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 The Modified Welfare Reform Act and the Welfare Reform Act are both hereby repealed.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.

My first amendment is to strike all of this except the bolded part, to renumber the remaining sections accordingly, and to add the relevant references (F.L. 12-12 for the Modified, and F.L. 4-9 for the original.)

[minionofmidas]

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.

I don't think we can constitutionally mandate that the Regions pay this money. And I'm not going to go down the "matching grant" route either with this... so I would advocate that the Federal government foot the entire bill (how much more expensive than the current system is this going to be, extremely approximately? Oh well. We don't have a budget process anyways. Still, somebody probably should propose something to send taxes on the upper classes through the roof. )

So yeah, replace with

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If someone has a better idea, go ahead and mention it. I'll wait til saturday before opening the votes.

[Torie]

We really want to go down this road of non means tested welfare?

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My first amendment is to strike all of this except the bolded part, to renumber the remaining sections accordingly, and to add the relevant references (F.L. 12-12 for the Modified, and F.L. 4-9 for the original.)
[/quote]

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.

To be replaced with

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The vote is on the Amendments. Note that these are two separate votes.

Please vote aye, nay or abstain on each amendment.


Strike early sections: Aye

Scrap regional envolvement: Aye

[Јas]

Aye x 2

[Torie]

Aye x 2

I will be a firm opponent of the substance however, when we get to that.  What is wrong with a child tax credit and an earned income tax credit by the way?  Why is more needed really?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Aye
Nay, laughable to think the IRS should do this over regional governments

[minionofmidas]

Vote count:

Early sections:
Aye 4 (Lewis, Jas, Torie, Dwtl)
Nay 0
yet to vote 6 (Al, Meeker, Sensei, Verily, the Kings)

IRS:
Aye 3 (Lewis, Jas ,Torie)
Nay 1 (Dwtl)
yet to vote 6 (Al, Meeker, Sensei, Verily, the Kings)

Nay, laughable to think the IRS should do this over regional governments

Yes, we know you have no understanding of and no respect for regional rights.

Such as, in this case, not to be forced to run expensive programs for the Federal Government without their consent.

[CultureKing]

aye X2

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nay, laughable to think the IRS should do this over regional governments

Yes, we know you have no understanding of and no respect for regional rights.

Such as, in this case, not to be forced to run expensive programs for the Federal Government without their consent.

Ideally they should not have to at all.  But obviously in this one-horse fight against socialism I battle, I at least the regions in charge of programs

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye... and... I guess... Aye. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but...

[minionofmidas]

Vote count:

Early sections:
Aye 6 (Lewis, Jas, Torie, Dwtl, Culture, Al)
Nay 0
Abstain (did not vote) 4 (Meeker, Sensei, Verily, Bacon)

IRS:
Aye 5 (Lewis, Jas ,Torie, Culture, Al)
Nay 1 (Dwtl)
yet to vote 4 (Meeker, Sensei, Verily, Bacon)


The former amendment has passed.

Voting remains open on the latter amendment.

[Bacon King]

aye aye

[minionofmidas]

The other amendment has passed as well.

[Verily]

Aye, Aye ftr

[minionofmidas]

So. Everybody's minds made up, either to vote for or against? Or is there anybody out there who will vote against the current version, but might be swayable by further amendations?





I'll now go piece the current version together.

[minionofmidas]

This is the current version:

"Welfare Reform Act

1. The Modified Welfare Reform Act (F.L. 12-12) and the Welfare Reform Act (F.L. 4-9) are both hereby repealed.

2. 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.

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

4. 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.

5. This system will be administered by the IRS. Decisions to refuse payment shall be subject to judicial review."

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm too lazy to look it up, how do these numbers compare with the old ones?

[Јas]

I have issue with section 4, in that potentially it rewards people to fall just short of earning $35k, to the benefit of $6,968 - which I think is unfair on those people who would be earning in the $35k-$42k bracket.

I'd look for an amendment to deal with this. I'll put forward the following, though am happy to discuss alterations to it as may be appropriate.

Amendment:
That the following be added to section 4:
"Persons benefiting under this section, shall be limited in their entitlements such that their total annual household income may not be exceed $35,000."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What's needed is for an American to tell us what the value of these payments are in real terms so we can adjust accordingly; the current numbers are just semi-educated guesswork. They might be far meaner, or far more generous, than I'd intended.

[Torie]

So. Everybody's minds made up, either to vote for or against? Or is there anybody out there who will vote against the current version, but might be swayable by further amendations?





I'll now go piece the current version together.

I don't like handing out non means tested checks, and I don't like handing out checks to folks in order to help facilitate sitting on their asses either. For those who work or have kids, income tax credits are easier to administer, and make a lot more sense.

[minionofmidas]

I have issue with section 4, in that potentially it rewards people to fall just short of earning $35k, to the benefit of $6,968 - which I think is unfair on those people who would be earning in the $35k-$42k bracket.

I'd look for an amendment to deal with this. I'll put forward the following, though am happy to discuss alterations to it as may be appropriate.

Amendment:
1. Section 4 to be renamed Section 4a.
2. Section 4b to be added as follows:
"Persons benefiting under section 4a of this Act, shall be limited in their entitlements such that their total annual household income may not be exceed $35,000."

I don't like your numbering scheme. Please make 'em 4 and 5, or just 4!

[Јas]

I have issue with section 4, in that potentially it rewards people to fall just short of earning $35k, to the benefit of $6,968 - which I think is unfair on those people who would be earning in the $35k-$42k bracket.

I'd look for an amendment to deal with this. I'll put forward the following, though am happy to discuss alterations to it as may be appropriate.

Amendment:
1. Section 4 to be renamed Section 4a.
2. Section 4b to be added as follows:
"Persons benefiting under section 4a of this Act, shall be limited in their entitlements such that their total annual household income may not be exceed $35,000."

I don't like your numbering scheme. Please make 'em 4 and 5, or just 4!

Done

[Sensei]

I support this legislation as written

[minionofmidas]

The vote is on the amendment. Please vote aye, nay or abstain.

Amendment:
That the following be added to section 4:
"Persons benefiting under this section, shall be limited in their entitlements such that their total annual household income may not be exceed $35,000."

Aye.