We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Pension Reform of 2369
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Democratic Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2370
Description[?]:
| Currently, our pension system is non-existent. It is the government's duty to help give aid to its citizens when they need it most. Pension is one of the most integral structures of society. It aids those who are beyond the working age, or those who are disabled. It is necessary for the government to give aid to its people, for the nation's well being. This bill would also give financial assistance to adults not supported by another person a modest standard of living by the government. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Guarantee of minimum income.
Old value:: There shall be no direct cash payments to individuals to guarantee a minimum income.
Current: There shall be no direct cash payments to individuals to guarantee a minimum income.
Proposed: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the pension system.
Old value:: The state does not operate a pension system. Individuals must save up for retirement on their own.
Current: The state does not operate a pension system. Individuals must save up for retirement on their own.
Proposed: The state operates a compulsory, public pension system.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:21:17, March 06, 2007 CET | From |  Moderate Republican Party | To | Debating the Pension Reform of 2369 |
| Message | We cannot support this bill based on the first article. It guarruntees a minimum income to any person without a job if they are not supported by another. This is unfair to Jakania's hardworking tax payers, who actually have stable jobs, to provide an unemployed person with monetary payments. Basically, under this law, a person can purposely remain unemployed and still reap a marginal income at the govenment's expense. |
| Date | 18:15:49, March 06, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Pension Reform of 2369 |
| Message | Really, so you would oppose giving aid to elderly senior citizens? What about senior citizens? They reap in all the money from the hard-working tax payers. Is it because they're too lazy to get a job too? Read what the bill says: "All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government." Because we are going to give out a basic amount of money, barely livable, you think that the nation is going to run into a deficit? We thought the M.R.P. was for spending all of the surplus? We have a 92,645,867,541 JAK surplus, and you're afraid of giving away money that will take care of the nation's people? We thought the M.R.P. was for taking care of the people, but you've proved us wrong once again. This is not unfair to those who work. Most people who will receive this money are unemployed! Any sensible person would not use this money just so they can be lazy. Only a conservative would think like that. Most of these people would be happy to have a job, if they could find one! It is a crude and horrible stereotype to think that the poor are lazy bums who don't want to work. No person with any intelligence would think like that. This gives them the money to eat and that's about it. This will not cover anything extravagant. This will barely, most likely not even, cover all the person's needs. |
| Date | 18:47:15, March 06, 2007 CET | From | Moderate Republican Party | To | Debating the Pension Reform of 2369 |
| Message | We will support a proposal that guaruntees a basic income to unemployed citizens, but ONLY for a SMALL TIME PERIOD such as two months. This current proposal guaruntees a minimum income to citizens, even if they remain unemployed for a long period of time. Also, most employers provide their employees with buyouts in their contracts if they are released. |
| Date | 18:58:40, March 06, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Pension Reform of 2369 |
| Message | Did the M.R.P. even read what we put? You obviously don't understand this situation. |
| Date | 19:03:35, March 06, 2007 CET | From | Moderate Republican Party | To | Debating the Pension Reform of 2369 |
| Message | We posted our previous comment before we noticed the LDP's lengthy explanation. We believe the first article covers senior citizens because it provides them with a public pension system. We fully back the first proposal and would vote for this bill if it were not for the second article. |
| Date | 19:15:11, March 06, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Pension Reform of 2369 |
| Message | WHAT??? You said you absolutely disagreed with the first article???!!!! The second and first articles are both in regards to senior citizens!!! AND THE SECOND ARTICLE CLEARLY READS: "The state does not operate a pension system. Individuals must save up for retirement on their own. Proposed: The state operates a compulsory, public pension system." Save up for retirement on their own! Yet you disagree with it? The second article is basically Social Security! |
| Date | 20:29:30, March 06, 2007 CET | From | Scientific Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Pension Reform of 2369 |
| Message | "The second article is basically Social Security" is actually a very good argument against it. In any event, we plan to die well before we get old, and we really don't appreciate the government's efforts to take our money. If we wind up living that long after all, we will take our lack of money with glee. If we did plan to live long enough to see the benefit of a pension, then we would be saving for it ourselves. There is no reason for the government to get involved (except possibly people who are too weak-willed to save money for themselves, to which my response is 'why are we helping them, exactly?'). In any event, we don't support taking money from the young and healthy and giving it to the old and useless. |
| Date | 21:01:31, March 06, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Pension Reform of 2369 |
| Message | How'd we guess you'd say something like that? |
| Date | 21:30:21, March 06, 2007 CET | From | United Democrats of Jakania | To | Debating the Pension Reform of 2369 |
| Message | ah yes, thank you for taking the bill the I proposed like 3 or 4 times(joking) |
| Date | 03:24:13, March 07, 2007 CET | From | Moderate Republican Party | To | Debating the Pension Reform of 2369 |
| Message | Due to its affiliation with the Allied Protectors of the Supremer Council alliance, the MRP begrudgingly votes "yes" on this issue. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 210 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 265 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 5 |
| Random fact: "Spamming", or the indiscriminate posting of unsolicited messages, is not allowed. |
| Random quote: "He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." - Aristotle |