We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Welfare Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2103
Description[?]:
| A bill to create a small grant of welfare for the unemployed. The wage will be @400 per week per unemployed person and is not to exceed 12 weeks per year. A bonus of @50 may be awarded per dependent on welfare recipient if there is no other income available. It is only to be used for persons between jobs and not as a subsistence income. The wage will be awarded in the form of a voucher which will entitle the bearer to the indicated amount of goods or services. Only goods and services that are not taxed under the Luxury Tax may be purchased with these vouchers. Businesses may redeem this voucher for cash value from the government. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Guarantee of minimum income.
Old value:: There shall be no direct cash payments to individuals to guarantee a minimum income.
Current: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a reasonable, though not high, standard of living by the government.
Proposed: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government. However, the provision of this is not to exceed a certian period of time.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:12:53, August 26, 2005 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Welfare Act |
| Message | Our estimates indicate that this will cost approximately @12.5 billion (@ = Aureus) per year and we have very high unemployment. We have a surplus of @78 billion per year, so I think we can swing it. Plus it show compassion for those who have fallen on hard times and need some money to tie them over. |
| Date | 23:14:30, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Welfare Act |
| Message | So the earlyer lack of problem of unemployment has finally shown itself to the LLP heres a quote i find quite suiting to this argument. "give a man a fish and he shall eat for a night, teach a man to fish and he shall eat for many nights." so rather then combating this unemployment problem with freebies we should combat it with some form of job for these people. We think it better to train the people to be able to better themselves rather then them trying alone. The government must stand beside and insight strength within the people. |
| Date | 01:47:08, August 27, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the Welfare Act |
| Message | Yeah, spending 12.5 billion on people that aren't contributing to society is not good. Even if we can't train them to do better, at least have some welfare program involving manual labor at a minimal wage. Enough money to pay for food, but small enough to make them keep trying to get something better. |
| Date | 02:15:51, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Welfare Act |
| Message | "We think it better to train the people to be able to better themselves rather then them trying alone." Please feel free to name some skills that could be learned in three months. Additionally, we will spend more money on training facilities then we would if we just went with this plan. And who says they dont already have skills? "people that aren't contributing to society is not good" Did you actually read the proposal? It is NOT a long term income. These people have paid taxes (thus contributed to society) and will do so again and therefore deserve to gain some benefits from that. "manual labor at a minimal wage" I believe prisoners do that work for free. |
| Date | 02:51:31, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Welfare Act |
| Message | Please note the change of welfare from @500/wk to @400/wk. This brings us around to the bottom of the wage market, instead of being slightly higher than the lowest average income. The program will now cost only @10 billion. |
| Date | 04:07:19, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Welfare Act |
| Message | There are skills in the manual labour force that can be learned in under an hour LLP all we have to do is set up some sort of governmentally funded project to create more jobs we could use these manual labourers to increase infastrusture etc its win win. |
| Date | 06:21:41, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Welfare Act |
| Message | And that helps a doctor, nurse, teacher, engineer, scientist, lawyer and basically anyone with a uni degree get a job how? And to what end are we building this "infrastructure"? Why do we need more? How does it fit in with our prisoner useage? And if we offer them work, arent they just sucking off the taxpayer teet regardless? Im not opposed to your idea per se BUT people should be given a chance to find work in their given profession. Long term unemployment cases should perhaps be looked at for your plan but they'll go find that work anyway since after three months, they have no income, so is really necessary for us to find work for them? |
| Date | 21:20:55, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Welfare Act |
| Message | if your not going to get money any other way the people will settle for the manual labour jobs if there becomes a shortage of any of the professionals you have mentioned we could offer free training to the people to gain those careers until the shortage is solved. Yes essentially they would be sucking off the taxpayer teet however this way they are doing something we can find for them to do constructively. Why do we need more when has it ever been bad to have more? We really just want the people to gain skills they can use to get jobs elsewhere since as the government we obviously wont be paying them a lot of money if they are actually good at the service they are providing to us they can be hired away by private companies and then they are slowly assimilated back into the workforce. Also if you want to know what we want to do with the prisoners it can be sumed up to you in two words kill them. You can ignore our prisoner part since you wont go with it ever however we dont think the previously stated plan is irrational at all. |
| Date | 00:49:02, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Welfare Act |
| Message | "we could offer free training to the people to gain those careers until the shortage is solved" What do you think our universities are doing? "kill them" Yeah, that's fair...we dont have the death penalty for a reason. Anyway, are there any further objections? |
| Date | 03:44:48, August 28, 2005 CET | From | trucido ignarae Party | To | Debating the Welfare Act |
| Message | University is not for everyone. There are alot of (unintelligent?) people, or ones that cannot hold a job for various reasons and so on. I agree with the HN about making more jobs but I'm not sure they meant only the proffessional careers like those the LLP mentioned. We are always going to need factory workers and ditch diggers that have no education and only need an hour or so of training. Tradesmen are a different matter, don't get me wrong... OOC: i didn't realise we were subsidising university tuition. That bothers me. Helping out a little bit is fine but fully... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 412 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 1 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 7 |
| Random fact: For more information on Particracy's former colonial nations, check out http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6640 |
| Random quote: "The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming." - Kirill Kondratyev |