Turn on thread page Beta

VB1329 - Welfare Modernisation Bill 2018 watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this bill be passed into law?
    As many as are of that opinion, Aye
    43.75%
    On the contrary, No
    45.83%
    Abstain
    10.42%

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    B1329 - Welfare Modernisation Bill 2018, TSR Libertarian Party




    Welfare Modernisation Bill 2018

    A Bill to replace the entirety of the UK’s welfare state, reduce bureaucracy, create a freer economy and stimulate economic growth through increasing the Personal Allowance significantly, replacing Jobseeker’s Allowance with a new Unemployment Allowance and repealing most current forms of welfare and replacing them with a Negative Income Tax.



    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:-

    1: Personal Allowance

    (1) The Personal Allowance is increased to £20,000 per year.

    2: Repeals

    (1) The following benefits are hereby abolished:
    Budgeting Loans
    Care to Learn
    Child Tax Credit
    Child Trust Fund
    Cold Weather Payment
    Constant Attendance Allowance
    Council Tax Benefit
    Crisis Loans
    Employment and Support Allowance
    Free School Meals
    Guardian’s Allowance
    Healthcare Travel Costs Scheme
    Health in Pregnancy Grant
    Healthy Start Scheme
    In Work Credit
    Incapacity Benefit
    Income Support
    Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
    Invalidity Benefit
    Job Grant
    Jobseeker’s Allowance
    Maternity Allowance
    Mobility Supplement
    Pension Credit
    Reduced Earnings Allowance
    Return to Work Credit
    School Uniform Allowances
    Severe Disablement Allowance
    Statutory Adoption Pay
    Statutory Maternity Pay
    Statutory Paternity Pay
    Statutory Sick Pay
    Sure Start Maternity Grant
    Working Tax Credit
    Training Premium
    Travel to Interview Scheme
    Unemployability Supplement or Allowance
    Universal Credit
    Vaccine Damage Payment
    Widowed Parent’s Allowance
    Winter Fuel Payment
    War Disablement Pension
    War Widow’s/Widower’s Pension

    3: Unemployment Allowance

    (1) This program will administer a weekly lump sum of £91.38 to unemployed individuals.

    (2) Receipt is conditional upon status in any one of the following categories:
    a) Active seeking of full-time employment in accordance with current codified standards to receive Jobseeker’s Allowance.
    b) A disability or dependent(s) which reasonably preclude an individual from holding full-time employment in accordance with current codified standards.
    c) Volunteerism with a registered charity or public organization a minimum of 30 hours per week.

    (3) After one month of unemployment, individuals that receive Unemployment Allowance under clause (2)(a) must accept any job offered in which they would work for 30 hours per week or higher. Failure to do so will mean that they are no longer eligible for Unemployment Allowance.

    (4) The program is to be administered by the Department for Work & Pensions.

    4: Negative Income Tax

    (1) There is established a program, available to all individuals aged 18 or over, called the Negative Income Tax.

    (2) This program will administer an amount of money to individuals earning below £20,000 and working for less than 30 hours per week who are not on Unemployment Allowance in accordance with the equation "15% of the difference between gross annual income and the Personal Allowance established in this Act"

    (3) This program will administer an amount of money to individuals earning below £20,000 and working for a minimum of 30 hours per week in accordance with the equation "30% of the difference between gross annual income and the Personal Allowance established in this Act".

    5: Commencement, Short Title, Extent and Conditions

    (1) This bill shall come into force on April 1, 2018.

    (2) This bill shall be cited as the Welfare Modernisation Bill 2018.

    (3) This bill extends to the United Kingdom.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Notes

    A majority of aspects of the current welfare state are identified and abolished. This is the correct decision for the UK, because a complicated and overly bureaucratic system means that - over time - the welfare state has become exceptionally inefficient. It wastes money on areas in which welfare is not necessary, and has less effect on the lives of the people who receive it than it should as it is split into different areas rather than giving liquid cash that can be spent exactly how the individual who receives it wants. Of course, without replacing the current welfare state, our economy would face a major crisis.

    In contrast to the many types of welfare which are abolished under this bill, the system that has been proposed as a replacement consists of merely five: Unemployment Allowance, Child Benefits, Housing Benefits, Disability Allowance and the Negative Income Tax. Unemployment Allowance ensures that those out of work receive more help in their time of need, but balances this by increasing the restrictions around it. The Negative Income Tax ensures that everybody under the new Personal Allowance of £20,000 has their income supplemented, working to tackle poverty in the UK, increasing social mobility and serving to counter any negative effects caused by the changes to the welfare state. This bill blends the goals of neo-liberal economics with a pragmatic approach to ensuring the UK can thrive, meaning that - if it passes - we will undoubtedly see a rise in people’s living standards.

    Changes for Second Reading

    - The costing has been revised, with the amount of people eligible for the Negative Income Tax being linked to two sources and the amount of money per person reduced due to the changes to the policy.

    - Further tax changes apart from the Personal Allowance raise have been removed from the bill in order to ensure that VAT can remain the same as it currently is.

    - The abolition of all minimum wage legislation has been removed entirely from the bill due to it not being necessary for the other reforms mentioned to be enacted.

    - Child Benefits, Housing Allowance and Disability Allowance will coexist with the Negative Income Tax and Unemployment Allowance due to their necessity to the individuals and families that receive them.

    - Unemployment Allowance will no longer be based on dependents but a 25% increase on the current amount of money recipients receive per week.

    - Any mention of pensions has been removed from the bill, with the system not receiving any changes under this bill.

    Costing

    Unemployment Allowance: Jobseeker’s Allowance currently costs £2.4 per year according to this article. By increasing expenditure by 25%, the new Unemployment Allowance would cost £3 billion per year, an increase of £600 thousand. This could be different depending on changes to the amount of people receiving unemployment benefits and for how long.

    Negative Income Tax: An estimate of 30 million people would be eligible to receive money through the Negative Income Tax according to this graph and this article. Assuming an average cost of £1,500 per person, the Negative Income Tax would cost around £45 billion per year.

    Total Revenue: £53.3 billion (Repeals) = £53.3 billion per year.

    Total Costs: £45 billion (Negative Income Tax) + £3 billion (Unemployment Allowance) = £48 billion per year.

    Overall Change: £53.3 billion per year (Total Revenue) - £48 billion per year (Total Costs) = £5.3 billion per year.

    Note: The changes do not include tax revenue gained due to economic growth or tax revenue lost due to the Personal Allowance raise. The Negative Income Tax estimation could also be more or less than predicted, but is based on the amount that the average recipient should receive.

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye, let's make our welfare system simpler, fairer and less focussed on certain groups.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    Plain and simple Aye!
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay, Poverty, Inflation and homelessness will be the result of this bill.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. This is a barefaced attack on the unfortunate. Our welfare state is already radically underfunded, and reducing funding by a full 10% will cause great misery across the country.

    Don't give me ******** about 'efficiencies' or whatever, there is no way students could design a more effective welfare state in their spare time. This is pure, calculated ideology.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    DayneD89 can I change my vote from abstain to aye
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    With this bill as close as it is, I would like to make a last-minute request to see if anyone wishes to change their vote to either an Aye or Abstain. There may be parts you believe should be amended, but this is an attempt at fulfilling a policy pledge from several parties and I believe it deserves to pass.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    With this bill as close as it is, I would like to make a last-minute request to see if anyone wishes to change their vote to either an Aye or Abstain. There may be parts you believe should be amended, but this is an attempt at fulfilling a policy pledge from several parties and I believe it deserves to pass.
    No this is nothing but a regressive attack and ideological dismantling of our welfare state. I would urge all to oppose it. This bill does nothing but harm the homeless and the disabled at a time of rampant inequality.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jarred)
    No this is nothing but a regressive attack and ideological dismantling of our welfare state. I would urge all to oppose it. This bill does nothing but harm the homeless and the disabled at a time of rampant inequality.
    I fail to see how this harms the homeless to be perfectly honest. With the mess of the current disabilities claimant system, this would most likely make it simpler for those with disabilities to claim benefits, saving them time and for the state, promotes efficiency and money. I ask that you reconsider your statement, it’s far more implementable than the first reading and I think many in our house agrees with that.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jarred)
    No this is nothing but a regressive attack and ideological dismantling of our welfare state. I would urge all to oppose it. This bill does nothing but harm the homeless and the disabled at a time of rampant inequality.
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    I fail to see how this harms the homeless to be perfectly honest. With the mess of the current disabilities claimant system, this would most likely make it simpler for those with disabilities to claim benefits, saving them time and for the state, promotes efficiency and money. I ask that you reconsider your statement, it’s far more implementable than the first reading and I think many in our house agrees with that.
    The Second Reading maintains disability benefits at the same rate they are currently set at, so that is simply not true. The one group that would be worse off are those with children, who already have more than enough provisions; however, the amount they would be worse off is minimal with the changes made to the bill. The overwhelming majority of people would be better off and receive more for their hard work, and the homeless would indeed benefit from the increase in unemployment benefits.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    The Second Reading maintains disability benefits at the same rate they are currently set at, so that is simply not true.
    No it doesn't, it imposes a one-size fits all model on disabled people and shells out a measly £4000 per year as an unemployment benefit. The assumption of a flat model for all is misguided and dangerous. Meanwhile you cut and destroy every other provision.

    The one group that would be worse off are those with children, who already have more than enough provisions; however, the amount they would be worse off is minimal with the changes made to the bill. The overwhelming majority of people would be better off and receive more for their hard work, and the homeless would indeed benefit from the increase in unemployment benefits.
    Thank you for providing me extra arguments I'm not going to vote for a bill that harms the poorest of children. Child poverty is an affront to a civilized nation.

    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    I fail to see how this harms the homeless to be perfectly honest. With the mess of the current disabilities claimant system, this would most likely make it simpler for those with disabilities to claim benefits, saving them time and for the state, promotes efficiency and money. I ask that you reconsider your statement, it’s far more implementable than the first reading and I think many in our house agrees with that.
    I don't care if it makes it simpler to claim less money. And I certainly don't think peoples lives are worth the cost of minor "efficiency"

    Why won't the libertarians launch an attack on corporate welfare and tax evasion which costs the state far more. Are you the free market party or the party of crony corporate capitalism?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jarred)
    No it doesn't, it imposes a one-size fits all model on disabled people and shells out a measly £4000 per year as an unemployment benefit. The assumption of a flat model for all is misguided and dangerous. Meanwhile you cut and destroy every other provision
    This is nonsense and you clearly have not even bothered to read the Seond Reading; it does not impose anything different on disabled people than the current system because it does not say anything about disabled people. The unemployment benefits outlined in this bill may not be enough but they are 25% more than the current system offers, whilst not adding to the deficit. Once again, your arguments have fallen flat because unemployed people would be better off than they currently are.

    (Original post by Jarred)
    Thank you for providing me extra arguments I'm not going to vote for a bill that harms the poorest of children. Child poverty is an affront to a civilized nation.
    Which is why we already go out of our way as a nation to help the poorest of children. Those who work hard will continue to survive under the Negative Income Tax.

    (Original post by Jarred)
    I don't care if it makes it simpler to claim less money. And I certainly don't think peoples lives are worth the cost of minor "efficiency"

    Why won't the libertarians launch an attack on corporate welfare and tax evasion which costs the state far more. Are you the free market party or the party of crony corporate capitalism?
    If you are suggesting that this would cost lives then that is an over-exaggeration of the highest order, people's lives are saved under the current system due to people's kindness in the private sector and this ridiculous shaming of it needs to end. To suggest that anyone would be better off in an unsustainable system is talk that will surely doom this country to performing about as well as Greece in future recessions.

    We do attack corporate welfare and tax evasion and stand firmly against both as a party. One second we are criticised for attempting to do too much in a bill and next second we apparently need to fix the world in one.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jarred)
    I don't care if it makes it simpler to claim less money. And I certainly don't think peoples lives are worth the cost of minor "efficiency"

    Why won't the libertarians launch an attack on corporate welfare and tax evasion which costs the state far more. Are you the free market party or the party of crony corporate capitalism?
    Look through the list of benefits again, the main two types of disability benefits are maintained: Disability Living Allowance (DLA), and Personal Independence Payment. This bill quite rightly doesn’t eliminate all benefits at the same time, but ensures that someone will be able to claim the right amount to supplement their needs, as well as get themselves back on their feet.
    I admit a slight cut to taxes for the working classes might have made this more effective, as it would increase the spending power of the working class and those who are need, and counteract any loss in benefits this bill may impact on. Small efficiency gains goes a long way in helping people out in general, and like I said before removing some obsolete bureaucracy would greatly help claimants identify what they need the money for, as well as the state ensuring those who need these benefits receive them.
    For a free market, it is better that we ensure that there is little to no incentive to avoid taxes and thus lowering taxes in my belief would reduce the need for the state to actively crack down on it, saving everyone money. (We stand against it but it’s not a necessary edition to this bill) We are not a “crony” party as you put it
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    With this bill as close as it is, I would like to make a last-minute request to see if anyone wishes to change their vote to either an Aye or Abstain. There may be parts you believe should be amended, but this is an attempt at fulfilling a policy pledge from several parties and I believe it deserves to pass.
    Why am I being tagged in this when I abstained?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It looks like we've stopped this shameless attempt to destroy the lives of thousands. Good (famous last words anyone?).
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    With this bill as close as it is, I would like to make a last-minute request to see if anyone wishes to change their vote to either an Aye or Abstain. There may be parts you believe should be amended, but this is an attempt at fulfilling a policy pledge from several parties and I believe it deserves to pass.
    I believe that a complete welfare review should have been conducted first. There are some that should have stayed, some that could be abolished and some that could have been merged into your idea.

    It's a Nay for now.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 19, 2018
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.