for it by tomorrow afternoon or evening.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Nay

I would like to offer my own amendment for Section 5, clause 5 if this fails.  I shall wait, of course, until voting on this amendment is finished.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You don't have to wait if you don't want to.


I need to go do a right-wing barbecue of those other three, marinated in Sharron Angle's patented "Crazy Juice". 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Nay

[CatoMinor]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 44:31


Aye (4): Jbrase, Napoleon, NC Yankee, and shua
Nay (5): AHDuke99, Antonio V, bgwah, Fuzzybigfoot and Snowguy716.
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Officepark


With time having expired at 12:13 PM EST on August 23rd, 2011, the amendment is not adopted.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So let's get back to my proposal before my term ends.

That's fine with me. "Employment Insurance" is also a far more optimist title.

So does this :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...plus an universal $600 minimum work fine for everybody ?

Is there significant support for such a proposal ? If it is, I'll draft an Amendment and introduce it, and hopefully this issue will be settled.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have no problem.


Don't forget we need to include the changes to the section title and all references of unemployment insurance to employment insurance, in the amendment, if that is desired.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Or maybe we should separate them just in case Antonio's preoposal fails for some reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What is changing"unemployment" from "employment" supposed to achieve? I think it makes it less clear what the program is. We're not insuring people against employment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is changing"unemployment" from "employment" supposed to achieve? I think it makes it less clear what the program is. We're not insuring people against employment.

It was suggested as a solution to a problem that wouldn't work,  and on top of that, the problem may not even exist. I need to check some of the other sections.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

These posts led to the idea being suggested:

Posts that proceeded the designation change idea:

How can we let people without any income after 2 years ? Nobody chooses to stay unemployed for so much time. There needs to be an universal minmum benefit for everyone : I find $500 to be extremely low, but it's still better than nothing. Otherwise, I'm fine with Shua's proposal.


If the original proposal cost $450 billion, with rates starting with 90% and ending with 50% indefinitely, I'm pretty sure such a proposal should be almost budget-neutral.

How can we let people without any income after 2 years ? Nobody chooses to stay unemployed for so much time. There needs to be an universal minmum benefit for everyone : I find $500 to be extremely low, but it's still better than nothing. Otherwise, I'm fine with Shua's proposal.


If the original proposal cost $450 billion, with rates starting with 90% and ending with 50% indefinitely, I'm pretty sure such a proposal should be almost budget-neutral.

I think you are trying to roll all direct welfare payments to people into the UI system as part of the combination/consolidation effort, correct?

Your original minimum amount was $600, so I don't see the difference really.

I doubt shua's budget neutral. According to Marokai, 70/50, 2 years was an increase of $150 billion or so.  Considering shua's rates, it's probably $90 billion increase or so, though that has different minimum and maximum numbers.


I don't like the idea of dropping all the way down to 40%.

I would consider that if you can't get ANY paid work in two years that they would qualify for some other kind of Government support.

I think 3 years of specific unemployment support is fair.

If this bill passes, any "other kind of government support" would be repealed.

I thought so.

I know you wanted to consolidate programs, but rolling all direct payment welfare into UI was a probably a strategic error. It conflicts with the original notion of what UI was meant to be. You should have either changed the name, or not rolled them altogether.

Why so ? Is it really worth creating yet another agency just to manage $500 payments for people unemployed since 2 years ? I think my solution works fine.

This is something that has bothered me... I don't think that all welfare payments should be lumped into one.

If someone is dependent for life on a disability pension, I completely understand that - but unemployment is different.

You could always do what Canada does, which is just change the name to "Employment Insurance" and include more broad benefits that aren't always related to job losses. It would at least be a bit more honest.

Marokai, is there any way to estimate roughly the cost of an extension that is indefinite in time?

What you're essentially doing here is creating a guaranteed minimum income system, not an unemployment insurance system. I'm not sure there's any way I can accurately give you the information you want. It would cost a significant chunk more than current estimations, I can certainly tell you that, but I'm not sure how many people would really be out of a job that long, and it would takes years for the cost numbers of people remaining on the system to really add up. I guess you could take my initial projections of how much it would cost as something close, but I really can't offer you anything specific.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Current Text

You would have to do more then just title changes as well. You would have to include "broader benefits" as Marokai Blue said. Hence why I said the solution (as I posted) above wouldn't work.

Not only does the problem actually exist, it's worse because, if you look at section 8, references back to benefits (similar to what Marokai described) in SEction 5 that don't exist presently or would be precluded by the standards set in Section 5 from receiving benefits:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In summary the bill lacks a of form of safety net to to provide an adequate subsistance to the long term unemployed, disabled etc etc becuase Antonio combined them into the UI section. However he never sub divided Section 5 or created other systems in it, and when we added the standards "Must be looking for a job, or furthering education to get job etc etc to receive benefits", it removed that part of the safety net since this bill "repeals all previous welfare items".

Antonio has become by accident, the media caricature of Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Appearently I flooded the zone here, which wasn't my intent. So focus on this for now, I can even make it shinny and sparkly to get your attention:

So let's get back to my proposal before my term ends.

That's fine with me. "Employment Insurance" is also a far more optimist title.

So does this :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...plus an universal $600 minimum work fine for everybody ?

Is there significant support for such a proposal ? If it is, I'll draft an Amendment and introduce it, and hopefully this issue will be settled.

Edit: Actually I can't make it shiny for some reason.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Disability ("handicap") is dealt with under the Minor Insurances section.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Disability ("handicap") is dealt with under the Minor Insurances section.

Read clause six of that section.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Disability ("handicap") is dealt with under the Minor Insurances section.

Read clause six of that section.

oh I see. So would we be able to add something to Sec 5 clause 3 to allow for it?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Disability ("handicap") is dealt with under the Minor Insurances section.

Read clause six of that section.

oh I see. So would we be able to add something to Sec 5 clause 3 to allow for it?

Like an exemption for the disabled from the standards?


Perhaps something along these lines: No disabled person will be required to search for and accept jobs or train for jobs they are medically unfit to perform, as documented by a medical official, as a condition to receiving benefits.

Granted we need to beef up the medical official part to ensure it isn't some backdoor quack who shouldn't even be treating animals more less humans (like the blackmarket docs in the game "The Godfather" that say, "don't worry, most of my patients are still alive" or "You see, I didn't actually study medicine")

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Do we really need to connect disability with "active unemployment"? It seems like the definition of disability for social insurance would be that someone is not able to be either employed or actively unemployed. It'd make more sense just to give the $900 to those who are unable to work b/c of disability.
As far as the medical definition, it's standard to have a disability eligibility office consult with a person's doctors and make a determination. IRL it's complex, often takes several months, and people hire attorneys to help them get benefits. Of course, it would be nice if we could find a better way to do it in Atlasia, but I don't have any idea how.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Or maybe we should separate them just in case Antonio's preoposal fails for some reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Friendly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, Yank raised a valid point. Maybe you're right and the universal minimum should be separated from the Employment insurance and be a particular section.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What about beyond the disabled? Is there anyone else that got folded into section 5 that needs to be in a new section or atleast specifically mentioned within section 5. Long-term unemployed maybe?

[Ban my account ffs!]

SO CONFUSING.  Why can't we just rewrite the bill and reintroduce it?

It's not going to pass before Antonio leaves