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: Act of Social Security
Details
Submitted by[?]: Impartialist Society
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: May 3529
Description[?]:
| i). A motion to all citizens a longer time frame to accumulate funds necessary for self-sustenance after retirement which will alleviate the budgetary constraints of the state. ii) All citizens are required to have identity cards on hand in the event of invasion, treason, or any malicious disruption of the nation's affairs by foreign powers iii) Citizens below the age of seventeen (17) aren't mature enough, physically nor mentally, to make conscious decisions that will further impact the remainder of their lives. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government-issued identity card policy.
Old value:: All citizens are issued with identity cards but are not required to carry them.
Current: All citizens are issued with identity cards but are not required to carry them.
Proposed: All citizens are issued with identity cards and are required to carry them at all times.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The age at which a person is considered an adult (limited between 12 and 24).
Old value:: 15
Current: 18
Proposed: 17
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The professional retirement age.
Old value:: 65
Current: 60
Proposed: 67
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:36:57, August 10, 2013 CET | From |  Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Act of Social Security |
| Message | Mr. Chairman, This bill will not pass in my parliament. -- Edwin Fertig, President |
| Date | 19:45:42, August 10, 2013 CET | From | Impartialist Society | To | Debating the Act of Social Security |
| Message | The people have spoken and have agreed with this Act. It is preposterous to not consider the benefits this might have |
| Date | 19:49:10, August 10, 2013 CET | From | Impartialist Society | To | Debating the Act of Social Security |
| Message | The people have spoken and have agreed with this Act. It is preposterous to not consider the benefits this might have |
| Date | 20:40:16, August 10, 2013 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Act of Social Security |
| Message | The people spoke in the elections in June. Over 54% voted for Nationalists, electing Nationalists to take 160 seats in the council, giving us a clear mandate. The people have spoken, and promised to agree with what Nationalists have to say on most matters. You have no legitimate claim of representation. We represent the majority; we represent the people. You represent less than 22,000 random persons who probably don't even understand politics. -- Edwin Fertig, President |
| Date | 21:04:20, August 10, 2013 CET | From | Impartialist Society | To | Debating the Act of Social Security |
| Message | This is an outrage, Mr. Chairman. The ruling party has blatantly disrespected the populace of this country due to their not gaining a unanimous charge to governance. They have discounted the concerns of a people, be it a minority, by disclaiming them of their right to the ability to work for an extended period depending on their health or economic need. |
| Date | 21:16:18, August 10, 2013 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Act of Social Security |
| Message | Mr. Chairman, Nowhere do we say we deny the right of anyone to work beyond the age of 65. Persons are allowed to work until whenever they want to, but the legal age of retirement should be kept at 65 so that persons who want to retire early will still have that option. To wait an extra 2 years, before being able to collect pensions, or before being allowed to be considered a citizen who has contributed much to this society, is only depressing our elders. The current law doesn't say persons are obligated to retire at 65; it simply allows them to retire at 65 (while being eligible for pension) if they want to, but they can keep working as well, if they prefer. And how many, of the less than 22,000 supporters of the Impartialist Party, are near that age? Am I to believe that all the supporters of the party are old geezers? If that is the case, we can easily put them to rest in peace, and save us all a big unnecessary argument, since the bill won't pass anyway. Is anyone else in favour of leading these old geezers to rest? http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=389253 -- Edwin Fertig, President |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 300 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Discuss flag designs at the Flag Designs thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37 |
| Random quote: "Popular suffrage is in itself no guarantee of freedom. People can vote themselves into slavery." - Frank Chodorov |