S.20.3-16: Family Opportunity Fund Act (Law'd)

[tmthforu94]

AN ACT
to give families more security and opportunity

Section 1 (Title & Definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Family Opportunity Fund."
ii. The "beginning of each month" is the 1st
iii. "Child" is defined as a person aged 17 or younger.

Section 2 (Universal Child Dividend)
i. Each person with a dependent child shall be eligible for an annual child tax credit of $4,800 per dependent, up to four. The credit shall be divided and dispersed at the beginning of each month ($400 per month).
ii. The Universal Child Tax Credit shall be withheld from families under CPS investigation until the investigation is complete. If the case is placed into Categories III, IV, or V, the Family shall be backpaid for any missed tax credit payments.
iii. This bill will be paid for with the regional excise taxes and an progressive income tax as follows:
$0 - $75,000: 0%
$75,001 - $125,000: 3.5%
$125,001 - $1,000,000: 7%
%1,000,001+: 9.5%

Section 3 (Implementation)
i. This legislation shall come into effect immediately upon signature by the Governor.

Sponsor: DTC

Minimum 48 hours for debate. The sponsor is invited to advocate for the bill.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

can we get an estimate of the cost of this program and revenue generated from the tax? I like the idea though.

[diptheriadan]

I'm not entirely sure whether the tax would actually cover this. I'm still trying to find state-based data on the number of children, but according to this website, there are 73.7 million in the United States. 1/3rd of that would be 24,321,000 in the South. At 6,000 a year per child, that would be 145,926,000,000$ a year, which is something like 3x what our current budget surplus is.

[thumb21]

I like the idea a lot, it is an absolute priority that all families and children get the support they need, its an important investment in our region's future.

I do agree with WB that we should look at estimates of how much the tax generates vs how much spending this will result in. One thing that might be useful is seeing if the comptroller general can do a few different estimates based on varying ways of getting revenue, perhaps adding another bracket further up the income scale - plus estimates of how much different monthly amounts of universal child dividend is given would cost. That would help us a lot with reaching some sort of balance.

One thing I am not entirely sure on, but what is the definition of child that we are using for the purpose of this bill?

[diptheriadan]

Also, according to the 2018 budget, a 4% income tax would only bring in 19.04$ billion, which, when factoring in that this is just for incomes exceeding 100,000$ as well as the decreased total revenue because of the pandemic/recession, is probably comparable to this hypothetical 5% tax.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I like the idea a lot, it is an absolute priority that all families and children get the support they need, its an important investment in our region's future.

I do agree with WB that we should look at estimates of how much the tax generates vs how much spending this will result in. One thing that might be useful is seeing if the comptroller general can do a few different estimates based on varying ways of getting revenue, perhaps adding another bracket further up the income scale - plus estimates of how much different monthly amounts of universal child dividend is given would cost. That would help us a lot with reaching some sort of balance.

One thing I am not entirely sure on, but what is the definition of child that we are using for the purpose of this bill?

That's a good point. Introducing the following amendment:

AN ACT
to give families more security and opportunity

Section 1 (Title & Definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Family Opportunity Fund."
ii. The "beginning of a month" is the 1st
iii. "Child" is defined as a person aged 17 or younger.

Section 2 (Universal Child Dividend)
i. Every family will be mailed $500 per child at the beginning of every month ($6,000 a year).
ii. This bill will be paid for by a 5% income tax on incomes above $100,000

Section 3 (Implementation)
i. This legislation shall come into effect immediately upon signature by the Governor.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I like the idea of this bill.

[tmthforu94]

24 hours for objections to WB's amendment.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I apologize for that blindspot. I should have defined what a child was. Thanks weatherboy.

If the proposed tax is not enough to cover it, I would like to raise taxes in other areas as well. I believe that this spending will be worth the tax increases because families with children tend to spend their money on wholesome goods and services

[tmthforu94]

I'm thinking we may want to add language clarifying it as a dependent and that the guardian receives the money. Something like:

"i. The primary guardian will receive $500 for every dependent child at the beginning of every month."

Should there be a consideration for putting a cap on this, say 5-6? I'm uncertain if a program like this could be open for abuse, similar to the issues we've seen in the foster care program. I'd also like to look at a couple other safeguards, such as specifying that the money should be used for child-raising expenses, if proven to be using it for other reasons, audit and possible return of money or something else could happen.

Also, just doing some quick math. There is roughly 75 million children under 18 in the US, based on prior calculations, about 40% of the population is in the South. So we're looking at 30 million children. Multiplying that out to $6000/child, we'd be looking at a total annual cost of $180,000,000,000. So we're currently at about 10% funding, meaning we're going to have to make some adjustments somewhere. I think putting a cap on family income is something that should merit consideration to start.

[diptheriadan]

So, capping the money to only those below the poverty line is going to have to be a must.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

So, capping the money to only those below the poverty line is going to have to be a must.

No, I disagree. This program should absolutely be universal. Capping programs to people below the poverty line discourages people from getting out of poverty. It also is costly to means test people, and reduces support for the program among people who don't get it. Everyone should get the benefits of this program, no matter how rich they are. Giving $6,000 a year per child disproportionately benefits lower income people, while not directly removing incentives to work harder.

I would be fine with reducing the amount to $400 per month, putting a cap of 4 children, and increasing taxes in other places in order to make this program work. How about a 7% income tax on incomes above $50,000, as well as increased cigarette and alcohol taxes?

[diptheriadan]

We'll need a report from the GM (or is it the Comptroller General who does cost estimates now?), but even then that might not be enough, as we're still looking at this bill costing well more than our current  surplus.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

As someone who is a big fan of UBI, this bill seems like a great idea, although as my fellow delegates have pointed out, I want to see if our government can sustain such a project before I give my aye.

[tmthforu94]

Gonna try to keep this moving to offer an amendment that gets this *closer* to being financially feasible.

AN ACT
to give families more security and opportunity

Section 1 (Title & Definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Family Opportunity Fund."
ii. The "beginning of a month" is the 1st
iii. "Child" is defined as a person aged 17 or younger.

Section 2 (Universal Child Dividend)
i. Every family will be mailed $5400 per child at the beginning of every month ($6,0004,800 a year) for up to four dependents.
ii. This bill will be paid for by a 5% income tax on individual incomes above $100,000

Section 3 (Implementation)
i. This legislation shall come into effect immediately upon signature by the Governor.

24 hours for objections.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This amendment is probably necessary if this is going to be passed anyway. Something like this ain't cheap.

[tmthforu94]

The amendment is adopted, debate resumes.

[reagente]

A few questions: How is "family" defined here? Is it just anyone with kids as a dependent?

Also how does this work for divorced parents? Does one parent receive it, or does each parent receive a cut? Related to that, will this impact existing child support obligations at all?

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

A few questions: How is "family" defined here? Is it just anyone with kids as a dependent?

Also how does this work for divorced parents? Does one parent receive it, or does each parent receive a cut? Related to that, will this impact existing child support obligations at all?

I had been under the impression that it was that definition, yes. Makes it so that single parents and those adopting are still eligible.

I'm not quite sure how to tackle that second one, though.

I did, however, think of something else which I hope to address with this amendment:

AN ACT
to give families more security and opportunity

Section 1 (Title & Definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Family Opportunity Fund."
ii. The "beginning of a month" is the 1st
iii. "Child" is defined as a person aged 17 or younger.

Section 2 (Universal Child Dividend)
i. Every family will be mailed $400 per child at the beginning of every month ($4,800 a year) for up to four dependents.

ii. The Universal Child Dividend shall be withheld from families under CPS investigation until the investigation is complete. If the case is placed into Categories III, IV, or V, the Family shall be backpaid for any missed Dividend payments.

iii. This bill will be paid for by a 5% income tax on individual incomes above $100,000

Section 3 (Implementation)
i. This legislation shall come into effect immediately upon signature by the Governor.

This should hopefully ensure that those willfully neglecting or abusing their child will not financially benefit from having them. I'd be open to changing this though.

[tmthforu94]

24 hours for objections to WB’s amendment.

[tmthforu94]

WB's amendment has been added to the bill, debate resumes.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Do we have any update from the RG as to the cost of this bill? Has anyone even tried contacting them?

[tmthforu94]

We've been operating on rough calculations to this point that Dip posted early on, at this point we are still above $100 billion total cost, we are still way off from making this pass PayGo so still some work to do before the CG would be required.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I believe this amendment would be enough to pay for the bill, but correct me if I am wrong.

AN ACT
to give families more security and opportunity

Section 1 (Title & Definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Family Opportunity Fund."
ii. The "beginning of a month" is the 1st
iii. "Child" is defined as a person aged 17 or younger.

Section 2 (Universal Child Dividend)
i. Every family will be mailed $400 per child at the beginning of every month ($4,800 a year) for up to four dependents.

ii. The Universal Child Dividend shall be withheld from families under CPS investigation until the investigation is complete. If the case is placed into Categories III, IV, or V, the Family shall be backpaid for any missed Dividend payments.

iii. This bill will be paid for by a 5% 8% income tax on individual incomes above $100,000 $50,000
Section 3 (Implementation)
i. This legislation shall come into effect immediately upon signature by the Governor.

[tmthforu94]

I must rise in objection to this amendment as I perceive it to be unfair to many in the region. $50,000-$100,000 is still very middle class and increasing taxes during a time of economic uncertainty by 8% is not a reasonable action, in my view. A 2017 Census report shows 71% of Americans (assuming a very comparable percentage for Atlasian Southerners) are living without children in the home (myself included). I think people will especially take issue with having to pay a tax that then gets distributed to people in upper classes that make much more than them. Donald Trump will be getting a monthly check if this is enacted, but fresh out of college students with no kids and thousands of dollars in student loan debt won't receive a cent. I get that supporting childless people isn't the point of this bill, but that also is the point as to my concerns with it. If such a large tax increase is enacted, it should be for programs that can be beneficial to all Atlasians, such as improvements to education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc.

In terms of alternative funding, we're still waiting on updated funding from the CG on excise taxes which may help to an extent, between that and the initial proposal we'd potentially be at around $60B funded. This is an example of an idea that is very good in theory, but complications arise on how to fund it.


I will allow time for more feedback/discussion on the amendment and will open a vote tomorrow.