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: Freedom in the Context of Forced Retirement
Details
Submitted by[?]: II / Newsnight Faction
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: November 2142
Description[?]:
| The age of compulsory retirement is, in the II view, absurd. But as we cannot remove it, we wish to at least increase it, to protect people in their careers from bosses and the scrapheap. Our people are living longer. Education takes up more years now than before. So why not alter the retirement age to reflect these changes? |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The professional retirement age.
Old value:: 60
Current: 65
Proposed: 70
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:28:10, November 17, 2005 CET | From | II / Newsnight Faction | To | Debating the Freedom in the Context of Forced Retirement |
| Message | I set it to 70 because that's the maximum. In reality I want no mandatory retirement age at all. 1000 would do! "Early retirement" should be the way all retirement works. Voluntary, and personal. |
| Date | 19:30:11, November 17, 2005 CET | From | II / Newsnight Faction | To | Debating the Freedom in the Context of Forced Retirement |
| Message | I made this bill earlier in the afternoon, but apparently the server went down afterwards and the database was rolled back a month. That time I had it going from 60->65. But this time I figured, why not show what I really think... 70 it is. |
| Date | 19:31:06, November 17, 2005 CET | From |  Pàrtaidh Sòisealach na h- Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom in the Context of Forced Retirement |
| Message | Eh fuck no Torie boy |
| Date | 19:31:14, November 17, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Socialists of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom in the Context of Forced Retirement |
| Message | The LSE opposes this as it will mean the government is under no obligation to offer a full pension until people reach the age of 70, a ridiculously long time for anyone to have to work. |
| Date | 20:08:18, November 17, 2005 CET | From | II / Newsnight Faction | To | Debating the Freedom in the Context of Forced Retirement |
| Message | ISP, I remember all your previous arguments about lowering the age of retirement to 50! We did come to a consensus on it - looking up the appropriate bill: http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=9770 Basically (like MLC said in that debate) a fixed retirement age is absurd. If we're scared of people wanting to reture before they've even begun working, we can simply make sure the state pension increases with age, so that the very young would be worse off than with the minimum wage. Retirement is all to often forced on people, and they decay in horrid stale lives which have little meaning for them - especially if they have no children and other relatives. Why force that on anyone? The whole area should be optional. |
| Date | 20:11:35, November 17, 2005 CET | From | United Front for Marxism | To | Debating the Freedom in the Context of Forced Retirement |
| Message | I was under the impression that the retirement age didnt mean mandatory retirement, but simply the age at which the state pension becomes available. |
| Date | 02:47:46, November 18, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of New Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom in the Context of Forced Retirement |
| Message | No just because I want it at 65. |
| Date | 12:52:24, November 18, 2005 CET | From | United Front for Marxism | To | Debating the Freedom in the Context of Forced Retirement |
| Message | I would support 65, I think. |
| Date | 17:25:18, November 18, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Socialists of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom in the Context of Forced Retirement |
| Message | The LSE would like the age reduced to 50 or 55. |
| Date | 22:13:25, November 18, 2005 CET | From | Pàrtaidh Sòisealach na h- Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom in the Context of Forced Retirement |
| Message | I agree with the LSE, i have proposed this before but all the partys are run by the middle class who can work till there 70 cause there all rich and have easy jobs. The point is not to increase it but decrease it, but those who don't like bowls and golf can continue working. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 197 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 285 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 17 |
| Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass. |
| Random quote: "A man who has no office to go to - I don't care who he is - is a trial of which you can have no conception." - George Bernard Shaw |