[DRAFT #1] Welfare Equity Compact

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 1,915
Word count: 319

IC: Please take up your quibbles with Bianca Venkman, assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador.
OOC:

• see also: "All of the young people BBC Three spoke to were shocked when they found out they had to enter their partner's salary when applying."
• If you're still confused by Article c, recall Atos' management of Work Capability Assessments in the United Kingdom.
• "How does this not contradict GA#344?" This proposal concerns "any form of regular cash payment," regardless of whether or not it facilitates a minimum standard of living for those who receive it.

Welfare Equity Compact
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Aware that member states are allowed, but not required, to make regular cash payments to individuals in need under GA#344 "Minimum Standard of Living Act,"

Concerned that member states that do conduct such payments are not currently prohibited by resolution from denying any person access to these payments on the basis that they live with somebody who themselves make too much money to access them, and

Believing that this injustice - and the inevitable result of forcing said rejects to seek uncertain (and sometimes virtually nonexistent) financial help from friends, family, and romantic partners instead of allowing them to benefit from a reliable social security net - should be prohibited on an international scale...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "P" as a person who has a genuine need of any form of regular cash payment from their government, and would be legally eligible to receive that form of payment in the circumstances they were in at the time such a need arose had they been living on their own at that time,
   2. "P's partner" as any person who is married to, in a civil union with, or otherwise cohabiting with P, and
   3. "income" as including income earned or savings made by a person,
2. orders member governments not to prohibit P from receiving any form of regular cash payment from them simply because, at the time of P seeking such payment, the combined annual income of P and (all of) P's partner(s) would have rendered P ineligible for such payment,
3. urges members in the strongest possible terms to ensure that any regular cash payments they dispense are given to individual applicants rather than households, and
4. clarifies that Article b still applies to a member state even when any part of the process of applying for regular cash payments from that member's government has been outsourced.

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Marie vyn Nysen: "The intent of this proposal seems fair to me, and I find myself in agreement with it in broad terms. An applicant for welfare should not be rejected simply because they have a partner who earns "too much". However, I do have a small gripe with one particular phrasing early on in the draft:

"who themselves make too much money to access them"

Perhaps it is because I immediately translate this phrase to my native language, but the current phrasing sounds somewhat casual. Wouldn’t something along the lines of "who themselves earn a living" sound more distinguished?"

[Bananaistan]

"While we agree that this is a difficult situation for people, we are opposed to this being blanket policy. It is too much meddling in member states' internal taxation and welfare systems. Married couples being jointly assessed for such things is hardly unreasonable, there's no good reason to have the state supporting a millionaire's spouse. Merely cohabitating young people or temporary roommates is another question. If the proposal solely addressed these last two we would perhaps reconsider our opposition.

"Incidentally, in all situations in Bananaistan, a person claiming temporary social assistance having already made a certain level of social insurance contributions is exempt from any means test for the first 12 months of a claim. This is a better solution to the issue than having lifetime payments being made to someone who is already supported by their spouse. "

[Separatist Peoples]

"Poorly written, domestic concern, and bad policy to boot. The trifrcta! Opposed."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"We concur with the Separatist delegation. In fact, we encourage the Tinhamptonian delegation to look into the criminalization of failing to support one's spouse as a far better policy alternative than wasteful government spending."

OOC:
See generally: Chapter 14 Section 322 of the North Carolina General Statutes or 13 Arizona Revised Statutes 3610 off the top of my head or Chapitre VI of the Code Civile.

[Daarwyrth]

"We concur with the Separatist delegation. In fact, we encourage the Tinhamptonian delegation to look into the criminalization of failing to support one's spouse as a far better policy alternative than wasteful government spending."

"Forgive me, Ambassador, but is the government not meant to be the caretaker of its people? The people entrust their safety, their wellbeing, their very existence to the state from the moment they are born, or choose a nation as their home. How could providing for those citizens be "wasteful government spending", I wonder? Does a parent not take care of its child? As an infant as well as when it endures hard times as an adult? In much the same way, the citizens are children of the state. It is good when the children are capable to take care of themselves, but they need to be able to have a safety net, a place of refuge when times are hard.

Naturally, the wife of a millionaire should not receive welfare support, unless there are extreme circumstances involved that would warrant support. However, everyone deserves to be treated equally in equal circumstances. While this proposal could definitely benefit from a lot of polishing, I would not consider the intent behind the proposal as bad, namely to provide a larger security net for those who need and deserve it. If such a security net can't be provided domestically, then at least this international body could elicit it coming into existence by legislation on this subject."

[Thermodolia]

“Against. If you are partners living together, which in Thermodolia considered to be common law marriage, and one of these partners makes more than is necessary to apply for benefits then don’t apply for benefits as you can clearly rely on your partner for assistance.”

[Daarwyrth]

“Against. If you are partners living together, which in Thermodolia considered to be common law marriage, and one of these partners makes more than is necessary to apply for benefits then don’t apply for benefits as you can clearly rely on your partner for assistance.”

"Ambassador, yet does the "solution" that you propose not force someone who is already in a vulnerable position into a state of economic dependence on their partner? I could imagine some very unpleasant, if not toxic, relationships arising from such a thing."

[Thermodolia]

“Against. If you are partners living together, which in Thermodolia considered to be common law marriage, and one of these partners makes more than is necessary to apply for benefits then don’t apply for benefits as you can clearly rely on your partner for assistance.”

"Ambassador, yet does the "solution" that you propose not force someone who is already in a vulnerable position into a state of economic dependence on their partner? I could imagine some very unpleasant, if not toxic, relationships arising from such a thing."

“It is not our governments concern”

[Daarwyrth]

"Ambassador, yet does the "solution" that you propose not force someone who is already in a vulnerable position into a state of economic dependence on their partner? I could imagine some very unpleasant, if not toxic, relationships arising from such a thing."

“It is not our governments concern”

"Yet your government chose to become part of a greater whole, namely the WA. Surely your government must feel some sense of solidarity in this regard? Because if not for your citizens, then for whom did you join this international body? I can't imagine it is your intent to leave your citizens uncared for."

[Thermodolia]

“It is not our governments concern”

"Yet your government chose to become part of a greater whole, namely the WA. Surely your government must feel some sense of solidarity in this regard? Because if not for your citizens, then for whom did you join this international body? I can't imagine it is your intent to leave your citizens uncared for."

“Our citizens are cared for. However we do not believe it’s the governments concern if someone has a partner who has enough money to not qualify for more benefits. That is not our governments concern. We will not hand out benefits to those who have a lot.”

[Daarwyrth]

"Yet your government chose to become part of a greater whole, namely the WA. Surely your government must feel some sense of solidarity in this regard? Because if not for your citizens, then for whom did you join this international body? I can't imagine it is your intent to leave your citizens uncared for."

“Our citizens are cared for. However we do not believe it’s the governments concern if someone has a partner who has enough money to not qualify for more benefits. That is not our governments concern. We will not hand out benefits to those who have a lot.”

"I agree that such welfare aid should not be granted freely to those who don't need it. Yet I'd argue that attaching provisions to such a welfare programme would be more beneficial than to discard it entirely. That way benefits will be granted to those who truly need it, while being fair and honest in the process. Remember, Ambassador, that a term like 'a lot' is highly subjective and dependent on the situation. For example, 3.000 royales is a lot for a single individual living in a small apartment on their own. 3.000 royales for a family of five is an entirely different matter. Which is why I say 'equal treatment, in equal circumstances'."