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: Pension Plan
Details
Submitted by[?]: Green Moderate 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: January 2149
Description[?]:
| If we want to ensure our older citizens some income after retirement regardless of major crises that may have drained their retirement fund, a compulsory, public pension system will help this out. This is especially recommended since we don't give cash welfare to anyone. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the pension system.
Old value:: The state does not operate a pension system. Individuals must save up for retirement on their own.
Current: The state offers a voluntary public pension, combined with other voluntary private pensions.
Proposed: The state operates a compulsory public system combined with an optional private pension.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:51:25, November 28, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | Once again, I don't mind a subsitance public pension plan, coupled with a private system to allow those who wish to live beyond subsistance to put additional money away. I also favour tax incentives to encourage people to save more of their earning in private pension plans. |
| Date | 22:17:40, November 28, 2005 CET | From | North Majatran Union Congress | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | Here, here, good work GMP. |
| Date | 23:41:00, November 28, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Liberty Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | So compulsory service isn't a problem? It's stealing money forcefully. You shouldn't force people to save. |
| Date | 23:59:50, November 28, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | By that logic, taxation of any sort is "theft". In the end, the society pays for the elderly who have not bothered to look after themselves. A compulsary saving system ensures that each individual looks after themselves so that they may have a minimum amount of money upon which to live. I suppose we could not have a compulsary public plan. However, in the end, others will have to "pay" for delinquent seniors through social problems caused by senior homelessness and the like. I'd prefer that a system be in place so that all people are forced to look after themselves now, instead of relying on others later. Would you be so opposed to the system if it were a compulsary private system? |
| Date | 01:25:44, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Liberty Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | I do believe that taxation is theft. But, unlike taxation, which is sometimes a necassary evil, pension plans are not necassary for the survival of the government. As for elderly who did not save, they should have thought ahead. The government is not their mommy. And why would private stealing be any different from government-sponsered stealing? |
| Date | 03:22:41, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | Just checking to see if there was room for compromise. In this case, it is not theft. The money is returned (plus interest) to the pensioner. It is simply the price that is paid for citizenship in Selucia - that you are mandated to take care of yourself in your old age. I would support an "opt out" provision for those who voluntarily choose to place money with a private fund that meets minimum standards contemplated by the public plan, but I don't think that's an option, and I don't think that would be acceptable to LP in any event. |
| Date | 08:37:46, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Imperial Party of Selucian | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | We will support GMP's proposal. Only a society in social balance will be able to handle the matters of the future. |
| Date | 12:38:27, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Liberty Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | "In this case, it is not theft. The money is returned (plus interest) to the pensioner. It is simply the price that is paid for citizenship in Selucia - that you are mandated to take care of yourself in your old age. I would support an "opt out" provision for those who voluntarily choose to place money with a private fund that meets minimum standards contemplated by the public plan, but I don't think that's an option, and I don't think that would be acceptable to LP in any event." People are not as stupid as you make them out to be. They can certainly save money for old age. And whether the money is returned or not is not the issue. What is is that it is taken in the first plac. Is a thief a thief if he brings back the stolen object? Of course |
| Date | 12:43:19, November 29, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | This is just a bad IDEA |
| Date | 15:05:12, November 29, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | I never suggested that anyone was stupid LP. I just suggested that some persons will not look after themselves (something I don't think even you can deny), and in the end, that costs the state. The proposed system ensures that all people will be looked after at their own expense. I'm not trying to be dogmatic here, but merely pragmatic. I'm also trying to be flexible, having suggested opt-out provisions for those who take care of themselves through a private plan etc. As for this being theft, this is no more theft than are condo fees. You choose to live in Condo, even if you own it outright, you owe money to the landlord to pay for communally owned assets and assets used by yourself. Conversely, if you choose to live in Selucia, you own the landlord (government) certain fees (taxes and levees) to pay for communally owned assets and to look after those assets you yourself use. In this case, the fee is placed into a pension plan to ensure that you are looked after once you are retired. |
| Date | 20:20:28, November 30, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | The difference is that Selucia is a democracy, while I don't think you can elect a landlord. The way you explain this, you have no problem with a 99%income tax or something like that! And according to me, that is theft |
| Date | 21:21:23, November 30, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | While I'm opposed to such an idea, If the people elect someone who campaigns on a 99% tax, then that is what they deserve If the people want 0% in taxes, and they elect a 0% tax party, then that is what they deserve. Taxation, ultimately, is an expression of the will of the people in any democratic system. Since it is consensual. based on a majority vote, then it cannot be theft. |
| Date | 22:15:44, November 30, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | To be honest, I don't know how ANY parties are looking at taxes or spendings except for myself and LP. If I have to vote, I of course vote VBS. You can't blaim the people in Selucia for supporting parties with unknown tax plans, but you can blaim those parties for not expressing their views |
| Date | 03:25:28, December 01, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | I was finance minister at one time. I ran a platform of measured spending cuts and tax adjustments to balance the budget, and then tax reductions thereafter. |
| Date | 17:08:22, December 01, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | As you say: you first raised taxes, then you reduced them. Not easy to know your long-term vision then, is it? |
| Date | 18:50:55, December 01, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | The long term vision was to balance budgets. The short term vision was to do it by doing as little damage to the economy as possible in achieving this goal, through measured tax increases and spending cuts. |
| Date | 19:23:45, December 01, 2005 CET | From | VBS Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | Balance budget seems a simple objective, could be done in a few years. The question is: what would you do if you started a term and already had a balance budget? raising taxes and spendings or cutting them? I wouldn't know |
| Date | 19:46:16, December 01, 2005 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Pension Plan |
| Message | Once the budget was balanced, I began reducing taxes and making slow, measured cuts to departmental budgets, especially to departmental budgets that were not a priority (Head of Government budget, for instance). I was clear in stating I wanted a competitive tax structure that also met the needs of our citizens. If you did not know what my long term vision is, it is simply because you chose not to pay attention. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 326 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 249 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy allows you to establish an unelected head of state like a monarch or a president-for-life, but doing this is a bit of a process. First elect a candidate with the name "." to the Head of State position. Then change your law on the "Structure of the executive branch" to "The head of state is hereditary and symbolic; the head of government chairs the cabinet" and change the "formal title of the head of state" to how you want the new head of state's title and name to appear (eg. King Percy XVI). |
| Random quote: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Thomas Jefferson |