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 Progress Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: dAda rEvoluTion
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: January 2245
Description[?]:
| A bill to promote our welfare politics |
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 all families.
Proposed: The state guarantees child benefit to both low-income families and large families.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Guarantee of minimum income.
Old value:: 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.
Current: 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.
Proposed: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:59:29, June 20, 2006 CET | From | Social Devolutionist | To | Debating the Welfare Progress Act |
| Message | I could support the second of these articles, the SD is of the view that most people who are able to work do want to work, and provided there are jobs available will find work. I don't think it fair that a persons unemployment benefit should be stopped after 6 or twelve months when it may be that they are incapable of working doe to health or mental capacity, or have the misfortune of being unemployed during a period of extreme high unemployment. The first article I am not so sure of, I am not convivned that we should be divorcing people from their financial responsibility completely, and parents should think about there ability to meet the needs of the children before deciding to have more. I would be interested to hear other parties views on this however. |
| Date | 10:33:54, June 21, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the Welfare Progress Act |
| Message | No support for either. People need to be responsible enough to only have the number of children they can afford to have. The government shouldnt be paying people who are irresponsible As for the second article, we believe that the handout shoyuld only be for a certain period of time, or else there is no incentive for people to go looking for employment of there own. Why should the government pay for people to sit at home and do nothing, and tax people who are out working hard? |
| Date | 12:15:54, June 21, 2006 CET | From | Segue Democratic Alliance | To | Debating the Welfare Progress Act |
| Message | For the vast majority, there will always be an incentive to find work. The benefits that employment brings are not merely financial: Having a job gives one a role in society, it gives structure and purpose to life. It staves off boredom and apathy. Conversely, unemployment destroys people by removing structure and purpose from life and kills self-esteem by taking away their productive role in society. That's why unemployment is feared even in nations that have generous unemployment benefits. The benefit we are talking about here is a 'very basic subsistence'. That's no way to live a life, and that's why the vast majority of people will have a good incentive to find work and better their situation. Those that don't are likely to either be incapable of work and so deserving of our help in the compassionate society we believe Vanuku to be, or trying to defraud our society, in which case they can be arrested and punished. We agree on the child benefit idea though. |
| Date | 12:29:29, June 21, 2006 CET | From | dAda rEvoluTion | To | Debating the Welfare Progress Act |
| Message | about the second article, we think that the very basic subsistence income is essential to live in dignity. Employement research costs money. Without the little help, people would turn to illegal working. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 130 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 251 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 179 |
| Random fact: Culturally Open nations can adopt advisory/non-enforceable Nation Descriptions. See http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6242 |
| Random quote: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. " - P. J. O Rourke |