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 (i) - Child Benefits
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tukarali Democratic Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: June 2544
Description[?]:
| Our party proposes to provide child benefit to all families. Our country stimulates population growth but does not provide alle families equally when it comes to the financial aspect of raising children. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding child benefit.
Old value:: The state guarantees child benefit to families classified as low-income or poor.
Current: The state guarantees child benefit to families classified as low-income or poor.
Proposed: The state guarantees child benefit to all families.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:20:33, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | We cannot afford to hand out money to people that don't need it. The rich certainly do not need government handouts. |
| Date | 01:40:01, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Tuatha Dé Danann | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | We shall oppose this. We understand that child benefit is a necessity, but the needs of every family are not identical. A rich family with abundant resources does not need to have the state intervene and hand them more funds. A low income family on the other hand will welcome our much needed aid in these hard times. |
| Date | 01:45:08, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Democratic Party | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | Families who are not guaranteed a child benefit will less consider of having children. Rich family or not. |
| Date | 02:06:36, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Tuatha Dé Danann | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | A child benefit outcome can in no way fully compensate the cost a newborn brings. Lesser fortunate families will always succumb to the financial distress this brings in due time. A rich family on the other hand would be easily capable of supporting a child without the help of authorities. Giving money to families who are already adequately subsisting is a spill on the leaky fosset called government fundings. |
| Date | 02:35:05, March 09, 2008 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | oppose we need to limit population, not increase it |
| Date | 03:27:08, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Graenix Party | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | Yeah, the NUA and 26th are getting active. We oppose this bill, though |
| Date | 03:55:36, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | We also shall oppose it we think. |
| Date | 12:17:27, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | Could support |
| Date | 13:02:12, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | We'll oppose. Its nice for those on low income but not for the middle class or rich. |
| Date | 13:07:59, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Democratic Party | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | A child benefit provision NEVER fully compensates the cost of children and it does not intend to. In the regulation proposed by our party we do not want to distinct 'rich' families with families on low income. We actually believe that it would be a very hypocritical regulation. One, our government stimulates population growth but does not want to compensate for all of them. Two, a family's wealth is not a certain fact and the current regulation does not clarify where we draw the line. Third, "A rich family on the other hand would be easily capable of supporting a child without the help of authorities." Rich family or not, families who cannot apply for a child benefit will less likely decide the have children. |
| Date | 13:16:37, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Tuatha Dé Danann | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | 1. You stimulate population growth, but deny some of them the aid of the government. Some may live, some may die tactics? Hurray for our government! 2. It does not clarify where we draw the line? I think you can see a big fat marker line when you see a husband and wife passing you in the street in their brand new latest issue humvee. By that we mean that these spendings and earnings are all posted on their tax returns, letting our tax agency know. 3. You clearly miss the point about rich families and desire to have children. If you are rich, and want to have children, will you honestly wait until the state gives you more funds, how hypocritical that may be, or go ahead and have them anyway because you really don't need the help..? 4. If this suggestion of yours passes, funds that could otherwise be allocated to poor families' child benefit, is getting split between rich and poor, allowing the rich to take their child benefit fund and spend it on an extra vacation, while the funding that a poor family receives is decreased by at least 30% and thus reduces their chances of providing a statisfactory life for any sibling. |
| Date | 13:17:44, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | If rich families will only have children if the state gives them money, they are perhaps not the kinds of people we want to be parents. |
| Date | 13:38:34, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Democratic Party | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | 1. That does not make any sense. We stimulate population growth but aid ALL of them. 2. A family with a monthly income of 1200 TUK gets child benefit. a family with a monthly income of 1150 does not get child benefits? 3. Black and/or white? An opposition party with a borderline symptom. If you are a rich family and want to have children, you will also consider the financial cost of them. If the state does not compensate all families for having children, the ones that are not compensated will less likely decide to have children, rich or not. 4. Who is talking about splitting the funds between rich and poor? The Ministry of Health and Social Services will just need more funds. 5. Rich families will not only have children when the state gives them money, I never said that. |
| Date | 14:14:00, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Tuatha Dé Danann | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | Reply to your #1: Quoting the TDP: "One, our government stimulates population growth but does not want to compensate for all of them." You here said it yourself, DO NOT want to compensate for ALL of them. Thus neglecting some. Reply to #2: The margins between your 2 proposed budgets are rediculously near eachother and in no way represent the actual arrangement made to distinct the rich from the poor. Reply to #3: Apparently there is a government party with a serious stubborness degree or a lack of intelligence and finds itself uncapable of understanding correct statements. RICH families DO NOT need additional money (i.e. child benefit fund) to make them able to support children. They are already capable. They do not take child benefit funds into account before deciding to have children. If they do, than there is something with the way we bring our youth up. Reply to #4: Splitting funds is an indirect result to needing more funds. Where will you get the additional funds, by taxing the poor so you can give the rich families their child benefit i.e. free holiday to aspen? Unless you have a magic pig that "provides" you with magical TUK's than this will be the case. Reply to #5: We at the NUA never said that you said that, nor did the JUP. The former 26th seems to be a bit jumpy in inventing things other parties alledgedly said. |
| Date | 14:42:40, March 09, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Democratic Party | To | Debating the Welfare (i) - Child Benefits |
| Message | Colleagues of the NUA, Please do not insult our party fraction members and we also do not appreciate that overdose of sarcasm in your replies. 1. That statement applied for the situation under the current regulation, not the proposed one. 2. Then these margins need to be drawn if you want to keep the current regulation. 3. As we already said, rich or poor. Having children is an extra financial cost. Families who do are now provided with any child benefits will less likely decide to have children. 4. We never tax the poor the pay the child benefit of the rich... 5. Quote: "If rich families will only have children if the state gives them money, they are perhaps not the kinds of people we want to be parents" |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 31 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 384 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 85 |
| Random fact: It usually takes up to an hour for election results to generate. During this time, the "Next Election" date is put forward a month, which is confusing. Do not worry! In a short time, the election result will generate and the "Next Election" date will then correct itself. |
| Random quote: "The main problem of the left is that it has been traditionally divided and unable to reach agreements between different leftist views, whilst the right has almost always moved in the same direction by giving concessions to different rightist points of view." - Aelius Celer, former Selucian politician |