NationStates Jolt Archive

We the Theocracy of International Baccalaureate have made a proposal regarding welfare. Despite the title, this proposal seeks to increase the quality of welfare over the subsistence level, and gained its title because it imposes eligibility rules. This prevents abuse of the welfare system which damages not only economies, but government budgets as well, cutting away money that could be used elsewhere, or driving up tax rates. If this problem becomes severe enough, obviously it can become an international issue.

The proposal is as follows:
=======================================================
While welfare is neccesary to aid those in every country who are less fortunate, or due to extenuating circumstances cannot obtain income, welfare can also be detrimental to a society.

Many people learn that they can use welfare to obtain a "free ride" in society, meaning that they can avoid doing work while obtaining enough support from the government to stay at or above subsistence. Obviously, if enough people do this, not only does this hurt society, but also damages the economy by decreasing the worker supply, and damages the government by increasing fiscal demands to support welfare.

Considering this, all states should have mandatory welfare policies containing the following:

1. Mandatory Welfare:
a. All governments must supply eligible citizens with welfare.
b. Welfare being defined as governmental support in the form of money, food stamps, or otherwise, allowing significantly more than survival of the recipient(s), where "significantly more" is defined as 10% more than subsistence.

2. Eligibility:
a. All governments must only give welfare to eligible citizens. Welfare should be able to those who are unable to obtain a job, not those who do not have a job. For example, any able member of society can join the army, or in most cases low paying wages.
b. Eligbility should also take into account how many dependents a person has, and the requirements to support that many dependents. The money per capita for welfare should be recalculated every six months, or every time the value of money is changed, whichever occurs more often.
c. Eligible persons include those who have too many dependents to support with their current income (in which case they must attempt to obtain a higher income if possible), persons who cannot perform in a job, such as victims of mass paralysis, or citizens with medical conditions preventing obtaining sufficient income. Any person able of obtaining a legal income who does not do so is not eligible for welfare.

3. Providing Jobs: Each government would somehow provide enough jobs for the entire worker pool to obtain a job, either by mandating the private sector create more jobs, or expanding government jobs (including military).

This proposal would ensure that all members of the UN supply their citizens with welfare, but prevent welfare from being misallocated. In addition this policy would ensure that all UN members provide more than marginal welfare to those eligible.

While funding for an agency or staff to manage these welfare policies for each government would cost the government money, it would be less then that currently being siphoned by citizens who have the potential to survive without welfare.

=======================================================

We desire through this message to increase awareness of the proposal, and humbly encourage UN delegates to support this proposal. Of course if any questions arise, we would be pleased to discuss this proposal with the rest of the UN.

I think I'm conflicted on this issue. I see where you're trying to go with this proposal, and for the most part agree with your policy, I'm wondering if this legislation would affect programs like national health care, or in communist nations, the government providing housing for all, regardless of income, etc.

Once that issue is resolved, I'll be in a better position to make suggestions and so on.

Since the proposal defines welfare as "governmental support in the form of money, food stamps, or otherwise, allowing significantly more than survival of the recipient(s), where "significantly more" is defined as 10% more than subsistence", it is clear that welfare comes in some sort of quantity. Money, food, clothing, lumber, whatever, as long as it equates out to be 10% more than subsistence. So if 4.6 tons of lumber gives you 10% more than subsistence in your country (impractical as it is, I suppose a particularily sadistic government might attempt to ship that out [expensive shipping]), then fine it's in accordance with the proposal's concept.

Now for national health care, if that is paid for by a tax, then the recipient(s) of welfare can use part of their money to pay for their tax. But everyone else has to pay for the national health care via tax, so would welfare recipients. Welfare doesn't give a free ride to subdisized benefits.

Communism providing equal housing: well if it provides housing, then the people don't pay for their housing do they? So if they don't, that means they need that much less for subsistence, meaning they would recieve proportionately less welfare (if any).

Potentially, a state could provide EVERYTHING for EVERYONE needed to live. In that case, simply nobody would be eligible for welfare, or if they were, there would be no benefit since subsistence would cost 0 monetary units (and 110% of 0 is still 0).

Perhaps subsistence should be defined? Subsistence is the bare minimum to live on, meaning a roof over your head, food enough to defeat malnutrition and hunger, and adequate water.

So if you can survive without any money, what is the point of welfare in that country. But in the case that the country changed its policies, the law would still exist, ensuring that the people who did not have any spending power or means of obtaining conditions for subsistence, would not be left in a dire situation. It also would make the government reconsider before imposing overly harsh conditions on lower class (or in a classless case anyone).

Did I answer your questions?

"Take your socialist agenda and shov ..."

... Ummm, I'll go out and come in again ...

We oppose this proposal.


Good thing we're all liberals here, so this is a lock to pass, right?

We oppose this resolution. It's not only unethical, but also unconscionable to take away welfare from someone and force them to join the army. As for taking low paying jobs, most of our welfare recieptients get welfare because they're either unable to find a job, or are in low paying part-time jobs which wouldn't otherwise earn them a living wage. We've kept poverty at almost zero with this system, and if you propose that we yank the welfare money and let our poverty rate skyrocket, then how about HELL NO.

I like this one because it'll let me force the poor into my evergrowing armies ;)

We must emphasize that the proposal does not mandate military service, but merely points out that it is always an employment opportunity.

Not everyone who can earn income is eligible for military service in any given country. All this proposal says is that the government needs to provide enough jobs to give a reasonable income to every able worker, even if they only thing somone can do is sort glazed tiles into patterns. Mandatory military service is not a part of this proposal.

I more or less agree with the principle of this purposal. (and yes, it is arbitrary to communist countries, who have no "welfare" as if they are indeed communist, "money" does not exist for those actually IN the country).

This really on massively effects those who are CAPABLE of work, but don't, and collect welfare, under this system, they would be forced to work. I would propose, in addition, that a clause be enacted, for those who are not working, but are able, to have enforced community service in order to keep eligibility for their welfare subsidies.

I didn't want to be the first to sa-This should be a NATIONAL ISSUE.

You want to restrict welfare in your country, fine. But keep your grubby meathooks off my country's system. It works for us, yours works for you, I hope. You wouldn't like it if, for example, I proposed banning "welfare-to-work" schemes, or if I forced you to give everyone a pension. If you have problems, you fix them locally. You don't need to pass a UN resolution forcing everyone to do that same.

(Just to clear that up, "you" is not directed at anyone in particular)

IB - I was just exaggerating to show how that example was bad. Sorry.

“It has been a long standing tradition as well as fierce policy of the Empire, to stand by its self perpetuated rights to govern itself and the lands it has conquered. It respects the rights of those who wish a uniformed world of Nation States and their ideologies, but it holds no contempt for anything else, then any sort of force or pressure upon its own existence and practices, despite what its own populace support. That is why the Empire, the Nation States Imperial Colony and the Emperor himself, oppose this resolution. Under the pretext of its own personal security in its right to decide its own future in its own land, and in the interest of keeping our economic and social place. The Empire officially opposes the resolution put forth by the Theocracy of International Baccalaureate.”

~ Imperial Ambassador Janos Audrin
Speaking on behalf of the Empire and her colonies and the Emperor

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/MariusDeRomanus/NSImperialLogo.png

Um, okay, Princess Britney again.

Right, so I, like, don't have any welfare in my nation, 'cause I think everyone should get a job, or join the army, or, you know, sing in the subway or something. And I don't think that anyone should make me pay for anyone who's poor and jes jellus of what I have, right? So I'm totally into not paying people for not working.

But, you know, is this International?. So some country decides that they want to toss a couple of coins to their fugly poor people. So what? I mean, maybe they'll even use the money to buy one of my albums. So since it's totally something where I don't care if other countries do it or not, then I'm not supporting it.

I'm impressed at a resolution that manages to irritate socialists and capitalists. Skilfully done. However, I shall decline to offer my nation's support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I'm impressed at a resolution that manages to irritate socialists and capitalists. Skilfully done. However, I shall decline to offer my nation's support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: Maybe we should give the kid an "equal opportunity annoyer" badge as a reward for irritating both the left and right wingers.

IC: I'll just quote a previous post of mine.

Official Response to Domestic Issue Proposals

My God, have you lost your mind? We have this thing called national sovereignty. It's like that "tolerance" crap on a national level.

This is a domestic issue. Do with your country as you will, but don't start trying to tell my citizens what they can and cannot do. That's what they elected me for.

Kelssek's first post in this thread seconded.