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: Protecting Children Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Farmers Commune
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: June 4200
Description[?]:
| The wretched poor souls of the Likitonia deserve to be able to support their children. Those that cannot provide for themselves are ours to protect. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding child benefit.
Old value:: Child benefit policies are left to local governments.
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 | 10:49:10, April 22, 2017 CET | From | Likatonian Independence Party | To | Debating the Protecting Children Act |
| Message | We support this but would prefer to go even further, offering child benefits to all children. |
| Date | 11:25:14, April 22, 2017 CET | From | Farmers Commune | To | Debating the Protecting Children Act |
| Message | We agree and are revising the bill |
| Date | 11:26:50, April 22, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Protecting Children Act |
| Message | We support this as it is. |
| Date | 11:27:55, April 22, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Protecting Children Act |
| Message | Well, now we don't. x) Low-income child benefit is as far as it will get our aye vote. |
| Date | 11:49:31, April 22, 2017 CET | From | Farmers Commune | To | Debating the Protecting Children Act |
| Message | So you believe that the next generation is not worth supporting? |
| Date | 12:14:19, April 22, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Protecting Children Act |
| Message | Given the fact that our country is over-populated, we agree to support families with low incomes to raise their children. What you are defending is to support all families with children, even the rich who do not need it. |
| Date | 12:21:13, April 22, 2017 CET | From | Federalist Party (FPL) | To | Debating the Protecting Children Act |
| Message | Why should our government provide child benefits to families that don't need it? Seems like a waste of tax-payer money to us. |
| Date | 13:36:44, April 22, 2017 CET | From | Farmers Commune | To | Debating the Protecting Children Act |
| Message | To reach a consensus we are willing to make compromises. We have revised the bill to accommodate the majority. |
| Date | 14:37:11, April 22, 2017 CET | From | Likatonian Independence Party | To | Debating the Protecting Children Act |
| Message | Limiting it this way would lead to folks who are just above the poverty line losing child benefits. Placing a disincentive on them to have children or to try and get a raise/job that pays more as this would lead to a hefty cut in their disposable income. Instead of incentivizing the poor to have children in order to receive benefits, we should have a simple and effective child benefit per child. Period. No unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. As far as rich children getting benefits, the wealthy pay more in taxes than other folks, giving them a comparatively tiny tax rebate in the form of a child benefit is nothing evil or horrendous. The problems created by cutting out the middle class from child benefits is. That said, as part of a compromise we will vote in favor of this bill. With the hope that sound arguments would sway those opposed to a universal child benefit program. |
| Date | 15:34:33, April 22, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Protecting Children Act |
| Message | I think we can all agree that this low-income child benefit should be progressive, for example No income in the family: 100% child benefit 100 LIK family income per child: 95% (For example, 300 LIK of income in a family with 3 children) 200 LIK: 90% 300 LIK: 85% ... 1900 LIK: 5% 2000 LIK family income per child: 0% (The numbers are orientative) |
| Date | 15:21:38, April 23, 2017 CET | From | Likatonian Independence Party | To | Debating the Protecting Children Act |
| Message | This reform is certainly a step in the right direction but it would still benefit the poor more than the middle class. As such we stand by our arguments that the child benefit should be independent of income and rely entirely on the child itself. 1 Child = 100% Child Benefit |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 391 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 106 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Don't vote yes on a cabinet coalition that doesn't give you the power that you deserve. |
| Random quote: "When women are depressed, they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. It's a whole different way of thinking." - Elaine Boosler |