SB 114-23: No Welfare For Me Act (At Final Vote)

[Pyro]

I too am interested in Senator Scott's position.

Speaking for myself, I do not support this proposed amendment in its current form. For those unaware, the New Great Society Act originally had a generous $100K threshold for UBI eligibility. Then, in November 2022, this amount was lowered to $70K following months of debate. This eligibility reduction was a compromise measure that eventually passed with the support of senators on all ends of the political spectrum. I do not believe it is in the best interest of Atlasians to further lower eligibility for a vital welfare program.

[Pyro]

Actually, I have spoken with Reactionary and I'm okay with lowering the threshold. But to be completely honest, I often wonder if we should have just switched to a very generous negative income tax and then that would have been our UBI program - which, and I've said this many times, is necessary in order to prepare the economy for automation and specialization. There is simply a scarcity of jobs available, and there's nothing that would suggest a return to the 1960s is realistic unless we all want to become neo-Luddites. But I do insist on a minimal standard of living, and if this change makes the program more solvent for the long term, I'm willing to support it.

But it might be prudent to use this opportunity to consider adopting a UBI that's generous in benefits. I suppose either way this would cause a long-term deficit, but we have this on top of Social Security and AtlasCare (though, in fairness, we probably spend a great deal less on military and also healthcare as a result of the cost-cutting measures which also ensure universal access like every other rich developed country not called the United States). I'm curious to know what others would think of that.

I'm not sure that I understand your view on UBI. If our objective is to prepare for the adverse effects of automation through the use of a universal guaranteed income program, we should be working to cover the greatest number of Atlasians who may be at risk instead of further limiting eligibility. To be clear, I am not at all opposed to exchanging this measure with an alternative method to provide financial security for all, but I don't think it's the right move to cap the $2K checks at the $40K income level.

Also, with regards to your solvency concern, the costs to maintain CUBI were balanced out in the FY2023 Budget.

[Pyro]

If no one wants to debate switching to a NIT I'll move for a final vote.

It's your proposal. I'd be interested in seeing an amendment, at least.

Otherwise, if all we're doing here is cutting welfare, I'm opposed.

[Pyro]

Apologies for not discussing this proposal when it was introduced.

Is there a reason why the income tax %s have been lowered on incomes between 70k and 414k+?

[Pyro]

Motioning for final vote

Object. I think we need to amend this bill further to ensure we are not lowering taxes on the ultra-wealthy, and do not adversely impact the budget. I have not had time to work on this, but will try to have something ready soon.

[Pyro]

Nay

[Pyro]

I was working on amendment which would revert the income tax changes for $130K+ back to their original amounts. However, I'm struggling to see how this change to the tax code (which is a well-intentioned proposal) would not result in a significant blow to our budget and eventually force cuts in other areas.

For reference, the current income tax percentages in effect are 10% for 0-13K ($12.7B), 15% for 13K-50K ($297.2B), and 25% for 50K-130K ($812.9B). I believe if we move forward with the NIT proposal, the losses in tax revenue add up to far over a trillion. Even if we reduce these #s to null out each percentage in the above brackets, we will lose $1.1 Trillion. By comparison, CUBI presently costs $945B. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the benefits to creating the NIT, but I do wonder if we're better off just leaving the program as-is.

[Pyro]

OK - If I'm understanding Scott's comment correctly, we are returning to the original reform as suggested. I therefore introduce the following amendment. This restores this bill to its CUBI reform measure with two alterations I've written.

One, this retains the "phase-out" sliding scale whilst keeping the original max income eligibility. This way, persons making less than $70K will still be eligible for CUBI funds, but as Senator R proposed, the amount will scale based on income. For example, a $49K filer will be eligible for the full $2,000 amount, but a $60K filer will only be eligible for $1000.

I have also been thinking of ways we can provide additional benefits for earners making less than $50K (so someone making $10K per year can receive more financial assistance than a $40K earner), but this is what I have so far. This is a more balanced scale with a wider scope of distribution, in my view.

Second, I've modified the effective date to January of next year to allow for beneficiaries and program administrators to prepare for the change.

NO WELFARE FOR ME ACT

1. The New Great Society Act is amended as follows:

...

Section 2. Monthly Universal Basic Income for Families with Children

1. Beginning in January of 2023 parents or legal guardians of persons under the age of 18 and have a disposable income of less than $70,000 for individuals or $140,000 for married joint-filers shall be entitled to up to $2,000 monthly checks. Incomes less than $50,000 for individuals or $100,000 for married joint-filers shall be entitled to the full payment and incomes greater than $50,000 receiving a proportionally phased-out amount of $0.50 of federal funds for each $5 of excess income up to the income limit of $70,000 or $140,000 respectively.

2. This act shall take effect January 1, 2024.

[Pyro]

Aye