[Passed] Repeal "Safety in Difficult Times"

[FreeWillToAll]

Submit the GHR again. they removed the wrong one

[Aetrina]

The Kingdom of Aetrina strongly supports the repeal.

[Smullania]

Sorry, that was a poor choice of words And sorry for being argumentative, but then what is the WA for than?

For determining purely international law.

[Flibbleites]

Submit the GHR again. they removed the wrong one

You also used the wrong [nation] tag.

[Mahaj]

Submit the GHR again. they removed the wrong one

You also used the wrong [nation] tag.

Thats what i had told him in TG.

[Ermonte]

Ermonte supports a repeal simply because SP stoll an economy point from me. Not the greatest reason for supporting a repeal but i do like have a frightening economy

[The nine cities]

The people of the Nine Cities support this repeal. Places far too much burden upon the government of a WA nation, should be left to the individual nation to decide what their welfare programme is.

[FreeWillToAll]

that's it, it got messed up again. proposal ill go rip the hair out of my head

But i think it'll do

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Just make sure they don't remove the second one instead.

Then they shouldn't have submitted it twice.

The voices speak wisdom. Both.

I deserve to die a thousand deaths for giving the wrong advice.

[EY Diplomatic Headquarters]

The delay may have been good, though. He gained a whole 11 hours.

[Kryozerkia]

Then they shouldn't have submitted it twice.

The voices speak wisdom. Both.

I deserve to die a thousand deaths for giving the wrong advice.

Now, now, don't be hard on yourself. It was a small mistake. People make mistakes.

[Mahaj]

The voices speak wisdom. Both.

I deserve to die a thousand deaths for giving the wrong advice.

Now, now, don't be hard on yourself. It was a small mistake. People make mistakes.

Will the author be penalized though? I don't think he should be...

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Now, now, don't be hard on yourself. It was a small mistake. People make mistakes.

Will the author be penalized though? I don't think he should be...

I do hope not.. it'll be my fault.

[Mahaj]

Will the author be penalized though? I don't think he should be...

I do hope not.. it'll be my fault.

I don't think anyone should be blamed here, but nobody should be penalized.

[Morlago]

I voted for on SiDT, so I will take a closer look at this on the WA floor if it reaches quorum. However, it is very late here and I just skimmed it, but as of now, we are leaning towards for.

[Miniature Dachshunds]

Despite initially casting our vote for the resolution in question, SiDT, our delegation choose to vote against in the end. Despite the resolution's noble intentions, we don't believe this level of interference in the economic operation of member states is warranted. This delegation would be inclined to support a repeal.

[Moronist Decisions]

Honestly, I don't see the big deal about a couple of statistical points. As nations, we should be looking at the big picture - both in terms of overall economy and how income is distributed. These are not captured in the stats.

From our standpoint, and noting that we assume that everyone will want to work - it is written in our constitution that those who are unwilling to work will be sentenced to re-education until repentance.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, The proposal does not specify what is an ''Illness severe enough to prevent the beneficiary from working.'' This generates room for problems. A citizen could easily use this loophole to avoid working.

I think it's clear actually - an illness that actually would stop someone from working. How do you specify such an illness without referring to a committee or alternately write something that will be micromanagement.

NOTING, ''Safety in Difficult Times'' specifies that unemployment benefits be given to those involuntarily unemployed. It does allow for those involuntarily unemployed due to being fired for incompetence, among many other reasons one may be fired. This leaves a loophole open for those who are unwilling to work to cause themselves to be fired and receive benefits.

Fine, not that we think there will be too many of them ...

ADDITIONALLY NOTING, bereavement clause is unneeded and will be abused by those not interested in working. For example; A middle aged citizen whose father or mother died could take a whole year's vacation paid by the government. In reality, while the loss of a loved one is a terrible thing, it does not require a person to be out of work for any significant length of time.

That's true - the full length is unnecessary in retrospect. I do believe that some bereavement leave is essential, to take care of funeral and probate issues.

FURTHER NOTING, This resolution requires the dispensation of funds when one gives birth to a child or adopts one (See Parental Leave Section 4). For one, there is no specified length of time for the benefits to last. Secondly, there is nothing stating that the new parents must keep the child. Thirdly, there is nothing regarding cases of neglect.

No, since that's covered by the Child Protection Act

WORRIES about the provisions of section 5b); ''Pensions for survivors who are minors shall last until they have attained a basic education and are able to work''. This is a very lengthy time for anyone to receive benefits. This would basically allow the child's guardian to live off the government dime the entire time since the provision states that benefits must be enough to provide for housing, food, utilities, and schooling costs. There is no reason that a child's guardian could not obtain work in a reasonable amount of time. Single parents of divorce do it every day.

We interpret that this means that the child should receive support. Who said that the child's guardian will receive support? So we disagree.

The most cogent clause in this is whether this is something for a nation to decide. We actually think that there should be a safety net - and that the nation is the ultimate safety net. We strongly believe that the right to live is the highest right of all human rights, and nations have an important obligation to protect that, going beyond minor details of their economy.

The devil is always in the details, however; at this point we are on the fence. SiDT does verge on the overtly detailed, but is it enough to repeal that? We are unsure about this.

Jane Crick.

[Kryozerkia]

Now, now, don't be hard on yourself. It was a small mistake. People make mistakes.

Will the author be penalized though? I don't think he should be...

The only penalty was the removal of the duplicate submission.

[Mahaj]

Will the author be penalized though? I don't think he should be...

The only penalty was the removal of the duplicate submission.

Ah.

[Shikkago]

notes:

Since it seem inevitable thatSafety in Difficult Times will did pass, I have written up a repeal. Keep in mind this is my first resolution and might not be up to par so I would appreciate any suggestions.

Proposal Submitted

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #156: Safety in Difficult Times ([spoiler]Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

OBSERVING the need to provide safety nets and protection in Difficult Times.

APPLAUDING all countries that are and have been providing welfare to persons located in their jurisdiction.

REALIZING not all countries have the resources to do so; especially in hard economic times.

FRIGHTENED, that this may force nations to raise taxes, which may cripple already struggling economies.

CONCERNED that this resolution has many loopholes that may be abused, and such abuse, and the oversight needed to catch offenders, will cost nations even more money that they may not have.

all this I strongly agree with and I like the wording. Well said, damn straight, & hell yea.

NOTING, ''Safety in Difficult Times'' specifies that unemployment benefits be given to those involuntarily unemployed.[spoiler] It does allow for those involuntarily unemployed due to being fired for incompetence, among many other reasons one may be fired. This leaves a loophole open for those who are unwilling to work to cause themselves to be fired and receive benefits.

ADDITIONALLY NOTING, bereavement clause is unneeded and will be abused by those not interested in working. [Strike]For example; A middle aged citizen whose father or mother died could take a whole year's vacation paid by the government. [/Strike In reality, while the loss of a loved one is a terrible thing, it does not require a person to be out of work for any significant length of time.

I'd humbly suggest some changes to the wording here. the "unwilling to work" line bugs me...IDK how to say it... it just makes it seem too concerned with some fear of "lazy moochers" lol.

FURTHER NOTING, This resolution requires the dispensation of funds when one gives birth to a child or adopts one (See Parental Leave Section 4). For one, there is no specified length of time for the benefits to last. [spoiler]Secondly, there is nothing stating that the new parents must keep the child. Thirdly, there is nothing regarding cases of neglect.

WORRIES about the provisions of section 5b); ''Pensions for survivors who are minors shall last until they have attained a basic education and are able to work''. This is a very lengthy time for anyone to receive benefits. This would basically allow the child's guardian to live off the government dime the entire time since the provision states that benefits must be enough to provide for housing, food, utilities, and schooling costs. There is no reason that a child's guardian could not obtain work in a reasonable amount of time. Single parents of divorce do it every day.

excellent points. The act was too vague, had too many loopholes, and will be too easily abused. this is a really good reason to appeal any law! I absolutely agree.

REALIZES this is an attempt at international welfare, which each member nation is capable of seeing to themselves if they are able and willing. Many have them already, which makes this resolution redundant. Not only this, but such a Socialist piece of legislation is an ideology; something which member states are prohibited to force on others, as the rights and duties of World Assembly states declares.

this is basically true in a subjective way, tho I think you could argue these points endlessly and the way you phrased it is vague & somewhat hyperbolic. I suggest revision. For example, I wouldn't use the head "REALIZES" but a word like "ARGUING" or "SUGGESTS", y'kno wat i'm sayin?

ADDITIONALLY NOTING, due to the cultural and societal differences in all of the countries in the World Assembly, welfare is an issue that must be solved domestically and crafted to the specific needs and wants of the target population and through.

the differences are not limited to cultural and societal, in fact I think that's likely a small piece of it compared with Economy, Size, Population, etc.

RESOLVES, that the ''Safety in Difficult Times'' resolution is poorly worded, ambiguous, and addresses an issue that should be resolved domestically.

HEREBY REPEALS ''Safety in Difficult Times

Right on.
We definitely need to repeal but I'd like to see this tightened up a bit first. I think it should focus more on the practical issues and less on ideology/political issues. We want to avoid sounding biased or prejudicial.
I also think that instead of just using the word "Socialist", maybe you could talk about the specific concern, such as that you are concerned that it forces individuals to give up a higher percentage of their incomes to the State (IMHO creating more powerful states by weakening the power of the people). We think this could cause economic problems in some nations, but more importantly it threatens the individual liberty of the people (what if they don't want to be taxed so high? Shouldn't they be able to vote on such laws in countries where the people have chosen to live in a democracy)?
I think it should be noted that the repeal is good for all nations, socialist, libertarian, big, small, etc (after all the point of the WA is to focus on global harmony, eh?), because it's never a good thing to have an easily corrupted law on the books. Aside from these concerns, I am totally behind this. Thanks for writing it up!

[Moronist Decisions]

Note: once a proposal is submitted, it cannot be edited.

[FreeWillToAll]

However if it is defeated it could be resubmitted with changes at a later time

[Zhelezo]

I am against repealing this resolution. This is a great step forward for mankind. Having a happy and healthy population should be the number one priority of a government. If a government can't make its people happy, then it should take its priorities off of business and onto actually making them happy.

[Iksalvor]

I am against repealing this resolution. This is a great step forward for mankind. Having a happy and healthy population should be the number one priority of a government. If a government can't make it's people happy, then it should take its priorities off of business and onto actually making them happy.

We cannot make our people happy if our economy is ruined by paying for those who are unable or unwilling to work. Assisting your fellow man, while a noble intention, is something that is completely voluntary. The Assembly has no right to force any government to do so.

Businesses are what power our nations. Whether indirectly or directly, they provide funding to any endeavor we take upon ourselves. Taxing the business taxes the employees. Pure and simple, this redistributes where the money our citizens rightly earn to another's pocket, without any actual business or trading transactions being taken between two parties. That such a system is "a great step forward for mankind" is difficult to see.

[Corumm]

I am against repealing this resolution. This is a great step forward for mankind. Having a happy and healthy population should be the number one priority of a government. If a government can't make it's people happy, then it should take its priorities off of business and onto actually making them happy.

It is hard to take this statement seriously considering it comes from a corrupt dictatorship