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: Generosity Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: LibCom 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: January 2124
Description[?]:
| The minimum income is to be increased to provide a reasonable standard of living rather than mere subsistence. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Guarantee of minimum income.
Old value:: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government.
Current: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government. However, the provision of this is not to exceed a certian period of time.
Proposed: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a reasonable, though not high, standard of living by the government.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:31:13, September 21, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | so if you don't want to work we will provide you with a nice comfy lifestyle. If you look back through our history you will see that this was the biggest problem with our old creative commons legislation we should not be supporting the lazy. Our economy depends on getting people off their behind and out to work. Those who cannot are another story but as written we could easily have a nation of freeloaders. We will not support this. |
| Date | 04:51:51, September 21, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | Over me dead body. |
| Date | 18:05:10, September 22, 2005 CET | From | United Labour Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | "reasonable, though not high" Guess what that means? Yup, it's a reasonable amount, but not very high; moderate, in the middle. A "reasonable choice". What is guaranteed at the moment is only the most basic amount to sustain life, and those on benefits will almost certainly be unable to lead a healthy lifetyle, which will in turn disadvantage their children and families. This isn't a large increase, but it is necessary if we want people to be able to do more than just struggle to survive, and in any case, this money will be used in trying to find a new job. |
| Date | 23:33:01, September 22, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | why find a job if the government will support you and give you enough to have a comfortable life. We already have housing, food, retirement probably a few others. We will support people so they do not go hungry or homeless, but we will not give people money for tv's, radios, cars, etc. (OOC: clearly a resonable support level for the US and GB) If they want more they need to contribute to the society. |
| Date | 01:35:43, September 23, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | No matter how high their standard of living, people generally want more, and are willing to work for it. What this bill will do is force employers to offer decent wages. |
| Date | 00:38:24, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | what this bill will do is drive up the cost of living, employers will raise salaries, which results in higher prices, which results in us having to raise what we pay, which results in employers having to pay more to get people in the door etc. We need to make sure no one suffers in our nation, not that no one is without a color tv. |
| Date | 01:49:57, September 26, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | What happens when half the workforce chooses to go this route? This idea is just not economically sound, no matter how well intentioned it is. I think the law as is is decent enough. |
| Date | 21:55:25, October 08, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | Either put this to a vote or delete this. Having it sit around for 8 years is ridiculous... |
| Date | 01:07:29, October 10, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | Putting this to the vote. It is our firm belief that we have sufficient technology to maintain a productive economy and a high standard of living for all with a minimum of toil. We shouldn't be forcing people to work just for the sake of it. |
| Date | 01:08:32, October 10, 2005 CET | From | Social and Labour Reform Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | We will definitely support this bill. All people should be entitled to a basic standard of living. |
| Date | 01:17:00, October 10, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | I think if this bill passes, I'm going to quit my job and enjoy the free lifestyle Malivia is going to grant to me. |
| Date | 01:25:17, October 10, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Generosity Act |
| Message | We do not see the infrastructure present to permit this generousity. In short there is still much to do in our nation before we can hand out free lunches and dinners and houses and tv's and cars and washer and dryers etc. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 38 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 44 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 18 |
| Random fact: Discuss flag designs at the Flag Designs thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37 |
| Random quote: "And what is Aleppo?" - Gary Johnson |