HB 24-10: Atlasian Economic Security Act (Passed)

[thumb21]

Atlasian Economic Security Act

An Act to implement a permanent universal basic income to Atlasian citizens.

Be it enacted by the Congress of the Republic of Atlasia assembled:

1. Every citizen of Atlasia shall receive $1000 per month beginning at the age of 18.

2. Payments of $1000 shall be disbursed at the first of each calendar month.

3. An annual review of this Act shall be conducted at the beginning of each calendar year to revise the payment amount in accordance with measurements from the Consumer Price Index.

3. Implementation of this Act shall effectively begin following the expiration of terms set forth in the Emergency Economic Stimulus Act of 2020.

Sponsor: Spiral
House Designation: HB 24-10

72 hours to debate.

[PPT Spiral]

Thank you for bringing this to the floor, Mr. Speaker.

I have long believed that a basic income is essential to implement for our country. Before the COVID-19 outbreak, we were already in the midst of a changing labor market that threatens workers with rapid automation over the long run. This pandemic has only exacerbated current trends, I fear. Seeing the recent relief bill pass with a hefty basic income is a tremendous outcome, but we must be aware that economic struggles will remain even after the virus is in control. This bill offers a scaled back, but permanent disbursement of $1000 monthly that will be indexed for inflation. It will give all adult Atlasians a stable safety net they can depend on.

[thumb21]

I'm very much open to UBI as a way to deal with the effects of automation and the moving away of so many jobs overseas, and I think putting more money into people's hands will help provide a safety net and will also lead to significant economic growth. I think that some sort of UBI or similar ideas are/will be nessessary at some point to deal with the fact that the labour market is very precarious. People can't rely on a single, well paid job for most of their working life as they could do in the past.

I don't think we need to worry about cost too much immediately because its clear that the economic problems are likely to continue after the end of the temporary UBI in the stimulus and so more support will be needed to help us out of the recession. That said, I'm trying to understand how a permanent UBI would work or how it would be paid for. According to a breakdown of Yang's proposal, which seems to do the best job at at breaking down how a UBI plan might work, the cost of sending out the money would be 2.8 trillion, then economic growth would bring back around 558 billion in tax revenue and there'd be a 207 billion increase in revenue simply by people having more income and therefore paying more in tax. We can also assume that less people will be using welfare benefits because people will have more money in the first place (but I don't support an opt-in for welfare recipients, I think people should get UBI on top of welfare because those programs are better targetted), as well as some other improvements like less crime and less homelessness.

There are some interesting ideas to help cover some of the cost which we can discuss. According to the same breakdown, a financial transaction tax would be expected to bring in 50 billion, some changes to capital gains tax and carried interest which would bring in 49 billion and a carbon tax of $100/ton which is double what we currently have. Conveniently, half of this tax would go towards UBI according to Yang's proposal which makes the estimate easier for us, around 176 billion per year. I've also heard about ideas like a tax on robots which fits the theme of automation. I think we could make it more targeted towards people who need it which would also remove a lot of the cost.

[PPT Spiral]

We seem to agree on UBI ideally being a supplement to existing welfare programs. I'm certainly supportive of any of those funding mechanisms you mentioned. The idea of a robot tax is something in particular worth looking into; South Korea implemented a variant of it several years ago which appears to have been a positive, and it would serve as an another counter to automation displacing swathes of people. I admit that I'm attracted to the notion of it truly being universal, but I understand if narrowing the recipients is the difference between passing and failing. Would an income cap of $50,000 per individual muster any interest among the folks in this chamber?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I oppose any form of making UBI permanent . If it is just for this year I would be willing to support it as long as its means tested

[thumb21]

We seem to agree on UBI ideally being a supplement to existing welfare programs. I'm certainly supportive of any of those funding mechanisms you mentioned. The idea of a robot tax is something in particular worth looking into; South Korea implemented a variant of it several years ago which appears to have been a positive, and it would serve as an another counter to automation displacing swathes of people. I admit that I'm attracted to the notion of it truly being universal, but I understand if narrowing the recipients is the difference between passing and failing. Would an income cap of $50,000 per individual muster any interest among the folks in this chamber?

$50,000 sounds good to me, that'd cover around 70% of people.

[cinyc]

We seem to agree on UBI ideally being a supplement to existing welfare programs. I'm certainly supportive of any of those funding mechanisms you mentioned. The idea of a robot tax is something in particular worth looking into; South Korea implemented a variant of it several years ago which appears to have been a positive, and it would serve as an another counter to automation displacing swathes of people. I admit that I'm attracted to the notion of it truly being universal, but I understand if narrowing the recipients is the difference between passing and failing. Would an income cap of $50,000 per individual muster any interest among the folks in this chamber?

$50,000 sounds good to me, that'd cover around 70% of people.

I'm not voting for this under any circumstances, particularly if it is means tested. Basic UNIVERSAL income means UNIVERSAL income, not just yet another money grab from the so-called rich.

[PPT Spiral]

I'll amend the bill as such:

Atlasian Economic Security Act

An Act to implement a permanent universal basic income to Atlasian citizens.

Be it enacted by the Congress of the Republic of Atlasia assembled:

1. Every eligible citizen of Atlasia shall receive $1000 per month.

2. Eligible citizens for purposes of this Act include those who are at least age 18 and who report total annual income per individual of up to $50,000.

3. Payments of $1000 shall be disbursed at the first of each calendar month.

4. An annual review of this Act shall be conducted at the beginning of each calendar year to revise the payment amount in accordance with measurements from the Consumer Price Index.

5. Implementation of this Act shall effectively begin following the expiration of terms set forth in the Emergency Economic Stimulus Act of 2020.

[cinyc]

I object to the amendment and call for a vote on it.

[thumb21]

Amendment vote

72 hours

[thumb21]

Aye

[PPT Spiral]

Aye

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

The bill is good as it stands. I believe the amendment only hurts the bill, since it forces more paperwork and bureaucracy to get in the way of the payments. It's "universal" basic income, isn't it? Not casting my vote on the amendment yet since I want to see some conversation.

[cinyc]

Nay

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Wait, so the amendment is enacting a hard cutoff of $50,000? So someone who makes $50,000 + 1 gets nothing?

Opposed to UBI in general, but this amendment makes it even worse. I agree with cinyc's and razze's comments on the matter.

Nay

[Elcaspar]

I agree with the comments that have been raised so far. It just becomes non-universal when you add a hard cutoff to it.

Nay.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Wait, does cinyc even get to object to the amendment, when it's the sponsor's amendment? I'm sure the answer is yes since that's how the Speaker treated it, but I must have been mistaken in the past about amending procedures.

Anyway, I'll vote Nay, since I believe the bill should remain as-is.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Aye

[thumb21]

The bill is good as it stands. I believe the amendment only hurts the bill, since it forces more paperwork and bureaucracy to get in the way of the payments. It's "universal" basic income, isn't it? Not casting my vote on the amendment yet since I want to see some conversation.

I prefer there be a cap because the higher the income, the less the $1000 is needed while still costing the same amount. The cap cuts the upfront cost several hundreds of billions and while that also means the economic growth to make up for that is decreased, it would be to a lesser extent since the better off you are, the less likely the money you get is to be spent. On the point about bureaucracy, I think that there are ways to put a cap in place without necessarily sending out forms such as say taxing the money back at some point.

Wait, does cinyc even get to object to the amendment, when it's the sponsor's amendment? I'm sure the answer is yes since that's how the Speaker treated it, but I must have been mistaken in the past about amending procedures.

The rules say that if an amendment is objected to, it triggers a vote with no distinction about who proposes it. I think the senate does allow the sponsor to amend without a vote though.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Thanks for the clarification

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Aye

[PPT Spiral]

On second thought, I'm changing my vote to Nay. There is clearly more of an appetite for this program to be universal, which aligns with my gut instincts on the matter.

[thumb21]

Amendment fails

3-5-0-1

[thumb21]

An amendment which effectively makes the first 12k (or the amount recieved in UBI) of income untaxable while increasing taxes on those making over a million.

Atlasian Economic Security Act

An Act to implement a permanent universal basic income to Atlasian citizens.

Be it enacted by the Congress of the Republic of Atlasia assembled:

SECTION I: UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME.

1. Every citizen of Atlasia shall receive $1000 per month beginning at the age of 18.

2. Payments of $1000 shall be disbursed at the first of each calendar month.

3. An annual review of this Act shall be conducted at the beginning of each calendar year to revise the payment amount in accordance with measurements from the Consumer Price Index.

4. Implementation of this Act shall effectively begin following the expiration of terms set forth in the Emergency Economic Stimulus Act of 2020.

SECTION II: INCOME TAX.

1. For the purpose of this Section, "X" shall refer to the total amount to be disbursed as determined under the process set out in Section I Subsection 3 for the year for which the income is being taxed.

2. Effective FY2021, the income tax brackets shall be as follows:

0-X              0%
X-13K          7%
13K-50k      12%
50K-130K    23%
130K-210K  29%
210K-413K  34%
413K-441K  36%
441K+        40.6%

3. For FY2023, the income tax brackets shall be as follows:

0-X              0%
X-13K          7%
13K-50k      12%
50K-130K    23%
130K-210K  29%
210K-413K  34%
413K-441K  36%
441K-1M     40.6%
1M-10M      41%
10M+         41.4%

4. For FY2024, the income tax brackets shall be as follows:

0-X              0%
X-13K          7%
13K-50k      12%
50K-130K    23%
130K-210K  29%
210K-413K  34%
413K-441K  36%
441K-1M     40.6%
1M-10M      42%
10M+         43.4%

5. For FY2025, the income tax brackets shall be as follows:

0-X              0%
X-13K          7%
13K-50k      12%
50K-130K    23%
130K-210K  29%
210K-413K  34%
413K-441K  36%
441K-1M     40.6%
1M-10M      43%
10M+         45.4%

6. For FY2026, the income tax brackets shall be as follows:

0-X              0%
X-13K          7%
13K-50k      12%
50K-130K    23%
130K-210K  29%
210K-413K  34%
413K-441K  36%
441K-1M     40.6%
1M-10M      44%
10M+         47.4%

7. For FY2027, the income tax brackets shall be as follows:

0-X              0%
X-13K          7%
13K-50k      12%
50K-130K    23%
130K-210K  29%
210K-413K  34%
413K-441K  36%
441K-1M     40.6%
1M-10M      45%
10M+         49.4%

8. For FY2028, the income tax brackets shall be as follows:

0-X              0%
X-13K          7%
13K-50k      12%
50K-130K    23%
130K-210K  29%
210K-413K  34%
413K-441K  36%
441K-1M     40.6%
1M-10M      46%
10M+         51.4%

[cinyc]

I object to this amendment and call for a vote. Universal should mean universal. Otherwise, stop, using that term.