SENATE BILL: Basic Income Guarantee (Law'd)

[TNF]

Why should we use the same calculation for households of different sizes?

Oh I don't think that we should – what I was saying that at the very least we should define $22K and below as poverty and go from there.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, that would be double the present numbers that we are working with, just about unless I am misreading the alternative numbers.

What does everyone else think?

And how should we proceed with the underlying legislation with at new standard in mind.

[Gass3268]

What would that be and how would it be calculated?

There are many formulas for calculating the poverty rate. We should agree on one and submit it to the GM.

TNF, what poverty measure would you prefer to use?

What are our choices?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can we get some responses to these questions that have been asked by the Senator and the President?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yea, I am gonna go with that vacation theory.

[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... =/

[TNF]

Why should we use the same calculation for households of different sizes?

Oh I don't think that we should – what I was saying that at the very least we should define $22K and below as poverty and go from there.

Would you mind describing some of your problems with the real-life Census poverty measure? I'm familiar with the most common objections to the (incredibly crude) method by which it is calculated, but I'm curious about why you consider your threshold is the best possible description of poverty.

I'm just spitballing, numbers-wise (referring to my definition). My main objection to the real-life census measure of poverty is that it's rooted in assumptions that no longer hold true. Bear in mind that those poverty guidelines were originally written in the 1960s, so yes, $11K or whatever we are talking about is certainly poor - by 1960s standards. The world has definitely changed since the 1960s and those measurements should be updated to reflect that.

[MaxQue]

Why should we use the same calculation for households of different sizes?

Oh I don't think that we should – what I was saying that at the very least we should define $22K and below as poverty and go from there.

Would you mind describing some of your problems with the real-life Census poverty measure? I'm familiar with the most common objections to the (incredibly crude) method by which it is calculated, but I'm curious about why you consider your threshold is the best possible description of poverty.

I'm just spitballing, numbers-wise (referring to my definition). My main objection to the real-life census measure of poverty is that it's rooted in assumptions that no longer hold true. Bear in mind that those poverty guidelines were originally written in the 1960s, so yes, $11K or whatever we are talking about is certainly poor - by 1960s standards. The world has definitely changed since the 1960s and those measurements should be updated to reflect that.

Doesn't factoring the inflation since then not enough?

[TNF]

Why should we use the same calculation for households of different sizes?

Oh I don't think that we should – what I was saying that at the very least we should define $22K and below as poverty and go from there.

Would you mind describing some of your problems with the real-life Census poverty measure? I'm familiar with the most common objections to the (incredibly crude) method by which it is calculated, but I'm curious about why you consider your threshold is the best possible description of poverty.

I'm just spitballing, numbers-wise (referring to my definition). My main objection to the real-life census measure of poverty is that it's rooted in assumptions that no longer hold true. Bear in mind that those poverty guidelines were originally written in the 1960s, so yes, $11K or whatever we are talking about is certainly poor - by 1960s standards. The world has definitely changed since the 1960s and those measurements should be updated to reflect that.

Doesn't factoring the inflation since then not enough?

Inflation does not begin to address how radically basic material possessions have changed/multiplied/grown in importance since the 1960s. Under the existing definition of poverty, you might not be able to afford internet access, for example - and that's not factored in of course because the internet did not exist when the guidelines were drawn up - but we should (imo anyway) nevertheless consider someone without internet access poor. Not having access to the internet is like not having access to electricity in this day and age.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Keep in mind not all internet access is created equal.

But lets say we were to recraft and then recalculate the formula, one has to ask is that practical to do with our limitations?

[TNF]

Keep in mind not all internet access is created equal.

But lets say we were to recraft and then recalculate the formula, one has to ask is that practical to do with our limitations?

This is a good point and I would lean towards no. I think I would be most comfortable with defining poverty a lot higher than the existing definition, forumlas aside.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So then how do we come to an agreement on what the number should be?


I must say, this would have been a great task for the IA Committee to have tackled. Considering it was 100% laborite, I'd imagine the results would have been rather much in line with your desires.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would offer an amendment for 10,000, but I am worried about garbling the formula by doing so. Plus I don't beleive anyone else gave a preferred number amongst the Senators and I would like to know what my collegues support. TNF said something about 22,000, if I remember correctly but that was not for an individual but instead based on I think a family of four. If I understand it 10,000 would give a family of four 23,000 or so, but I might be miscalculating the formula here.

I am also bring this post from about two weeks ago, since it lays out what has to be done.

First, now that we've adjusted the formula, we need to establish what GBI number a majority of Senators are willing to support. Maybe it's $7,500, or maybe it's something closer to the $12,500 that I suggest. The benefit for spouses or live-in partners doesn't necessarily need to be that high, although I don't want to disincentive marriage or cohabitation, both of which can be sensible steps to take if you want to lift yourself out of poverty.

Second, we need to discuss what kind of social programs should be unavailable for those who opt for the GBI instead (and I think that initiating this program with an opt-in provision is crucial). I've already named a few (e.g. SNAP, public housing benefits), which I'll cull together in a later post.

[TJ in Oregon]

Yankee do you want the $10k decreasing to zero when the person reaches an income of $15 as it is now, or do you also want that scaled up to $20k?

I have something of a split mind about the merits of each because I worry only having people get 1/3 more money for every dollar they earn is an insufficient incentive, but I also don't think the government needs to be giving money to single individuals making $20k a year who already are getting healthcare.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am leaning towards the mechanics that we have now since those were the SoIA's recommendations if I recall correctly.

[Maxwell]

I am not someone who has much expertise on the subject of welfare, so this will probably be my only comment, but adjusting the poverty levels is probably a good idea.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We should certainly consider it when deciding what the numbers should, particular since we have Fritzcare but coming to a concrete number would require us to form our own formula and that would be difficult with our limitations.

We should consider it, Atlasiafying the formula that is, going forward as maybe something to work with the GM and SoIA on, maybe once we finish the CSS budget stuff.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I meant to get on this morning and offer the 10K amendment but was unfortunatley detained by a family crisis. I wil ltry to get that in tonight but there is a storm coming.

It is always something. God I hate 2013.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are these correct?

[TJ in Oregon]

Both have a discontinuity at the cut-off point. You also need to change the slope for it to work:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thanks, TJ.

I will offer one of them when I get back online.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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 in 24 hours w/o positive feedback

[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, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Maxwell]

Aye