Dependent Child and Income Tax Credit (Law'd)

[minionofmidas]

Welfare Reform (Placeholder) Act

1. The existing welfare system in Atlasia is a disorganised and needlessly cruel shambles that penalises the genuinely poor and needy for reasons of penny-pinching and pseudo-Victorian faux-moralism.

2. The previous (before the mid 1990's) welfare system, however, was an expensive farce with many counterproductive features (not least its contribution to the destruction of the black family). It was not an effective welfare system, was easily (and far too often) abused and its main achievement was to foster an enourmous backlash, producing the joke of a system that we have at present.

3. Recent Atlasian policy has entrenched this folly. The Modified Welfare Reform Act and the Welfare Reform Act are both hereby repealed.

4. A successful welfare system must be at least partially universalist (in part to avoid an ugly backlash, in part because universalist schemes tend to be more effective anyway) but should not greatly reward behavior that is detrimental to society. Fundamentally, it should be about liberating as many people from poverty as possible, while also providing a basic level of dignity to all members of society.

5. Because I don't have everything I need to write this properly at the moment (but will have in a week or so) I'm introducing this as placeholder bill, intended to be heavily modified when it reaches the Senate Floor.


Sponsor: Al.


F.L. 4-9: Welfare Reform Act
F.L. 12-12: Modified Welfare Reform Act

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'd like to see what Al's intentions are with a revised version before I comment

[Torie]

What is wrong with the current welfare policy in the other place?  It seems to have done away with most of the shiftless.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Damn, this was quick coming up. I'll write up a proper version this afternoon.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is wrong with the current welfare policy in the other place?  It seems to have done away with most of the shiftless.

As a welfare system it's a total failure, but then again it was designed to be one.

[afleitch]

From the gallery

Perhaps it cold be an opportunity to reflect in the provision of welfare, the changes made to the taxation system as a result the Income Tax Reduction Act.

I promise I won't interrupt again.

[minionofmidas]

From the gallery

Perhaps it cold be an opportunity to reflect in the provision of welfare, the changes made to the taxation system as a result the Income Tax Reduction Act.

I promise I won't interrupt again.

No worries. The Fierce Bad Rabbit has commenced chewing on your achilles tendon as a means of telling you you're not welcome here.

Except he hasn't, because you are. But that's what he does to unwelcome interruptors.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've got me together all the stuff I need... I think. The overall system will be quite simple. Things will be up here tomorrow.

[Sensei]

This should be interesting legislation. I'm looking forward to reading it.

[Bacon King]

Eagerly awaiting the finished project.

[Хahar 🤔]

I say we pass the bill right now as it is.

[minionofmidas]

I say we pass the bill right now as it is.

(fierce bad rabbit commences tendon chewing action)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So here's the basic idea; one benefit paid on a weekly basis (I was thinking around $7,000 a year for a couple (don't care if they actually married or not) and about half that for single individuals. But I pulled those numbers out of thin air; I'm not an American and have no idea what reasonable figures would look like here) to all households eligible (ie; out of work for whatever reason; this would also replace unemployment insurance). Also, about $1,000 per year per child (weekly payment again) for every household with children in Atlasia (irrespective of income). And in addition to that, another benefit for all households making under, say, $35,000 (again a relatively random figure) of something like $3,000 to $5,000 (half that for single individuals) a year (again, uncertain what sort of figure would be appropriate) which would also be paid weekly. The system would be administered on a regional level and two thirds of the funding would come from federal government, one third from the region in question. This would all be a very, very simple system with a very simple universalist principle behind it. Everyone (with children, anyway) gets something, anyone who falls on hard times will land in a safety net and not in a gutter.

I'm prepared to compromise a lot on details (and in fact I need some help on some of the most important details!) and to make big changes and additions where appropriate. But I won't compromise on the basic principle. One thing not addressed here is the issue of training and so on; that's something that, I think anyway, is better addressed as a seperate, but fundamentally related, issue. I suspect that this will fail, but it's worth a try anyway.

Flame away.

[Torie]

Everybody gets a check, non means tested, and then there is another means tested check?  Let's see. I have a million bucks, plus a $500,000 home fully paid for, and decide to stop working, and get $35,000 per year from my million, and now I get also a means tested and non means tested check to boot (which is of course why I decided to stop working, because that combined with the higher taxes I would have to pay if I kept working, just suggested to me that it was time to hit the beach, and be a hedonist 24/7. 

I see that Thomas Jefferson was not the only wholly headed Welshman! 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Everybody gets a check, non means tested,

Everybody with children, yes. And everybody out of work for reasons of circumstance or whatever technical term would no doubt be dug up and used.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 
Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On those figures (and on the information you've provided above) you would get something like $3,000 (though see comments about the actual figures) and another $3,500... though of course in reality you'd get nothing (unless you had a child). If you're retired you don't get the $3,500 and you would only get the $3,000 (or whatever) if you were in employment or unemployed in some way.

[Torie]

In the blizzard of your words, I didn't notice that your government checks were limited to either 1) breeders, aka I assume those with dependent children, and 2) those without a job, no matter why. But trust fund babies get a check too I guess, as long as they are breeders, or choose not to work, and live off their dividends. Is this a fertility increase scheme? That seems just so well -  European. We have enough "religious" in Atlasia, that we still breed sometimes, even given the current system.

[Bacon King]

What definition of unemployment are we using here?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What definition of unemployment are we using here?

I think that out of work for reasons largely beyond own control should do as a reasonable definition. That would include both normal "unemployment" along with things such as raising young children and so on.

[minionofmidas]

Can you write that up into a semblance of legal language?
We might then amend it further, but we need something to work on.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can you write that up into a semblance of legal language?

Sure. I just can't think in that way, so I had to write it down normally first.

===

S. 5 is striken and replaced with:

5. All households in which there are at least two adults of working age in a relationship and where the principle earner is legitimately out of work for reasons largely beyond their own control shall recieve a weekly payment of $134. All households in which there is only a single adult of working age and where the same economic circumstances apply, shall recieve a weekly payment of $70.

6. All households in Atlasia with dependent children shall recieve a weekly payment of $20.

7. All households in which there are at least two adults of working age in a relationship and where the total annual household income is below $35,000, shall recieve a weekly payment of $100. All households in which there is only a single adult of working age and where the same economic circumstances apply, shall recieve a weekly payment of $55.

8. This system will be administered on a Regional level and the Regions would also be responsible for one third of the funding for the system in their Region. The other two thirds will come from the Federal government.

[Torie]

Al, this is going to be litigation city, or you are going to have to give the feds ruling making authority to define all the terms that you have left undefined, and such regulatory authority would have to have the force of law, and not be subject to judicial review as to whether such definitions are "reasonable" or "have a rational basis" or other such cant.  As a heads up, I am going to oppose this legislation in any form, and may try to filibuster it, but I will try to help you make it "better." 

 In any event, you need a CPI adjustment clause for starters. I have a feeling that in a couple of years, there is going to be a very high rate of inflation indeed. If you own any long bonds (other than TIPS), get out of them is my best advice, putting aside the default risk if they are issued by other than solvent governments (eg Iceland; it is kind of arresting that a country's banks can take down the country itself) or private companies (eg most of them).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, this is going to be litigation city

Not exactly a very productive way of opening a debate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is hardly the only piece of fantasyland legislation to not go into great and absurd detail about technicalities. I think that you'll find that this is something that applies to almost every piece of fantasyland legislation I don't see why a special case should be made in the case of this bill just because someone threatens to sue. I might add the required detail if it seems necessary, but then again I might just quit fantasyland altogether. I don't see the point in wasting my free time on working out the most technical details of a welfare programme in a fantasy country with no reliable social and economic statistics*, just to stop a welfare bill in this fantasy country from being sued away into irrelevence.

Little rant over, this is only a sketch. Or perhaps an underpainting. Formal definition of terms used in the system will be tagged on the end of the bill.

On the inflation point, I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you mean that the introduction of something like this will result in high inflation, you're wrong; universalist benefits systems are hardly a radical new innovation, the cost of which can only be looked at through abstract theories. They have existed (in one form or another) in more than just a tiny handful of real life countries for, in most cases, over sixty years. I'm not aware of any reliable evidence that universalist benefits increase inflation in any meaningful way.
If you mean that inflation will mean that the real value of these payments will decline sharply over the next few years, then that is a responsibility of those authorities given the power to administer this policy (the Regions). Though I will, probably, add something saying that payment levels may not be lowered below that specified in the original legislation.

I should add that, as both someone used to being on the recieving side of the Welfare State and as someone who has looked (and looks) at historical welfare policies quite a bit, strict definitions can actually be a mistake. They give far too much power to the worst sort of petty-minded, bureaucratic dictators and can make things extremely stressful for those in need of relief. A set of looser definitions (with a set of clear general principles backing them up) tend to work much better.

*A task that would actually be impossible anyway.

[Torie]

Was that a long winded way of telling me to F off? 

I meant the latter regarding inflation, btw.

[Хahar 🤔]

Torie, you're a lawyer, correct? Write something up.

[Torie]

Torie, you're a lawyer, correct? Write something up.

Al is annoyed with me. If he wants my help he can ask. He's an adult.