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

[Mr. Reactionary]

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 $50,000 for individuals or $100,000 for married joint-filers shall be entitled to up to $2,000 monthly checks. Incomes less than $40,000 for individuals or $80,000 for married joint-filers shall be entitled to the full payment and incomes greater than $40,000 receiving a proportionally phased-out amount of $1 of federal funds for each $5 of excess income up to the income limit of $50,000 or $100,000 respectively.

2. This act shall take effect April 15, 2023.

Sponsor: OSR
Debate on this bill is now open.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Common sense. I agree with OSR that I shouldnt be eligible for welfare when $69K a year is a lot of money. This also seems to eliminate the marriage penalty and has a fairer phase out at the limits to not discourage higher private earnings. Its kind of crazy that under current federal law Im entitled to $24K for free if I make $69,999, but if I make $1 more I get nothing. And also that people who make $1K a year get identical benefits to someone making $69,999 a year. This seems fairer, smarter, and doesnt undermine the idea behind the bill.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is something i cannot support.

Single parents are discriminated by this proposed act. Also, this does not take into account that single parents almost always have to work while with two parents you can have one parent who can choose not to work to take care of the children (and to be eligible for the program).

No, single parents get the same allowance as a married parent this just allows for blending of marital income as far as qualifying. The current law discriminates against married couples. No single parents receive less money as a result of the changes, it just helps more married couples qualify.

Also, this does not take into account the quantity of children involved. Four children for example need more support than one kid.

Feel free to offer that amendment, but again as the law is currently written the benefit already fails to take number of kids into account.

The current law just says if you have any kids you get $X. Flat. Thats already the law. This proposal does not change that yet but it does not newly restrict it either. Your objection here is to the existing law, not to the proposed change found in this bill.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is something i cannot support.

Single parents are discriminated by this proposed act. Also, this does not take into account that single parents almost always have to work while with two parents you can have one parent who can choose not to work to take care of the children (and to be eligible for the program).

No, single parents get the same allowance as a married parent this just allows for blending of marital income as far as qualifying. The current law discriminates against married couples. No single parents receive less money as a result of the changes, it just helps more married couples qualify.

Also, this does not take into account the quantity of children involved. Four children for example need more support than one kid.

Feel free to offer that amendment, but again as the law is currently written the benefit already fails to take number of kids into account.

The current law just says if you have any kids you get $X. Flat. Thats already the law. This proposal does not change that yet but it does not newly restrict it either. Your objection here is to the existing law, not to the proposed change found in this bill.

But isn't it easier for a married couple to qualify for the benefit described in this law? And for single parents, we see a decrease from $70,000 to $50,000. I don't think this is a good idea.

Universal Basic Income also is no longer "universal" given the criteria to qualify is different depending on whether you're a single parent or married parents.

It also gives the benefit to "married parents" instead of unmarried caretaking parents (married "joint-filers").

A good act (and this would also go against "universal basic income") would indeed make the distinction of the number of kids in a family.

So the idea of a marriage penalty isnt new. Consider a married couple where 1 spouse makes $70K and 1 spouse makes $0. Spouse 1 gets nothing, spouse 2 gets $24K. Under the proposal the couple can blend incomes meaning each counts as having $35K and thus both qualify for $24K each. It no longer penalizes the married couple for having a stay at home parent. Single parents arent impacted at all. A single parent would qualify for the $24K. Otherwise, the formula is encouraging single parents.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Is giving someone who makes $69K a year an extra $24K a year really a vital welfare program? The current law provides that an individial making $69K a year is poor and must make $93K a year or else hes still poor but someone making $70K a year is fine only making $70K. The lack of a proportionate phase out makes no sense. A person making $0 a year is deemed adequately compensated if they have an annual income of $24K post welfare, but not a person making $69K without welfare. This seems like welfare for those who dont need it. Like me. If I had a kid, Id qualify for this and I dont need welfare.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye