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: Retirement
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Labour 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 2140
Description[?]:
| We propose that the retirement age is changed to 65 to reflect the increasing life-length of the population, this has two distinct advantages, more money into the economy and less of a drain on social services. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The professional retirement age.
Old value:: 58
Current: 60
Proposed: 60
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:11:28, November 06, 2005 CET | From | Imperial Malivian Party | To | Debating the Retirement |
| Message | We are against this bill as it was not summited to the assembly for the 5 to 8 month debate period which is required for all bills accept in the case of emergencies. |
| Date | 10:08:43, November 07, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Retirement |
| Message | OOC: three things for your info one: this bill does not actually change the age you need to add a proposal to do that which you can do only in the debate stage but good news is... two: this bill will not have a chance to pass before the next election and will be kicked back into debate in June of 2137 game time. Most bills need 8 months voting time, exceptions are cabinet, budget, spending maybe others I can't think of off hand. three: Malivian law requires a 5 month debate period for bills before moving them to a vote, see the bill- assembly rules in the debate list on the country page for other rules (its a short list) IC: how much is enough labour, already our citizens toil for 40 yrs in the salt mines (or wherever their work place is) Now we want to raise it another 7 yrs. Why cannnot we allow anyone in Malivia except the independently wealthy to enjoy their retirement? 47 yrs of hard labour leaves one unable to enjoy any of their retirement as they will be spending it in a hospital bed. Those who wish to work are free to do so, but we should not demand nearly half a century of work before we release the money we have put aside for them. This bill punishes those in physical jobs as they are the ones who most need to retire, yet we refuse them their own money. The wealthy do not need it and those in white-collar work do not have the same need to retire for their health. We are against this bill completely. |
| Date | 00:01:36, November 08, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Retirement |
| Message | Hear hear! There's no point having a strong economy if the people can't enjoy the benefits. |
| Date | 09:44:28, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Labour Party | To | Debating the Retirement |
| Message | People will be able to benfit from raising the retirement age, more money into the economy = better health care, more police and a better education for everyone. |
| Date | 12:51:11, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Labour Party | To | Debating the Retirement |
| Message | Having listened to the other parties opinions, we would like to propose meeting halfway by only increasing the retirement age by 2 years. |
| Date | 19:59:11, November 11, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Retirement |
| Message | Unemployment is over 7% in some provinces. Do we really need a larger workforce? |
| Date | 21:12:58, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Labour Party | To | Debating the Retirement |
| Message | If there is a problem with unempolyment then we should try to find other ways of reducing it, but we believe the retirement age is to low. |
| Date | 15:51:11, November 12, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Retirement |
| Message | What a strange position for a party that calls itself 'progressive' and 'labour', both of which would suggest a desire to improve the lives of the workers. |
| Date | 20:46:24, November 12, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Retirement |
| Message | this in no way forces anyone into retirement at this age, rather it is the earliest a person can retire and collect government benefits. Those who are likely to take advantage of this are those in physically demanding jobs where adding two yrs would dramatically increase the health risks. We have no crisis which requires our citizens to work more yrs, no population boom, no shortage of labour, no war needs. So why are we forcing these two more yrs on people who lwould like to retire? |
| Date | 22:27:23, November 12, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Retirement |
| Message | I want to say I fought to increase it from 55 to the present 58. Personally, I think 58 is reasonable, but 60 isn't unfair either. We have to consider our budget. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 205 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 96 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Before choosing a nation, you may wish to research it first. For more information on the cultural backgrounds of the nations, please see the Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365 |
| Random quote: "Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous." - William Proxmire |