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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You would add a line like this


c.) Actively enrolled or scheduled to be enrolled in a vocational eduction course or program.




And then as I was saying, you would add a new clause like Clause 10 or 11 or whatever the next available number is to describe the parameters and criteria that clasify as enrolled or about to be enrolled in a vocational course and thne you would link it back to sub clause c above.


I will get a draft of it all tomorrow afternoon after class. Today has been long, hectic and frustrating.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That looks fine, thank you. I'm waiting for your next draft.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He is the first part.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still working on sub section 11.


Also you have a problem with the lettering in subsection five. You might want to offer an amendment to get that fixed. Current it goes a, b, a, a, a. Yea, something wrong there.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh yeah, you're right.

Ok, it hereby reads :

5. Any registered employee losing its job shall receive from the Unemployment Insurance Administration a monthly revenue amounting to :
    a) 90% of the individual's previous salary during the first year following the loss of its job
    b) 80% of the individual's previous salary during the second year following the loss of its job
    c) 70% of the individual's previous salary during the third year following the loss of its job
    d) 60% of the individual's previous salary during the fourth year following the loss of its job
    e) 50% of the individual's previous salary after four years of unemployment

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Where the hell is the PPT? He could expedite such a simple change really quickly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is what I have so far for subsection eleven.

11. For the pursposes of this act, a vocational education course shall be defined as any course college or career training that seeks to improve one skills in their current occupation or train them for a new occupation entirely. Courses must be tought either online in connection with, or onsite of, an accredited university, community college, junior college, technical institute or other accredited institution offering continuing education courses. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Looks fine to me.

To make things clearer, here is how the section reads now :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's just something I don't understand. As section 3 reads currently, it seems that a person needs to both research a job and to be enrolled in a training program. Shouldn't we say : b) or c) ?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First off, that is what it would look like. Neither my amendment (hasn't even been offered yet) nor yours with the lettering issue has been adopted yet.


Yea, Section three needs a slight modification.

A is the primary requirement that must be met. So you need the section to say that the person must

3. To be deemed as "actively unemployed", a person shall be not exercising any remunerated job and shall meet one of the following requirements :
    a) Actively researching a job, as defined under subsection 9.
    b) Being enrolled in or scheduled to be enrolled in a vocational education course or program as laid out in subsection 11

Or we could do this

3. To be deemed as "actively unemployed", a person shall meet following requirements :
    a) Not exercising any remunerated job.
    b) Actively researching a job, as defined under subsection 9, or be enrolled in or scheduled to be enrolled in a vocational education course or program as laid out in subsection 11.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If that doesn't get his attention, nothing will.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The amendment for section 5 has been updated.  Senators, you have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

[Ban my account ffs!]

FOr the record, I don't think translation error corrections should have to be fixed by amendment.  Only if the intent of the bill changes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

FOr the record, I don't think translation error corrections should have to be fixed by amendment.  Only if the intent of the bill changes.

And I agree, and the PPT has the ability to make that decision. However if you got not PPT, you got no decision.

[Antonio the Sixth]

First off, that is what it would look like. Neither my amendment (hasn't even been offered yet) nor yours with the lettering issue has been adopted yet.

Nobody has objected in the 24 hours following its offering.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both are fine with me. You can pick the one you prefer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The second one, looks less grotesque but I would prefer another Senator's opinion. Unfortunately we seem to not have but two these days, atleast as far as this bill is concerned.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The second one, looks less grotesque but I would prefer another Senator's opinion. Unfortunately we seem to not have but two these days, atleast as far as this bill is concerned.

Let's go for the second one.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I offer the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We should probably replace the instances of the word perceive with something that means filch.

[Lief 🗽]

Well I finally give this a full read-through, sorry for the time it took. Here are my thoughts, by section:

Section 1: Is it really necessary to create another level of bureaucracy? I feel like most or all of this bill can be handled through the Department of Internal Affairs. I do like the corporatist (in the traditional sense of the word) arrangement/composition of the Council, though I'm a curious how exactly the labor representatives would be elected.

Section 2, 3: This is good.

Section 4: I'm not sure why we need both this and the Atlasian National Healthcare Act? I'm probably missing something.

Section 5: This is all good, and I support the proposed amendment. I didn't understand the 110% thing at first, but after having read your explanation I think it's actually a pretty smart idea.

Section 6: I think we need to cap the number of children (or perhaps the amount paid out per month) in this section. I'm also wary of essentially paying people to reproduce, and I'm afraid that this section may be incentivizing having many children but not necessarily raising them well. Perhaps that is beyond the scope of this legislation.

Section 7: Again, this is really well thought out and covers pretty much every angle of the issue, as far as I can tell. Though we should probably think of some way to grandfather in the social security system; as is, I don't really know what happens to people who've already been working for a while under this system. Would there be a record of each month they were employed?

Section 8, 9: Everything seems to be in order here.

One thing I would suggest is maybe replacing all the increases in payroll tax here. Payroll taxes are probably my least preferred method of taxation, and especially during the recession we're in, I think such a sudden increase in them could be a real drag on employment and hiring. Maybe we could reduce the payroll taxes in this legislation and make some of the income with a small (i.e. 1% or so) wealth tax? We could also do a nationwide sales tax or VAT, as long as it didn't exclude daily essentials (like food and what not).

[Antonio the Sixth]

I offer the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We should probably replace the instances of the word perceive with something that means filch.

The Amendment is accepted as friendly. Amended section (to ease future references) :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for "perceive", could it be replaced with "collect" ?

[Franzl]

You're seriously talking about giving away 50% of a person's previous salary indefinitely?

If someone hasn't found a job within a year or so....I see no reason why salary based unemployment payments are necessary.

Give him a base of $400 a month or so + food benefits, housing, etc.

I'm not a senator, but I certainly urge the Senate to think responsibly here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank you a lot Lief for getting into the debate.

Section 1: Is it really necessary to create another level of bureaucracy? I feel like most or all of this bill can be handled through the Department of Internal Affairs. I do like the corporatist (in the traditional sense of the word) arrangement/composition of the Council, though I'm a curious how exactly the labor representatives would be elected.

I'm not really sure my system is the best one, but I think it offers a couple of interesting ideas and would be worth considering, like indeed a "corporatist" representation. Maybe having an institution with the direct task of managing the NSSA's budget could allow managers to focus more on these goals, while giving this responsibility directly to the DoIA would make the task more difficult to organize. Plus, it should prevent the exploitation of the social welfare by the executive for politician purposes. As for bureacracy, that's certainly an important problem in terms of cost, but it could significantly improve the quality of the services provided.
I guess labor representatives would be elected the same way as labor representatives in businesses are. Maybe some kind of PR among lists formed by labor unions, or maybe STV would be fairer. As for their management, I think it's up to labor unions themselves. This could be a problem considering that there is always a risk of frauds/corruption, so maybe there is something to do there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, as it is put up, the passage of this bill would cause the repeal of the Atlasian National Healthcare Act (preamble, subsection 1). That's not because I think it was a bad law, simply because I'd like this bill to encomprise every branch of social protection and make up for a unique reference in this domain. As you can see, the intent of the section and the way it works is pretty similar to the ANHCA, with a few precisions, a few simplifications and a few changes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, maybe here I am too influenced by the european situation, where the demographic depression leads the goverment to enact (more or less) natalist policies. But since the USA and Atlasia have a pretty decent population growth, maybe this is not as important as in Europe. So you're right, maybe there is some threshold to set on the maximum sum a household can get. I'd say $900 in the first case and $1500 in the second would be nice : it equates to 3 childs over 8.

(On a side note, something really crazy about French natalist policies : I've discovered than in France, these child allowances are actually progressive ! Ie your allowance increases more when you have your 3rd child than when you have your 2nd one ! This is, indeed, basically paying people to reproduce, and that's pretty silly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have assumed there would be some paper proving you have worked for a month. If there isn't any other, I think a simple payroll could be sufficient. Otherwise, I guess people who can't prove their work will simply get the minimal pension, ie $1000.

Also to note, I guess there is a little loophole in this section, as nowhere it is specified how often you are supposed to get your pension. It was of course supposed to be monthly, so here's the Amendment :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, Yank already raised this point and I guess we'll start working on taxation as soon as we've finished with the most boring things like correcting translation errors. As I said, I've no preconceived idea on taxation so I've no problem considering alternative solutions. The income tax method can work I guess, that's the method I used for most of insurances so we can generalize it. I tend to be mistrustful of VATs, but if we can exclude basic necessity goods I think it can work well too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I offer the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We should probably replace the instances of the word perceive with something that means filch.

The Amendment is accepted as friendly. Amended section (to ease future references) :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for "perceive", could it be replaced with "collect" ?

It might, but it depends on the context. In some places it may not make sense. I'll do an overview of the whole bill and see where I can switch it out with collect and where we can't.

You're seriously talking about giving away 50% of a person's previous salary indefinitely?

If someone hasn't found a job within a year or so....I see no reason why salary based unemployment payments are necessary.

Give him a base of $400 a month or so + food benefits, housing, etc.

I'm not a senator, but I certainly urge the Senate to think responsibly here.

Agreed.


If you want to change that situation, you let me know.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thank you a lot Lief for getting into the debate.

Section 1: Is it really necessary to create another level of bureaucracy? I feel like most or all of this bill can be handled through the Department of Internal Affairs. I do like the corporatist (in the traditional sense of the word) arrangement/composition of the Council, though I'm a curious how exactly the labor representatives would be elected.

I'm not really sure my system is the best one, but I think it offers a couple of interesting ideas and would be worth considering, like indeed a "corporatist" representation. Maybe having an institution with the direct task of managing the NSSA's budget could allow managers to focus more on these goals, while giving this responsibility directly to the DoIA would make the task more difficult to organize. Plus, it should prevent the exploitation of the social welfare by the executive for politician purposes. As for bureacracy, that's certainly an important problem in terms of cost, but it could significantly improve the quality of the services provided.
I guess labor representatives would be elected the same way as labor representatives in businesses are. Maybe some kind of PR among lists formed by labor unions, or maybe STV would be fairer. As for their management, I think it's up to labor unions themselves. This could be a problem considering that there is always a risk of frauds/corruption, so maybe there is something to do there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, as it is put up, the passage of this bill would cause the repeal of the Atlasian National Healthcare Act (preamble, subsection 1). That's not because I think it was a bad law, simply because I'd like this bill to encomprise every branch of social protection and make up for a unique reference in this domain. As you can see, the intent of the section and the way it works is pretty similar to the ANHCA, with a few precisions, a few simplifications and a few changes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, maybe here I am too influenced by the european situation, where the demographic depression leads the goverment to enact (more or less) natalist policies. But since the USA and Atlasia have a pretty decent population growth, maybe this is not as important as in Europe. So you're right, maybe there is some threshold to set on the maximum sum a household can get. I'd say $900 in the first case and $1500 in the second would be nice : it equates to 3 childs over 8.

(On a side note, something really crazy about French natalist policies : I've discovered than in France, these child allowances are actually progressive ! Ie your allowance increases more when you have your 3rd child than when you have your 2nd one ! This is, indeed, basically paying people to reproduce, and that's pretty silly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have assumed there would be some paper proving you have worked for a month. If there isn't any other, I think a simple payroll could be sufficient. Otherwise, I guess people who can't prove their work will simply get the minimal pension, ie $1000.

Also to note, I guess there is a little loophole in this section, as nowhere it is specified how often you are supposed to get your pension. It was of course supposed to be monthly, so here's the Amendment :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, Yank already raised this point and I guess we'll start working on taxation as soon as we've finished with the most boring things like correcting translation errors. As I said, I've no preconceived idea on taxation so I've no problem considering alternative solutions. The income tax method can work I guess, that's the method I used for most of insurances so we can generalize it. I tend to be mistrustful of VATs, but if we can exclude basic necessity goods I think it can work well too.

Consumption/Sales taxes are often the second in the list of the worst forms of taxation, in terms of employment. I am not sure whether dividing the burden amongst the two forms of bad taxation is better or lose to keeping the main on form. I would need to think on that. Wealth tax isn't as damaging as those two, most likely.

Section 4: I'm not sure why we need both this and the Atlasian National Healthcare Act? I'm probably missing something.

Doesn't the bill repeal all previous such legislation? There is language to that effect towards the top.

Section 6: I think we need to cap the number of children (or perhaps the amount paid out per month) in this section. I'm also wary of essentially paying people to reproduce, and I'm afraid that this section may be incentivizing having many children but not necessarily raising them well. Perhaps that is beyond the scope of this legislation.

Section 7: Again, this is really well thought out and covers pretty much every angle of the issue, as far as I can tell. Though we should probably think of some way to grandfather in the social security system; as is, I don't really know what happens to people who've already been working for a while under this system. Would there be a record of each month they were employed?

It would be wise to avoid creating a perverse incentive for people to reproduce for the money, where the children are mistreated, abused, neglected, and mal-developed in some physical or mental/emotional fashion as a result.


Yes, there has to be way to continue the current system as it wouldn't be right to change the rules for people who are retired or about to retire. Which is why I oppose any reforms in RL being effective for those 55 and over (and preferably 45 and over).

[Antonio the Sixth]

I still think 50% of the previous salary is a reasonable minimum for someone who lost his job and genuinely wants to get back working. Of course it makes no sense if the guy earned $20,000 a month and would get $10,000, but that's why I've set a maximum of $4,000 per month. I really don't see what would be the problem, as the provisions we've set clearly make it impossible for someone who doesn't want to work to get the benefits.

[Franzl]

I still think 50% of the previous salary is a reasonable minimum for someone who lost his job and genuinely wants to get back working. Of course it makes no sense if the guy earned $20,000 a month and would get $10,000, but that's why I've set a maximum of $4,000 per month. I really don't see what would be the problem, as the provisions we've set clearly make it impossible for someone who doesn't want to work to get the benefits.

I still oppose it. Anyone that's been out of work has had sufficient time to make changes to his lifestyle. There's no reason society should be financing his previous standard of living after that point.

There are certain jobs (particularly blue collar ones) where a person could legitimately be looking for new work for many many years because the jobs aren't coming back. It seems absurd that the taxpayers should pay that amount for an extended period of time. (And it's actually 90% for a whole year in your proposal.)

I like the German Hartz IV system....after a certain point cut them off and put them on a base welfare rate.