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: Child Benefit Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Blobs
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: October 2132
Description[?]:
| This bill is designed to help our poorer citizens support any children they have. To qualify the family must be within the lowest income tax bracket and a sliding scale of payments, correlating directly with the combined income of the child's parent(s)/guardian(s), will be implemented. The money will be enough to make sure that the child(ren) have enough food, water and clothing to be able to live in a decent quality of life. The actual amount of money given will be dependant on the number of children with each successive child receiving less money. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding child benefit.
Old value:: The state does not provide child benefit.
Current: The state guarantees child benefit to all families.
Proposed: The state guarantees child benefit to families classified as low-income or poor.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:22:27, October 25, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act |
| Message | Any description help would be appreciated. This bill will not go to vote until I have some seats |
| Date | 22:54:06, October 25, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act |
| Message | "A sliding scale of payments will be implemented in direct corellation to the income of the parents" - makes it clear (that way there can be no arguments about wording). We support this as it provides that those on low incomes can still provide for their children. However, we would like a limitation of no more than a maximum of 3 children can receive benefits within a single family grouping (not including direct relations) and that the amount of money decreases per child, that way it doesn't encourage poorer families to use children as a source of income, but still provides the money for acceptable care. |
| Date | 22:58:30, October 25, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act |
| Message | Doesn't qualify under welfare, and minimum wage, and guaranteed subsistence? |
| Date | 23:14:24, October 25, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act |
| Message | Not really. The minimum wage laws guarantee that " a single full time worker on it can adequately subsist." Not they can support a family. Guaranteed subsistence laws guarantee that if there is no-one to support an adult than they receive an income to subsist, again not enough to bring up children. |
| Date | 23:22:42, October 25, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act |
| Message | @L-PU:- "minimum wage" - Only applies to a working adult "guaranteed subsistence" - From proposal:- "All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government". No mention of kids in there. "welfare" - Not sure what you refer to. Please explain. @WSS - I'm not sure about a hard cut off as it may affect people who accidentally have a fourth child but could not support it. Maybe having a larger amount for the first child and then a smaller amount for any later whilst still being just enough to bring up the child. I'll see what others want. I've also adjusted the wording where you suggested. |
| Date | 23:27:22, October 25, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act |
| Message | That's fine. All I was thinking was that people shouldn't just decide to have lots of kids and live off the money provided tp look after them, but a sliding scale changing with the numbers of children would be acceptable. |
| Date | 04:48:24, October 26, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act |
| Message | Looking good. |
| Date | 10:23:43, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Deltarian Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act |
| Message | I'll support. |
| Date | 10:56:31, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Hobrazia First | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act |
| Message | We will support this, we would prefer a gradual minimising of support per child rather than a hard cut off point, but will support either option |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 312 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 88 |
| Random fact: It is possible for a player to transfer ownership of a character or a royal house to another player. This should be done in a public way, such as on the Character Transfers thread, so that if a dispute arises in the future, Moderation can be pointed towards evidence of the transfer. |
| Random quote: "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt |