SENATE BILL: Basic Income Guarantee (Law'd)

[Sec. of State Superique]

Key question, though: Would you be willing to sign the bill if it is amended as you propose?

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure but leaning against. I'm arguing with myself over whether or not a basic income itself is a more effective safety net than food stamps and subsidized housing.  I worry that giving a basic income would just inspire people to waste it rather than use it for basic needs. On the flip side, a basic income would give them more room to find ways of saving money on those needs and potentially use it for permanent improvements.

I also think a conversation with the CBO Adam Griffin to make sure this is actually fiscally feasible. I'm also not quite sold on the $10k. It seems too high, and with such a high bar even though I tried to fix the incentives some, still a person earning $10k would only take home $2,338.49 more than someone earning zero.

In short I'm not sure, but I can guarantee I wouldn't vote for this bill as is.

Well TJ, what I can tell to you is that one of the greatest economists of the last century, Milton Friedman, proposed a negative income tax because he considered that it would be much more efficient than any welfare program.

 If you take a look at your own amendment, the Basic Income Guarantee turns out on something pretty similar with Friedman's Guaranteed Minimum Income. It gives incentives to people to work and it provides citizens with some kind of support to pursue a way out of poverty.

However, I think that we can come up with a more understandable formula and a more simpler one...

[Sec. of State Superique]

Hi Guys! Sorry but I was traveling to Salvador and to the Praia do Forte, Bahia, Brasil.



Now, let's start my explanation. The approach that I pointed out for President Nix was an approach similar with the Negative Income Tax proposed with Milton Friedman. My proposal looks pretty bi-partisan and this is how it can look like.

People earning less than $ 15.000 will be exempt from Income Tax, that will be necessary in order to prevent the creation of overlapping systems (that would end up allowing people to opt to the basic deductions - if they earn higher than $9.500, other than then getting this benefit) and in order to provide more tax benefits for the poor.

Then, it will go pretty like Friedman's Proposal. Everyone that earns less than $15.000 will be eligible to a Basic Income Guarantee. This guarantee will be 50% of what it takes to feel fully the $15.000. Someone that doesn't get any dollar will receive from government $7.500 and it will have the same value of net income, someone that get's $1.000 will get $7.000 from government and it will have a net income of $8.000. The graph would go like this:



Furthermore, some benefits would have to go. There would be no reason for their existence, just like the TJ's proposal. The Earned Income Tax Credit would definitely go. However, the increase of the tax exemption is not really necessary and if you guys prefer to create a dual system for those who earn more than 9.500, no problem. =/

[Sec. of State Superique]

Well, maybe the others tax deductions don't need to go. Yankee, although I wasn't clear, I was trying to saying that those tax deductions would eventually disappear for those who earn less than 15.000 but I don't inted to kill the other tax credits and deductions for those who earn more than 15.000. :/

Since my proposal looks a little bit cheaper than the others, I don't know how strongly should we cut the other Social Programs. If we raise the exemption to $20.000, then we are going to have the same Basic Income Guarantee of 10.000 for those who earn 0 dollars.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Bump

[Sec. of State Superique]

The writting of that looks a little bit confusing. According to that, everyone eligible for getting $10.000 wouldn't get $10.000 untill they earn $5.000 dollars. It makes no sense the way it is written, if you are eligible to get $10.000, shouldn't you get 10.000?

The problem of my formula is that the BIG turns out to be 7.500 for those who earn 0 dollars. I'd be perfectly fine if we raised the threshold to $20.000, then the BIG ends up being $10.000....

[Sec. of State Superique]

Sorry to be a moaner but I think that we should be talking about real Welfare Reform other than trying to create parallel models.

 Many studies have shown that the Basic Income Guarantee is the most efficient form of welfare than currently exists, it takes out much of the Administrative Costs that exists under the traditional welfare programs because it doesn't ask for a huge set of specifics and because it doesn't have tons of activities. If we push the Basic Income on the way that we are going to do, we are not really changing all the system, we are going to create a shy reform. Allowing people to change between BIG and other Welfare Programs is not the best reform we should make.

My honorable gentlemen, we need to be bold when it comes to this proposal. Reform Welfare! I have a possible idea for a Bi-Partisan Agreement on that bill and it is by substituting some of our poverty programs and just adding them to the Basic Income. Instead of trying to create a "self-service buffet" for our recipients, we should streamline Welfare in Atlasia. Food Stamps and Public Housing should go if a reasonable amount of Basic Income is provided.

As it is going on right now, it won't be enough because it won't tackle the two greatest issues that are important for Welfare Reform: Making people get out of poverty (empowering them to have the option not to work, if they believe that it would be better to invest time on improving their human capital) and making the system more efficient.

I'm glad that we are seeing support for my Formula all across the aisle but I think that we can move even further. Enhancing even more our Welfare System with a strong Basic Income Guarantee and just a few minor assistance programs.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Well Napoleon, I think that a $10.000 - $15.000 Basic Income Guarantee (following my formula with a thresold from $20.000 to $30.000) would be ideal. I don't know how does the President stand on that proposal because I haven't talked with him personally on that idea.

[Sec. of State Superique]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will not support any bill that does away with Food Stamps or Public Housing, period.

I don't know why it should be like that TNF. The Basic Income is the ideal kind of welfare that could be largely accepted by all the political spectrum. Right-wingers should like it because it doesn't tell people what they should do with their benefits and Left-wingers enjoy the proposal because it helps people get their basic needs and leave a reasonable life even if they are not working.

Furthermore, the Basic Income (using Friedman's Formula) has something better than Public Housing, Unemployment Benefits and Food Stamps; if you start working, you won't loose your benefits. One of the problems is that it creates a trap sometimes, where people prefer to stay rather than loosing all their benefits. With the Basic Income Guarantee, this would be basically over!

I know that sometimes we can get emotional when we vote for the end of a program that represents something symbolic to you (just like Bob Kerrey with the First Iraq War), but you should bear in mind that maybe it would be better for Atlasia if we changed the system.

[Sec. of State Superique]

We could raise it to 10.000 rising until 20.000.... I'm just waiting for that Ammendment!

[Sec. of State Superique]

We could raise it to 10.000 rising until 20.000.... I'm just waiting for that Ammendment!

Wait is this a phase in of some kind or some kind of tiered levels of support. I am afraid I am not sure what you are referring to.

I'm saying that the Basic Income Guarantee initial level should be a $ 10.000,00 annualy, rather than the first $7.500,00 that I proposed. It seems to me that the current guarantee would not be as effective to substitute other social programs, although I'm just guessing and feeling that the $10.000 was the one that Nix was thinking about giving!

[Sec. of State Superique]

I cannot speak for other Senators, but $10,000 would probably be my high point range for I guess the "tax payer", as it is referred to in the text. I might go up to the 11,500 number that has been mentioned as the US defined poverty level.


Shouldn't we have a way of determining if the amounts different between the two members of the couple, who gets the higher amount. Like say maybe a determination based on who earns the most of the two perhaps?

The U.S. defined poverty level, it should be noted, is calculated using a model created in the 1960s. It is not entirely accurate.

Do you have an alternative measurement in mind, then?

Don't forget we have universal healthcare!

[Sec. of State Superique]

Yea, I am gonna go with that vacation theory.

I wish I knew what they are thinking about to answer your question but I don't really think that the individual poverty rating of RL is not appropriate to Atlasia. $11,500 looks pretty fine to me... =/

[Sec. of State Superique]

Why have we changed from 0.5 to 2/3??

[Sec. of State Superique]

Why have we changed from 0.5 to 2/3??

If we raise the minimum from $7500 to $10000 but still keep the cutoff at $15000, the slope has to change, or else we would have a weird jump in income at $15k.

Oh, that is a good reason haha

[Sec. of State Superique]

So with that factored in, then what is the cost savings to be attained since obviously we are not getting the full amount but a percentage of that total cost? It is essential to know this with at least some degree of accuracy to know just how much of this will be covered from doing that and what won't be.

You are definitely right NCYankee but I think that is going to be pretty difficult to define a (%) of those who are going to change from social welfare systems. I believe that most of the people would choose the system that awards them the most. Most of those people will be probably happier with the Basic Income Guarantee, but many wouldn't like to change from his current situation just because it would represent a change on what they were used to do after all.

When we make a program optional, it's really hard to predict how much is it going to cost. =/

[Sec. of State Superique]

So where does that leave us with the present structure. Are they any changes that remain to be made or are we approaching the finish line finally?

I think that we are in the finish line but I would be glad if Sjoyce decided to make an estimate of the costs of the whole project...

[Sec. of State Superique]

Well first off, is "BIG" specified as an approved abbreviations in the text, preferably new where the name is given?

I don't think so; that should be fixed when this is formally introduced.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While that is possible, the programs that I've listed comprise almost all federal anti-poverty spending, not including programs that focus on healthcare and education. Do you have any suggestions in regards to how any remaining loopholes might be addressed?

What about including the Unemployment Insurance as well ??

[Sec. of State Superique]

Oh and one more thing, I PMed Superique and Sjoyce but since Joyce swore in today, that probably won't produce anything, but anyway I PMed them to see if they new where to acqurie this information about the benefits each of those groups received under the programs slotted for restriction as listed in the President's post above.

I may do that next week! It will be Teacher's Day on tuesday so no classes!

[Sec. of State Superique]

I want to extend my thanks to Yankee, TJ, Superique, Gass, and everyone else who helped with this, including each of the Senators who voted in the affirmative.

I believe that this is a watershed moment in in the history of Atlasian social policy. This legislation will provide a stronger social safety net for struggling Atlasians while also providing millions with the option of taking control over their own destinies.

I sign,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amen!