SENATE BILL: Basic Income Guarantee (Law'd)

[Ban my account ffs!]

Opposing a rise in the estate tax because "families rely on those" is a pretty rich argument (pardon the pun) when you turn around and deny a basic income to families who have none.

It's purely selfish and greedy and the "family" argument is a distraction.

Either support the basic income by funding it through other means, buck up and take the estate tax hike as a means of fairness (now that money is insuring another family has a basic income)....

Or just admit you're being selfish, looking out purely for self interest, and that you are way out of sync with the left (and even the right) on this issue.

We all like to rely on family before we rely on the government.  But some people don't have family to rely on.  To ignore that and say "too bad" is really inexcusable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You really need to start using the quote post feature, Snowguy.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Those people who my post was aimed at know who they are.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You'd be surprised actually.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the precise dollar value of tax increases in the budget proposal? The tax increases contained therein might limit our options here for this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, we need to switch over to Superique's formula, handle the issue that Nix raised botu married couples, and of course deal with funding and changes to various other support programs.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'll sponsor an amendment with Superique's formula:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[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....

[TJ in Oregon]

This should make more sense with the correct numbers to describe Superique's formula (I'm offering this as an amendment rather than what I previously posted, though they are actually the same):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: None Given
Status: Vote to come tomorrow if no feedback is forthcoming.

[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.

[TNF]

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.

[Napoleon]

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.

What level of basic income do you and the President believe would be suitable to suffice as a replacement for large portions of the safety net?

[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.

[Napoleon]

I can easily get on board with the president's suggestion. I know that (some of?) the federalists tried to poison this debate before it even started but I see the potential to solve many problems particularly in urban areas.

I believe that individuals and families are better informed of their needs than some bone headed bureaucrat. If we can reduce poverty and welfare costs simultaneously and give people opportunity to start saving money if they choose that route I definitely think we could improve the lives of many Atlasians with little cost attatched.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: None Given
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye

[TNF]

Nay.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Napoleon]

Abstain

[Sbane]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

3-1-1


Bore, Gass3268 HagridoftheDeep, MaxQue,  and Polnut have not voted at this juncture.


comeo n peple, this getting rather unacceptable. We can do better then five votes in two days.

[MaxQue]

Nay. First formula is more generous.

[bore]

nay