V359 - Welfare Bill Watch

Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (9)
19.57%
On the contrary, No (29)
63.04%
Abstain (8)
17.39%
This discussion is closed.
TheCrackInTime
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Please note, this bill has been amended between it's second reading and voting

V359 - Welfare Bill 2011, TSR Libertarian Party



Welfare Act 2011


An Act to introduce a simpler, better welfare system and more sensible, while still progressive, tax system to cause less deadweight efficiency losses while ensuring all citizen's have a decent standard of living.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Part I: Welfare
1 Other Direct Payments
(1) All monetary payment from the state to an individual for reasons other than direct employment or government error other than outlined in this Bill shall cease.
(2) Free bus passes shall cease to be administered.

2 Citizen's Income
(1) The Citizen's Income shall be paid to all eligible, claiming households on a monthly basis.
(2) Persons eligible for the Citizen's Income are:
(a) Persons legally resident within the United Kingdom.
(3) The amounts for the Citizen's Income shall depend on the composition of the household, and shall be at the rates as set out in Schedule 1.
(4) These amounts shall be subject to an annual review.
(5) One single form per household is required to claim Citizen's Income.
(6) In the case of extra living costs due to disability or long-term illness, a person shall receive confirmation from a GP of their illness or disability.
(7) Social Services shall carry out an assessment to quantify the extra living costs incurred due to disability or illness.
(8) Social Services shall inform the Department for Social Security, and this shall be added to the Citizen's Income payment.
(9) The received payment is dependent on an annual checkup with the GP.
(10) Where the GP suspects that the condition has changed such that living costs change, they shall instruct Social Services to carry out an assessment to quantify the new living costs of the person in question.

3 Housing Benefit
(1) Housing benefit shall be a statutory responsibility of county councils.
(2) It shall be administered and funded by local authorities.
(3) Rates, eligibility criteria, and taper rates shall be decided by county councils.
(4) Country councils' plans must meet the following minimum criteria:
(a) Anyone with a household income of below £16,000 and savings of below £16,000 must be eligible for 100% of their rent up to the 20th percentile of rents for a dwelling with a number of bedrooms equal to the number of people in the dwelling.
(b) For an individual renting a room, section 3(4)(a) will apply, and it will be defined as a 1-bedroom dwelling.

Part II: Tax
4 Income Tax
(1) Central income tax shall be charged at the rate of twenty five pence for each pound earned over the Citizen's Income.
(2) County Councils shall have the power to levy a local income tax in order to pay for services provided by local government.
(3) Central Government grants to Local Authorities shall be cut by £50bn.

5 Ground Rent Tax
(1) The landowner shall pay an annual tax of seventeen percent of the ground rent of land (henceforth referred to as 'Ground Rent Tax')
(2) For the purposes of this bill, "ground rent" is defined as: "the capital amount that an estate of fee simple in the land might reasonably be expected to realise upon rental for twelve months assuming that any improvements to the land, had not been made, and assuming that the land may continue to be used for any purpose for which it is being used or could be used at the date of valuation".
(3) A Ground Rent Commission shall come into force; and
(4) It shall have responsibility to determine current and all subsequent site values in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(5) Site values shall be re-evaluated every five years.

6 Abolition of Council Tax
(1) The provisions for the collection of Council Tax as set out in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 c.14 shall be repealed.

7 Abolition of National Non-Domestic Rates
(1) The provisions for the collection of National Non-Domestic Rates as set out in the Rates Act 1984 c.33 shall be repealed.

8 Abolition of Primary NICs
(1) The provisions for the collection of primary National Insurance Contributions as set out in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 c.4 shall be repealed.

Part III: Miscellaneous
9 Short Title
(1) Upon receipt of Royal Assent this Act may be cited as the Welfare Act 2011

Schedule 1: Rates Of Citizen's Income
1st adult (16-64 years): £157.00 per week
Subsequent adults (16-64 years): £91.00 per week
1st pensioner (65+ years): £128.00 per week
Subsequent pensioners (65+ years): £70.00 per week
Child aged 12-15 years: £91.00 per week
Child aged 5-11 years: £71.00 per week
Child aged 3-4: £60.00 per week
Child aged 0-2: £53.00 per week

CostingFrom Tables 17 and 19 we can see that the country is made of:

Non-Retired Households
5.35m households with 1 adult @ £157 p/w, annual cost: £43.6bn
10.5m households with 2 adults @ £248 p/w, annual cost: £135.4bn
3.25m households with 3 adults @ £339 p/w, annual cost: £57.2bn
3.63m Secondary School Age Children @ £91 p/w, annual cost: £17.2bn
5.92m Primary School Age Children @ £71 p/w, annual cost: £21.9bn
3.25m Children 0-4 @ £57 p/w, annual cost: £9.6bn.
Total annual cost for non-retired households: £285bn

I've taken the average cost for 0-2 and 3-4 since there's only data on 0-4.

Retired:
3.80m households with 1 pensioner @ £128 p/w, annual cost: £25.3bn
2.98m households with 2 pensioners @ £198 p/w, annual cost: £30.7bn
Total annual cost for retired households: £56bn

You may find it odd that retired households have no children, but I've just taken the total figures for children and put them in the non-retired bit for costing. If a retired person/persons have children in the household, they will be eligible to claim for them.

The total outpayments from the scheme will be £341bn.

From here, we can see that current welfare + state pensions spending is £236bn, the cost of free bus passes is £1bn (here).

This leaves a shortfall of £104bn which is made up with the changes in tax.

Tax Abolitions
Old Income Tax: £148bn (here.)
Primary NICs: £48bn (here.)
Council Tax: £25bn (Chart 2)
Business Rates: £25bn (Chart 2)
Shortfall: £104bn
Total required to raise: £353bn + Housing Benefit Cost

New Taxes
Local Income Tax: £75bn + Housing Benefit Cost (This is by design, if local authorities keep spending the same, since it's the shortfall to their coffers).
Income tax at flat rate of 25%: £198bn (From tax base of £788bn)
Ground Rent Tax at 17%: £80bn (From tax base of £473bn, explained below).
Total: £353bn + Housing Benefit Cost.

Therefore the scheme is feasible.

Ground Rent Tax Base: Ground Rent Tax rate is based upon The Land Value of Britain, 1985 -1990, by David Richards (E.S.S.R.A. paper, 1990) which gives a taxable ground rent value of £110 billion for 1989. Adjusting this for land value growth (using the figures from 2000 to 2005 relative to GDP and extrapolating from there) this gives a total taxable land value rental of £437bn in the UK (this and this for uprating).

ChangesFirst Reading to Second Reading
  • Comes into force at the point when the PAA is repealed (9.1)
  • Inserted a missing section for the abolition of primary NICs (8.1)
  • Split Council Tax & Rates abolitions into separate sections (6.1, 7.1)
  • Adult defined at 16+, not 18+ (Schedule 1)
  • Central Minimums on Housing Benefit (3.4)
  • Disability Costs (2.6)


Second Reading to Re-Submission
  • Actually defined an adult as 16+, not 18+ (Schedule 1).
  • Changes disability qualification rules from GP to Social Services, with checkup from GP (2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10).
  • Commencement scrapped - 13th Parliament is already sitting.
  • New research led us to believe that we were previously underestimating Land Revenues, this has allowed us to decrease central income tax from 29% to 25%.


Re-Submission to Second Reading
  • Changed the central minimum that counties must design their housing benefit by. (3.4a)


Second Reading to Vote
  • Added 3.4b such that someone renting a room within a dwelling is covered by the housing benefit minimum criterion.
0
username461215
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
no, gracias :|
1
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by Singh993)
no, gracias :|
Thanks for the detailed discussion throughout the Bill readings...

Which bit do you object to, by the way?
0
toronto353
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Thanks for the detailed discussion throughout the Bill readings...

Which bit do you object to, by the way?
In fairness though there are some debates which people are more comfortable in. For example, I'm not comfortable debating the Bills concerning motoring related things as I know nothing about them.

Also I think that this will just end up like PAA. You'll turn around and trot it out every time there is a Bill you don't like.
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by toronto353)
In fairness though there are some debates which people are more comfortable in. For example, I'm not comfortable debating the Bills concerning motoring related things as I know nothing about them.

Also I think that this will just end up like PAA. You'll turn around and trot it out every time there is a Bill you don't like.
Despite the fact that it has actual numbers, so no vagueness. Yes, we'll trot it out if we think it's covered under this, but you can disagree and there's no dispute over what people actually get - which was the only problem with wheeling out the PAA before, the confusion over what people actually received. Indeed, if you think discussions over welfare are better held when we have a system of over 70 benefits, all with different taper rates and entitlement criteria then fine, but frankly I think it's far easier to discuss something that's understood.

I'm just pissed off that people give no reasons against during either debate, and then turn up and vote No. It means that writing Bills is an utter waste of time if they aren't even discussed.
0
Anony mouse
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Thanks for the detailed discussion throughout the Bill readings...

Which bit do you object to, by the way?
At the top where it says 'TSR Libertarian Party'.
3
ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
No from me.

Certainly better than the PAA but I can't make my peace with the use of the money
0
Metrobeans
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
Correcting a vote as requested. Sandys1000 requested his vote be changed from Aye to No, so accordingly, I've removed a vote from the Aye column and added it to the No column.
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by paddy__power)
No from me.

Certainly better than the PAA but I can't make my peace with the use of the money
I'd love to know how you think government can better spend the money, other than wiping out completely the welfare trap and absolute poverty?
0
ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
I'd love to know how you think government can better spend the money, other than wiping out completely the welfare trap and absolute poverty?
I stated in the thread how, you replied, and we both agreed it was a judgement call - one which we both make differently. If I recall correctly.
0
toronto353
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Despite the fact that it has actual numbers, so no vagueness. Yes, we'll trot it out if we think it's covered under this, but you can disagree and there's no dispute over what people actually get - which was the only problem with wheeling out the PAA before, the confusion over what people actually received. Indeed, if you think discussions over welfare are better held when we have a system of over 70 benefits, all with different taper rates and entitlement criteria then fine, but frankly I think it's far easier to discuss something that's understood.

I'm just pissed off that people give no reasons against during either debate, and then turn up and vote No. It means that writing Bills is an utter waste of time if they aren't even discussed.
I still think it's vague because you can't measure its effectiveness so will trot it out at any occasion. The current system isn't good, but there are quantifiable results. Of course there are no quantifiable results for any of these Bills, but on something so important and almost universal, this Bill won't help future debate.
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by toronto353)
I still think it's vague because you can't measure its effectiveness so will trot it out at any occasion. The current system isn't good, but there are quantifiable results. Of course there are no quantifiable results for any of these Bills, but on something so important and almost universal, this Bill won't help future debate.
Pretty simple quantifiable results. People get x amount of money, and everyone does. There, done. It's not particularly vague, yes, I appreciate housing benefit is, but there's a minimum criterion such that no-one who really needs housing benefit on top of their Citizen's Income will go without, guaranteed. Where people having extra living costs due to disability, we've put in a system which accounts for that. I really fail to see what's not quantifiable about this, it's paid to everyone, how can that be vague?
0
toronto353
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Pretty simple quantifiable results. People get x amount of money, and everyone does. There, done. It's not particularly vague, yes, I appreciate housing benefit is, but there's a minimum criterion such that no-one who really needs housing benefit on top of their Citizen's Income will go without, guaranteed. Where people having extra living costs due to disability, we've put in a system which accounts for that. I really fail to see what's not quantifiable about this, it's paid to everyone, how can that be vague?
It's vague in that you can't tell whether these will produce effective results. That is what will produce the problem. I hated the fact that your party stifled debate previously by trotting out PAA and you will do that same again with this.
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by toronto353)
It's vague in that you can't tell whether these will produce effective results. That is what will produce the problem. I hated the fact that your party stifled debate previously by trotting out PAA and you will do that same again with this.
That's only possible because there was confusion over the amounts given, and the accusation (wrongly) that it would be a measly amount only enough for 5p tins of beans. Here, we've put figures in to quantify it. Yes, this does solve welfare, but that's not a reason to vote against it, it's a reason to vote FOR it. :facepalm2:
0
TheCrackInTime
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#15
The noes have it! The noes have it! Unlock!
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (322)
37.49%
No - but I will (67)
7.8%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.22%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (408)
47.5%

Watched Threads

View All