Eternity RPC Board
10-08-2016, 03:16 PM
Marcus Lipton - New Centrist List
Estimated members of the Assembly, while I wouldn't necessarily doubt about the good intentions of this bill, I can only be afraid that it may fail to be a better remedy than the ills of society which is aiming to address. First, we need to address the financial aspect of the bill proposed. Even if all benefits were removed from the federal budget, the cost of this universal basic income would be higher which would require either an increase in taxes or state debt. Second but for that less important, it would be a regressive and ineffective reform. While we believe that welfare can be reformed and perfected through legislation, we have doubt that this reform will be the best way to achieve so. It will give a considerable amount of taxpayers money to people who doesn't really need it, instead of being used in well-planned programs with a clear goal and plan, which savings in administrative costs may not be enough to justify its supposed efficiency. Sometimes, simpler is not always the best, and complicated situations require complicated means.
Thirdly, it would leave many people who are not citizens yet without access to assistance. This may not a susprise coming for our New Messanic colleagues, and although some people may be misguided to fall for this simplistic rhetoric, but this reform would only worsen the well-being of our republic. Many legal residents, who in many cases have worked and pay taxes in our republic for years, will be left without access to welfare in case of need, and this would only increase inequality and poverty in our republic, two ills that our parliamentary group is aimed to fight. Of course, the bill could be reformed so legal residents could be able to receive this social income, but it will increase considerably the costs of this program to a level which I am not sure if the Assembly is willing to accept.
In summary, in its original form, I believe sadly this proposal fails to give a better alternative to the problems and the legislation that it aims to improve.
Estimated members of the Assembly, while I wouldn't necessarily doubt about the good intentions of this bill, I can only be afraid that it may fail to be a better remedy than the ills of society which is aiming to address. First, we need to address the financial aspect of the bill proposed. Even if all benefits were removed from the federal budget, the cost of this universal basic income would be higher which would require either an increase in taxes or state debt. Second but for that less important, it would be a regressive and ineffective reform. While we believe that welfare can be reformed and perfected through legislation, we have doubt that this reform will be the best way to achieve so. It will give a considerable amount of taxpayers money to people who doesn't really need it, instead of being used in well-planned programs with a clear goal and plan, which savings in administrative costs may not be enough to justify its supposed efficiency. Sometimes, simpler is not always the best, and complicated situations require complicated means.
Thirdly, it would leave many people who are not citizens yet without access to assistance. This may not a susprise coming for our New Messanic colleagues, and although some people may be misguided to fall for this simplistic rhetoric, but this reform would only worsen the well-being of our republic. Many legal residents, who in many cases have worked and pay taxes in our republic for years, will be left without access to welfare in case of need, and this would only increase inequality and poverty in our republic, two ills that our parliamentary group is aimed to fight. Of course, the bill could be reformed so legal residents could be able to receive this social income, but it will increase considerably the costs of this program to a level which I am not sure if the Assembly is willing to accept.
In summary, in its original form, I believe sadly this proposal fails to give a better alternative to the problems and the legislation that it aims to improve.