[DRAFT] Subsistence Support Act

[Polinasia]

SUBSISTENCE SUPPORT ACT
Category: Social Justice | Strength: Mild | Proposer: Polinasia

---

RECOGNISING that the Economically Weaker Section of every nation has the right to receive the minimum subsistence of nourishment for the survival of its populace,

EMPHASIZING that poor quality and quantity of water and nourishment can easily be a leading cause of death among the EWS population of a nation, directly or indirectly stating that there have been an increased number of deaths due to malnourishment and starvation in The EWS of the nation,

CLARIFYING that the act does not wish to label any part of society as weaker but wishes to help those who are economically weak according to surveys taken by the nation,


The World Assembly Defines;


1.The Economically Weaker Sections: as the part of population found to have incomes below the minimum subsistence level required for a person including the cost of food, housing, clothing, insurance and medical security, The Economically Weaker Section should be identified through surveys of the people of its nation as mentioned below, they are not labelled as Economically Weaker and when they are able to reach the subsistence level of income through the proposed scheme, they will not be in the Economically weaker section anymore;



The World Assembly Mandates;


1.Every nation to take a survey periodically every five years or simultaneously with a national census but not to exceed the aforementioned periodicity that includes the annual income of the family and whether they have a house;


2. The Nations are required to calculate a bare subsistence level of income and identify those below it by calculating the cost of minimum food items, clothing, housing etc required for a person in the nation;


3.Every nation should provide food to the citizens at free cost or cost well below the Maximum Retail Price to match the discounted value to the disparity in the family's income to the subsistence;


4.that it doesn't require third world nation defined as any nation that has greater than 50% of their population below bare minimum subsistence are not required to adhere to this act and excludes them from it because they cannot possibly afford it.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Geez man, your title is way to long.

[Polinasia]

Geez man, your title is way to long.

How is it now?

[Imperium Anglorum]

So, basically food stamps for all countries? I don't see how other nation's welfare is an international issue.

Secondarily, I agree with Jean. The title is much too long.

[Polinasia]

So, basically food stamps for all countries? I don't see how other nation's welfare is an international issue.

Secondarily, I agree with Jean. The title is much too long.

Well what is the world assembly for if it is not for nations?


How can I shorten the title?

[Pharthan]

How about, "Subsistence Support Act?"

I like this one, but it needs some tuning.

EMPHASIZING That there has been an increased number of deaths due to malnourishment and starvation in The EWS of the nation,

I would change this to something along the lines of "Emphasizing that poor quality and quantity of water and nourishment can easily be a leading cause of death among the EWS population of a nation, directly or indirectly," as stating "there has been an increased number of deaths due to malnourishment and starvation in the EWS of the nation." In any case, that should read "that there have been," not "has been."

WARNING that the act does not wish to label any part of society as weaker but wishes to help those who are economically weak according to surveys taken by the nation,

This isn't exactly a "Warning," more of a "Clarifying," statement.

INFORMING that the NEF doesn't stop the proposal of this act as it is an act of free trade and the following act won't by any means restrict the National Economic Freedoms,

You can cut this part out. It's unnecessary and should be stated through a campaign program rather than in the resolution itself, in my opinion.

1.The Economically Weaker Sections as the part of population found to have incomes below the subsistence level and or without a home, The Economically Weaker Section should be found through surveys of the people of its nation as mentioned below they are not labelled as
Economically Weaker and when they are able to reach the subsistence level of income through the proposed scheme, they will not be in the Economically weaker section anymore;

This reads poorly.

2.Every nation to take a survey,
a. That includes the families annual income, and if they have accommodation etcetera;
b. The Nation is required to create a bare subsistence level of income and find those below it;

I would highly recommend giving it periodicity, say, every five or ten years. You could also ease the process and make it more flowery by stating, "or simultaneously with a national census but not to exceed the aforementioned periodicity."
Also (b) should be it's own separate statement, as it does not directly involve the survey itself and should not all under (2). As it stands, you can lump all of (2) together when you take out and separate (b).

3.Every nation should provide food to the citizens at free cost or cost well below the Maximum Retail Price;
a. It should be implimented through government ration shops at reduced price for The EWS or,
b.discounts in private sectors accepting the government coupons by giving coupons to the EWS,

I would recommend removing the recommendation. Simply requiring that nations provide such measures is enough to force action, mandating how it should be implemented is a bit more cumbersome and there may well be better ways for certain nations to pull this off. Also, "or cost well below the Maximum Retail Price," needs to be more clearly defined. As it stands, nations could cut off only a small amount and still meet the requirements. A better way to say it would be to match the discounted value to the disparity in the family's income to the subsistence.

4.that it doesn't require third world nation to participate in the act and excludes them from it because they cannot afford it.

This needs to be more well defined, since any nation could, when the matter arises, just call themselves a third world nation. An idea, though I can see how it would be flawed as well, would be to make the statement something along the lines, "any nation that has greater than 50% of their population below bare minimum subsistence is not required to adhere to this act."
This is flawed for similar reasons, but harder to skirt around.

[Polinasia]

How about, "Subsistence Support Act?"

I like this one, but it needs some tuning.

EMPHASIZING That there has been an increased number of deaths due to malnourishment and starvation in The EWS of the nation,

I would change this to something along the lines of "Emphasizing that poor quality and quantity of water and nourishment can easily be a leading cause of death among the EWS population of a nation, directly or indirectly," as stating "there has been an increased number of deaths due to malnourishment and starvation in the EWS of the nation." In any case, that should read "that there have been," not "has been."

WARNING that the act does not wish to label any part of society as weaker but wishes to help those who are economically weak according to surveys taken by the nation,

This isn't exactly a "Warning," more of a "Clarifying," statement.

INFORMING that the NEF doesn't stop the proposal of this act as it is an act of free trade and the following act won't by any means restrict the National Economic Freedoms,

You can cut this part out. It's unnecessary and should be stated through a campaign program rather than in the resolution itself, in my opinion.

1.The Economically Weaker Sections as the part of population found to have incomes below the subsistence level and or without a home, The Economically Weaker Section should be found through surveys of the people of its nation as mentioned below they are not labelled as
Economically Weaker and when they are able to reach the subsistence level of income through the proposed scheme, they will not be in the Economically weaker section anymore;

This reads poorly.

2.Every nation to take a survey,
a. That includes the families annual income, and if they have accommodation etcetera;
b. The Nation is required to create a bare subsistence level of income and find those below it;

I would highly recommend giving it periodicity, say, every five or ten years. You could also ease the process and make it more flowery by stating, "or simultaneously with a national census but not to exceed the aforementioned periodicity."
Also (b) should be it's own separate statement, as it does not directly involve the survey itself and should not all under (2). As it stands, you can lump all of (2) together when you take out and separate (b).

3.Every nation should provide food to the citizens at free cost or cost well below the Maximum Retail Price;
a. It should be implimented through government ration shops at reduced price for The EWS or,
b.discounts in private sectors accepting the government coupons by giving coupons to the EWS,

I would recommend removing the recommendation. Simply requiring that nations provide such measures is enough to force action, mandating how it should be implemented is a bit more cumbersome and there may well be better ways for certain nations to pull this off. Also, "or cost well below the Maximum Retail Price," needs to be more clearly defined. As it stands, nations could cut off only a small amount and still meet the requirements. A better way to say it would be to match the discounted value to the disparity in the family's income to the subsistence.

4.that it doesn't require third world nation to participate in the act and excludes them from it because they cannot afford it.

This needs to be more well defined, since any nation could, when the matter arises, just call themselves a third world nation. An idea, though I can see how it would be flawed as well, would be to make the statement something along the lines, "any nation that has greater than 50% of their population below bare minimum subsistence is not required to adhere to this act."
This is flawed for similar reasons, but harder to skirt around.

thanks for the great advice! I do not know what I would have done without your help I have made the necessary changes to my act including changing the name.

[Polinasia]

Do you think I can submit the proposal now or are there any other changes I need to make?

[Grays Harbor]

This is nowhere even close to possible submission

[Polinasia]

come on guys! please give your opinion on this!!

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: What is "etc"? It's kind of dicey to use such a vague construction.

the cost of food, housing, clothing etc

What does this include? Medicine, transportation, support for dependents? How do we determine what fits into the rubric of "etc"?

Compare the vagueness of your definition with that of the Living Wage Act:

DEFINES the Basic Poverty Line as the cost of enough food and drink to keep a person healthy for a week, plus one week's rent for an average one-person dwelling, plus the cost of an average weekly commute between home and work, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of those utilities deemed appropriate, less any income or benefits provided to all workers by the nation;

DEFINES the Dependent Poverty Line as the Basic Poverty Line, substituting an average two-person dwelling for an average one-person dwelling, plus the cost of enough food and drink to keep a dependent healthy for a week, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of schooling for a dependent, less any additional income or benefits provided to all workers with dependents by the nation;

[Jarish Inyo]

How is a nation's welfare system an international issue?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

come on guys! please give your opinion on this!!

Patience young padawan, patience. Resolutions take quite a while to draft, and the World Assembly is notoriously slow at accomplishing anything.

How is a nation's welfare system an international issue?

It's not, and that's why this will never see the light of day.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I see my advice was not heeded, and the author went ahead and submitted this pile of garbage. /sigh

Too bad it totally violates national economic freedoms, and will likely be pulled.

Compare the vagueness of your definition with that of the Living Wage Act:

DEFINES the Basic Poverty Line as the cost of enough food and drink to keep a person healthy for a week, plus one week's rent for an average one-person dwelling, plus the cost of an average weekly commute between home and work, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of those utilities deemed appropriate, less any income or benefits provided to all workers by the nation;

DEFINES the Dependent Poverty Line as the Basic Poverty Line, substituting an average two-person dwelling for an average one-person dwelling, plus the cost of enough food and drink to keep a dependent healthy for a week, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of schooling for a dependent, less any additional income or benefits provided to all workers with dependents by the nation;

Screams of plagiarism to me.

[Polinasia]

I see my advice was not heeded, and the author went ahead and submitted this pile of garbage. /sigh

Too bad it totally violates national economic freedoms, and will likely be pulled.

Compare the vagueness of your definition with that of the Living Wage Act:

Screams of plagiarism to me.

I have not plagiarised anything and would not call it a piece of garbage either!

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I see my advice was not heeded, and the author went ahead and submitted this pile of garbage. /sigh

Too bad it totally violates national economic freedoms, and will likely be pulled.



Screams of plagiarism to me.

I have not plagiarised anything and would not call it a piece of garbage either!

OOC: Well it certainly is not something worth keeping, or having around, so what would you call it? As for the plagiarism? Seems awfully convenient that DSR's example so closely reflects your definition clause.

[Polinasia]

I have not plagiarised anything and would not call it a piece of garbage either!

OOC: Well it certainly is not something worth keeping, or having around, so what would you call it? As for the plagiarism? Seems awfully convenient that DSR's example so closely reflects your definition clause.

yes I have decided not to submit it but as for you threatening me I didn't like it . and I tell you I never copied anything from the living wage act

It was pure coincidence!

[Normlpeople]

"This is a piece of garbage. A mandatory welfare system is not an international issue, and quite frankly, I would ask you to keep your socialist garbage within your own borders. You may require it, we dont."

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

but as for you threatening me I didn't like it . and I tell you I never copied anything from the living wage act

It was pure coincidence!

Threat? What threat have I made? I called you on your bullshit is all. As for a coincidence? I somehow doubt it, unless you of course can read minds? Also you don't need that many smilies in your response.

[Polinasia]

"This is a piece of garbage. A mandatory welfare system is not an international issue, and quite frankly, I would ask you to keep your socialist garbage within your own borders. You may require it, we dont."

then you should tell the same to the person who wrote the living wage act!

[Polinasia]

but as for you threatening me I didn't like it . and I tell you I never copied anything from the living wage act

It was pure coincidence!

Threat? What threat have I made? I called you on your bullshit is all. As for a coincidence? I somehow doubt it, unless you of course can read minds? Also you don't need that many smilies in your response.

I can see how crooked you are because I can see that you edited the part out from the comment!

[Normlpeople]

then you should tell the same to the person who wrote the living wage act!

"I would gladly have done so if I was here and our Kingdom was part of the assembly at the time. The old king preferred to terrorize his citizens rather than engaging in international politics though.

That said, I have supported both repeals of that act as well as many other resolutions seeking to guarantee economic freedom. Your reply is a poor one... I am on record as what I am."

[Polinasia]

then you should tell the same to the person who wrote the living wage act!

"I would gladly have done so if I was here and our Kingdom was part of the assembly at the time. The old king preferred to terrorize his citizens rather than engaging in international politics though.

That said, I have supported both repeals of that act as well as many other resolutions seeking to guarantee economic freedom. Your reply is a poor one... I am on record as what I am."

Then I will respect what you said but keeping that in mind I am with the living wage act!

[Polinasia]

but as for you threatening me I didn't like it . and I tell you I never copied anything from the living wage act

It was pure coincidence!

Threat? What threat have I made? I called you on your bullshit is all. As for a coincidence? I somehow doubt it, unless you of course can read minds? Also you don't need that many smilies in your response.

well I would like to note that I started with a poorly drafted SBP reservation act and got a suggestion that it was too wide ranged and I should focus on one part of it so I decided to take the part about the food. Please don't mistake me for a person who would like to take credit for what I have not done because I myself am all for the Living wage act and wouldn't like to take credit for it from its author and definitely do not plan on submitting it anymore.

SBP reservation act:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=332705

I first mentioned it in d. and then decided to make an act out of it and then get informed that the living wage act already ensures it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

and then get informed that the living wage act already ensures it.

OOC: The Living Wage Act only applies to people earning a wage. It does nothing for the unemployed. So no, the LWA doesn't cover this issue entirely.