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: Child Benefit (Establishment) Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: RSDP - Democratic Front
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: January 2133
Description[?]:
| An Act to provide for Child Benefit for all families, in order to aid them in raising their children. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding child benefit.
Old value:: The state does not provide child benefit.
Current: The state guarantees child benefit to families classified as low-income or poor.
Proposed: The state guarantees child benefit to all families.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:59:59, October 26, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Child Benefit (Establishment) Act |
| Message | We believe that only low-income families and large families require Child Benefit, however, should other parties feel that all families should be entitled to Child Benefit, we will amend the current bill accordingly. |
| Date | 20:11:31, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Alcoholic Party II | To | Debating the Child Benefit (Establishment) Act |
| Message | Rather child benefit for all than child benefit for some. In my opinion, taking from all and giving to some is more egregious than taking from all and giving back to all. |
| Date | 21:47:19, October 26, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Child Benefit (Establishment) Act |
| Message | We would prefer a more general tax measure, and also agree that we would prefer the second option to the first although we are not likely to support either. |
| Date | 12:55:23, October 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Child Benefit (Establishment) Act |
| Message | The change suggested by the LAP has been made, we will now put this bill to vote. |
| Date | 13:36:25, October 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Child Benefit (Establishment) Act |
| Message | Why is the Radical Freedom Party opposed to this Act, I feel it is only common sense we ensure that all children are raised decently, even if their parents can't afford that themselves. |
| Date | 14:56:28, October 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Child Benefit (Establishment) Act |
| Message | I was under the impression that the LAP would vote in favour of this after the change I made... |
| Date | 18:44:45, October 28, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Child Benefit (Establishment) Act |
| Message | We believe in a system of tax which is progressive - giving specific benefits to parents runs contrary to our established platform of equality and justice for all Rutanians. We are also uncomfortable with policies which promote families over individual lifestyles. The State should not be promoting any single lifestyle. |
| Date | 19:03:54, October 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Child Benefit (Establishment) Act |
| Message | We are not promoting families, we are merely ensuring that each child is raised decently. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 306 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 293 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation. |
| Random quote: Wait a min was we tricked into voting for absolute monarchy (Jamie Jamesson, Chancellor of Luthori 4269-4310) |