SB 114-23: No Welfare For Me Act (At Final Vote)

[Mr. Reactionary]

NO WELFARE FOR ME ACT

1. The New Great Society Act is amended as follows:

...

Section 2. Monthly Universal Basic Income for Families with Children

1. Beginning in January of 2023 parents or legal guardians of persons under the age of 18 and have a disposable income of less than $70,000 $50,000 for individuals or $100,000 for married joint-filers shall be entitled to up to $2,000 monthly checks. Incomes less than $40,000 for individuals or $80,000 for married joint-filers shall be entitled to the full payment and incomes greater than $40,000 receiving a proportionally phased-out amount of $1 of federal funds for each $5 of excess income up to the income limit of $50,000 or $100,000 respectively.

2. This act shall take effect April 15, 2023.

Sponsor: OSR
Debate on this bill is now open.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Common sense. I agree with OSR that I shouldnt be eligible for welfare when $69K a year is a lot of money. This also seems to eliminate the marriage penalty and has a fairer phase out at the limits to not discourage higher private earnings. Its kind of crazy that under current federal law Im entitled to $24K for free if I make $69,999, but if I make $1 more I get nothing. And also that people who make $1K a year get identical benefits to someone making $69,999 a year. This seems fairer, smarter, and doesnt undermine the idea behind the bill.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

This is something i cannot support.

Single parents are discriminated by this proposed act. Also, this does not take into account that single parents almost always have to work while with two parents you can have one parent who can choose not to work to take care of the children (and to be eligible for the program).

Also, this does not take into account the quantity of children involved. Four children for example need more support than one kid.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm undecided on the bill itself, but I do feel that if we are to move forward, the time frame for implementation needs to move back at least to 2024 or possibly even 2025. April 15, 2023 is way too rushed a time frame, especially when we might still be debating the bill on that date.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is something i cannot support.

Single parents are discriminated by this proposed act. Also, this does not take into account that single parents almost always have to work while with two parents you can have one parent who can choose not to work to take care of the children (and to be eligible for the program).

No, single parents get the same allowance as a married parent this just allows for blending of marital income as far as qualifying. The current law discriminates against married couples. No single parents receive less money as a result of the changes, it just helps more married couples qualify.

Also, this does not take into account the quantity of children involved. Four children for example need more support than one kid.

Feel free to offer that amendment, but again as the law is currently written the benefit already fails to take number of kids into account.

The current law just says if you have any kids you get $X. Flat. Thats already the law. This proposal does not change that yet but it does not newly restrict it either. Your objection here is to the existing law, not to the proposed change found in this bill.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

This is something i cannot support.

Single parents are discriminated by this proposed act. Also, this does not take into account that single parents almost always have to work while with two parents you can have one parent who can choose not to work to take care of the children (and to be eligible for the program).

No, single parents get the same allowance as a married parent this just allows for blending of marital income as far as qualifying. The current law discriminates against married couples. No single parents receive less money as a result of the changes, it just helps more married couples qualify.

Also, this does not take into account the quantity of children involved. Four children for example need more support than one kid.

Feel free to offer that amendment, but again as the law is currently written the benefit already fails to take number of kids into account.

The current law just says if you have any kids you get $X. Flat. Thats already the law. This proposal does not change that yet but it does not newly restrict it either. Your objection here is to the existing law, not to the proposed change found in this bill.

But isn't it easier for a married couple to qualify for the benefit described in this law? And for single parents, we see a decrease from $70,000 to $50,000. I don't think this is a good idea.

Universal Basic Income also is no longer "universal" given the criteria to qualify is different depending on whether you're a single parent or married parents.

It also gives the benefit to "married parents" instead of unmarried caretaking parents (married "joint-filers").

A good act (and this would also go against "universal basic income") would indeed make the distinction of the number of kids in a family.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is something i cannot support.

Single parents are discriminated by this proposed act. Also, this does not take into account that single parents almost always have to work while with two parents you can have one parent who can choose not to work to take care of the children (and to be eligible for the program).

No, single parents get the same allowance as a married parent this just allows for blending of marital income as far as qualifying. The current law discriminates against married couples. No single parents receive less money as a result of the changes, it just helps more married couples qualify.

Also, this does not take into account the quantity of children involved. Four children for example need more support than one kid.

Feel free to offer that amendment, but again as the law is currently written the benefit already fails to take number of kids into account.

The current law just says if you have any kids you get $X. Flat. Thats already the law. This proposal does not change that yet but it does not newly restrict it either. Your objection here is to the existing law, not to the proposed change found in this bill.

But isn't it easier for a married couple to qualify for the benefit described in this law? And for single parents, we see a decrease from $70,000 to $50,000. I don't think this is a good idea.

Universal Basic Income also is no longer "universal" given the criteria to qualify is different depending on whether you're a single parent or married parents.

It also gives the benefit to "married parents" instead of unmarried caretaking parents (married "joint-filers").

A good act (and this would also go against "universal basic income") would indeed make the distinction of the number of kids in a family.

So the idea of a marriage penalty isnt new. Consider a married couple where 1 spouse makes $70K and 1 spouse makes $0. Spouse 1 gets nothing, spouse 2 gets $24K. Under the proposal the couple can blend incomes meaning each counts as having $35K and thus both qualify for $24K each. It no longer penalizes the married couple for having a stay at home parent. Single parents arent impacted at all. A single parent would qualify for the $24K. Otherwise, the formula is encouraging single parents.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I’m wondering what Scott’s thoughts are since the CUBI was one of his big things with the NGS act

[Pyro]

I too am interested in Senator Scott's position.

Speaking for myself, I do not support this proposed amendment in its current form. For those unaware, the New Great Society Act originally had a generous $100K threshold for UBI eligibility. Then, in November 2022, this amount was lowered to $70K following months of debate. This eligibility reduction was a compromise measure that eventually passed with the support of senators on all ends of the political spectrum. I do not believe it is in the best interest of Atlasians to further lower eligibility for a vital welfare program.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Is giving someone who makes $69K a year an extra $24K a year really a vital welfare program? The current law provides that an individial making $69K a year is poor and must make $93K a year or else hes still poor but someone making $70K a year is fine only making $70K. The lack of a proportionate phase out makes no sense. A person making $0 a year is deemed adequately compensated if they have an annual income of $24K post welfare, but not a person making $69K without welfare. This seems like welfare for those who dont need it. Like me. If I had a kid, Id qualify for this and I dont need welfare.

[West_Midlander]

Is giving someone who makes $69K a year an extra $24K a year really a vital welfare program? The current law provides that an individial making $69K a year is poor and must make $93K a year or else hes still poor but someone making $70K a year is fine only making $70K. The lack of a proportionate phase out makes no sense. A person making $0 a year is deemed adequately compensated if they have an annual income of $24K post welfare, but not a person making $69K without welfare. This seems like welfare for those who dont need it. Like me. If I had a kid, Id qualify for this and I dont need welfare.

To be fair you could just not apply for welfare but as it stands the $70K rule means people can take advantage of the system.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Actually, I have spoken with Reactionary and I'm okay with lowering the threshold. But to be completely honest, I often wonder if we should have just switched to a very generous negative income tax and then that would have been our UBI program - which, and I've said this many times, is necessary in order to prepare the economy for automation and specialization. There is simply a scarcity of jobs available, and there's nothing that would suggest a return to the 1960s is realistic unless we all want to become neo-Luddites. But I do insist on a minimal standard of living, and if this change makes the program more solvent for the long term, I'm willing to support it.

But it might be prudent to use this opportunity to consider adopting a UBI that's generous in benefits. I suppose either way this would cause a long-term deficit, but we have this on top of Social Security and AtlasCare (though, in fairness, we probably spend a great deal less on military and also healthcare as a result of the cost-cutting measures which also ensure universal access like every other rich developed country not called the United States). I'm curious to know what others would think of that.

[Pyro]

Actually, I have spoken with Reactionary and I'm okay with lowering the threshold. But to be completely honest, I often wonder if we should have just switched to a very generous negative income tax and then that would have been our UBI program - which, and I've said this many times, is necessary in order to prepare the economy for automation and specialization. There is simply a scarcity of jobs available, and there's nothing that would suggest a return to the 1960s is realistic unless we all want to become neo-Luddites. But I do insist on a minimal standard of living, and if this change makes the program more solvent for the long term, I'm willing to support it.

But it might be prudent to use this opportunity to consider adopting a UBI that's generous in benefits. I suppose either way this would cause a long-term deficit, but we have this on top of Social Security and AtlasCare (though, in fairness, we probably spend a great deal less on military and also healthcare as a result of the cost-cutting measures which also ensure universal access like every other rich developed country not called the United States). I'm curious to know what others would think of that.

I'm not sure that I understand your view on UBI. If our objective is to prepare for the adverse effects of automation through the use of a universal guaranteed income program, we should be working to cover the greatest number of Atlasians who may be at risk instead of further limiting eligibility. To be clear, I am not at all opposed to exchanging this measure with an alternative method to provide financial security for all, but I don't think it's the right move to cap the $2K checks at the $40K income level.

Also, with regards to your solvency concern, the costs to maintain CUBI were balanced out in the FY2023 Budget.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Actually, I have spoken with Reactionary and I'm okay with lowering the threshold. But to be completely honest, I often wonder if we should have just switched to a very generous negative income tax and then that would have been our UBI program - which, and I've said this many times, is necessary in order to prepare the economy for automation and specialization. There is simply a scarcity of jobs available, and there's nothing that would suggest a return to the 1960s is realistic unless we all want to become neo-Luddites. But I do insist on a minimal standard of living, and if this change makes the program more solvent for the long term, I'm willing to support it.

But it might be prudent to use this opportunity to consider adopting a UBI that's generous in benefits. I suppose either way this would cause a long-term deficit, but we have this on top of Social Security and AtlasCare (though, in fairness, we probably spend a great deal less on military and also healthcare as a result of the cost-cutting measures which also ensure universal access like every other rich developed country not called the United States). I'm curious to know what others would think of that.

I'm not sure that I understand your view on UBI. If our objective is to prepare for the adverse effects of automation through the use of a universal guaranteed income program, we should be working to cover the greatest number of Atlasians who may be at risk instead of further limiting eligibility. To be clear, I am not at all opposed to exchanging this measure with an alternative method to provide financial security for all, but I don't think it's the right move to cap the $2K checks at the $40K income level.

Also, with regards to your solvency concern, the costs to maintain CUBI were balanced out in the FY2023 Budget.

Those most at risk would be those without a college degree, where a Master's degree has increasingly become the competitive standard. We're always going to need physicians, psychiatrists, lawyers, scientists, and other people in these skilled fields for the foreseeable future. Blue-collar workers are most in danger of finding themselves without a job or replaced by a machine.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It speaks volumes as to the stupidity of humanity, that the greatest achievement in pursuit of maximizing efficiency of production is to completely eliminate its own role in the productive process.

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly among the first to champion in historical contexts, the benefits of improved productive efficiency, and the failure of so many to understand, appreciate and thus predict the effect that such would have, from Malthus to Marx.

Technology broke the direct link between total population size and agricultural population, allowing for massive increase in population while the proportion employed in agriculture fell to all time lows. Likewise technology wiped out the industrial proletariat as a large component of the labor force, essentially rendering most of Marx's deranged predictions to the ash heap of history.

But if nothing else, I have championed the awareness that anything, regardless of how great it might be, becomes a negative when done too much or taken too far. That certainly applies to technology as well. I don't know if redistribution is the final answer in this case (meaning as a general approach for the broad base of current workers, instead of a transitional/help those left behind effort), and I wouldn't dream of following Malthus and Marx's body trail by predicting the future. That said, there is some part of me that wonders that some element is being missed in the very dichotomy I have drawn attention to since about 2016. That of protectionist luddites versus liberal redistributionists.

I guess it comes down to whether or not one believes that there is infinite means by which to find and serve a customer base beyond that which technology can ever fully eliminate or automate. I don't know.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

By the way, I am curious about how folks feel about replacing UBI with NIT. Both of them give money to the poor and tax wealthier people, so the result is the same. UBI needs to be tightened somewhere, otherwise people will be paying taxes on benefits the government gave to them which they might not have even needed. Some of the people who benefit from the program currently, are quite financially comfortable and pay taxes. It doesn't make sense for the government to give someone money and then take it away.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If no one wants to debate switching to a NIT I'll move for a final vote.

[Pyro]

If no one wants to debate switching to a NIT I'll move for a final vote.

It's your proposal. I'd be interested in seeing an amendment, at least.

Otherwise, if all we're doing here is cutting welfare, I'm opposed.

[West_Midlander]

I'm not sold for or against a NIT at this point but I would be open to helping write an amendment for it with Senator Scott.

[West_Midlander]

I'm not sold for or against a NIT at this point but I would be open to helping write an amendment for it with Senator Scott.

Bump. What do you think Scott?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Please give me some time to do a bit of research. There will be a major amendment coming up that is also going to affect our budget. I don't know how to calculate that however unfortunately.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This would pretty much replace the entire text, so I'm not sure if we should table this bil or not. For now, let's consider specific brackets. This is not a formal amendment, but a proposal.

1. The Children's Universal Income Act is hereby repealed.

2. Section III of the New Great Society Act is hereby amened;

Section III. Negative Income Tax

The FY2024 budget shall include the following provision for income taxation:

Income Taxes:  $ X  ($X billion)
 by tax bracket (all revenue from each taxpayer is counted next to the bracket where their total income falls, including that from the parts of their income subject to lower rates)
 0-13K          -50% per median income subject to inflation     $ X ($ X billion)
 13K-50K      -45% per median income subject to inflation     $ X ($ X billion)
 50K-80K      -10% per median income subject to inflation     $ X ($ X billion)
 80K-130K      10%     $ X ($ X billion)
130K    25%      $ 812,899,937,500.00 ($ 812.90 billion)
 130K-210K  29%      $ 445,079,250,000.00 ($ 445.08 billion)
 210K-413K  34%      $ 298,965,625,000.00 ($ 298.97 billion)
 413K-441K  36%      $ 54,770,625,000.00 ($ 54.77 billion)
 441K+        40.6%   $ 141,071,000,000.00 ($ 141.07 billion)

Corporate Taxes: 25% - $ 440,476,190,000.00 ($ 440.48 billion)

$80K-130K is a new category for people to move steadily from distribution to taxation. I'm not even going to bother with the calculations until we can agree on the specifics.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

There's been zero debate on this for over a week. I'm submitting the amendment as a preliminary and assume there's pretty much unanimous support for the change.

24 hours to object.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hearing no objection, the amendment is adopted.

[Pyro]

Apologies for not discussing this proposal when it was introduced.

Is there a reason why the income tax %s have been lowered on incomes between 70k and 414k+?