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: Welfare Equality and Waste Reduction Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party
Status[?]: passed
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: March 2605
Description[?]:
| . |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding child benefit.
Old value:: The state guarantees child benefit to families classified as low-income or poor.
Current: The state guarantees child benefit to both low-income families and large families.
Proposed: The state guarantees child benefit to all families.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the pension system.
Old value:: The state operates a compulsory, public pension system.
Current: The state operates a compulsory, public pension system.
Proposed: There is a compulsory private pension system.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:25:43, July 10, 2008 CET | From | The Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Welfare Equality and Waste Reduction Act |
| Message | 1. Oppose - The CP call this a 'Waste Reduction Act' yet wish to pay additional benefits to couples who are quite capable of supporting families through their own incomes and have taken the choice to have children anyway? It is a frivolous waste of the tax payers money. 2. Oppose - We are interested to hear the CP's moral logic behind this one, given the proposal in article 1. 3. Oppose - We would like to hear the CP's reasoning on this matter. |
| Date | 18:13:38, July 10, 2008 CET | From | Enlightened Cosmic Brotherhood | To | Debating the Welfare Equality and Waste Reduction Act |
| Message | Oppose, 100%. |
| Date | 21:12:18, July 10, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Welfare Equality and Waste Reduction Act |
| Message | Article one is meant to introduce equality into our welfare system. Why should the poor who do no work get child benefit while hard working families do not? We would fully support getting rid of child support all together but we comprimise on an issue of equality. Article two highlights that we shouldn't be just giving out money to our citizens. This is a dissincentive to work put simply. It is wasteful and disgraceful. Article three was introduced to all citizens the freedom to set up for retirement in their own way. One standard government system is not good enough. By mandating retirement funds but allowing citizens to decide how to fund their retirement we allow choice. In addition much more substainial gains can be achieved and more growth brought into the economy. We are not quite sure why there is so much opposition to the bill. Hopefully these explainations help to get support for this most important bill. |
| Date | 03:16:44, July 11, 2008 CET | From | Enlightened Cosmic Brotherhood | To | Debating the Welfare Equality and Waste Reduction Act |
| Message | In response to the Conservative Party: We agree fully on Article 1 and your reasoning. Article Two does not provide any dissicentives to work. It simply allows it so our citizens do not die of starvation in their own filth and (thanks to your bills) so they can afford health care. The paychecks are small and do not allow citizens to drive expensive cars or even afford luxuries. They simply make it so citizens do not fall through the cracks from "lower class" to "urban underclass" and become homeless, unemployable wrecks. If a plant closes down due to loss of profits thanks to the rising loss of compassion and rise of privatization due to a certain two parties, what would you have the employed do? Should they hope they get a job, and the ones who do not are forced to start again at the far bottom? Or should they have equal footing and prove themselves with their merit and dilligence, not their social and economic abilities. Article three is simply a way to take the burden off multi-million dollar companies and onto the citizenry. If a man works 50 hours a week at a job which affords him a basic living, how is he supposed to save for his own retirement? What if he should need to retire early due to injury or serious crises? What if he has not saved enough to deal with rises in inflation or standard of living costs? Our citizens pay taxes into the system and deserve to be refuned when the time comes. |
| Date | 20:21:13, July 11, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Welfare Equality and Waste Reduction Act |
| Message | Article two will be removed to try for some moderation on this bill. Your argument of article three (now to be two) does not really make sense. This pension system is still mandatory. If it stays the same, the worker must still pay into the system. If it changes, the worker chooses which system to pay into. The hypothetical that you provide will not be changed by this bill. A worker must still pay into a system, private or state-run. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 396 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 319 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Parties have the ability to endorse another party's candidate for the Head of State election (if there is one). This adds a strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." - Mahatma Gandhi |