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: Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Party
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: September 2167
Description[?]:
We propose a two year raise in the retirement age so that our economy wouldn't have to bear as great a burden from the public pensions that are now being given to retirees. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The professional retirement age.
Old value:: 65
Current: 65
Proposed: 67
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 19:19:50, January 01, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | The AAS sees no reason to oppose this motion. Voluntary retirement programmes still allow our citizens to retire earlier, but citizens will be protected from being 'forced out' of the workforce, if this PSS proposal becomes law. The AAS, therefore, supports. |
Date | 04:32:30, January 02, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | We thank the AAS for their support. |
Date | 05:56:09, January 02, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | The Progressive Party is most welcome. (We have just noticed, by the way, that we abbreviated the Progressive Party to the wrong acronym in our previous reply... we have too many progressive and strength parties...) :) |
Date | 08:28:21, January 02, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | PSS takes the opportunity to advise AAS and PP that we are currently formulating a new party name that will more accurately reflect the party direction. |
Date | 13:43:17, January 02, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | The AAS regrets their earlier mistake, if it means the PSS plans to change their strong and historic name because of it. :( |
Date | 05:27:34, January 03, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | Not at all, with the change in party direction we have been considering this for some time. Ideally we would like the acronym to remain the same, when the words changing. |
Date | 22:33:09, January 04, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | RLP supports this as an increase in personal freedom. We would like to se no manditory retirement age at all, buit doubt that we ever will. |
Date | 00:51:22, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | We see this as a reduction in personal freedom - there is nothing mandatory about this retirement age. If it means simply that people cannot qualify for a pension for a couple of years after working all their lives we are against this idea. On the other hand we beleieve that people who have accumulated this 'life experience' often have valuable contributions to make to society. If there was some demonstrated 'labour shortage' we would support, however we have formed an opinion from debates elsewhere that there is unemployment in Likatonia, and adding a pool of elderly people for 2 more years will only increase the supply of already surplus labour - consequently increasing unemployment. Tentatively we oppose, but are willing to listen to further input on this issue. |
Date | 05:24:58, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | This is an issue mostly having to deal with reducing the burden the public pension puts on the budget. Under this proposed change, Likatonians can still retire at 65, but they wouldn't receive any money from the public pension until they hit age 67. They would still receive money from the private pensions depending on the policy of the firm where they were previously employed. |
Date | 05:41:23, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | Will unemployed likatonians 65-67 be eligable for state assistance? If yes, then there is really no reduction in public spending is there ? If we are to deny them a pension for 2 years, we feel this is unfair due to the fact: (a) Our budget is running at a surplus, we can afford this. (b) As a society, we are judged how we treat our 'weaker' members. These Likatonians have paid taxes all their lives and it is our responsibility to allow them to enjoy their twighlight years. (c) If You are suggesting that Private pensions will pay out and help cover the full cost of a pension for 2 years, I would suggest that the private corporations would challenge this, especially for pensioners currently nearing retirement age that have not 'geared' their pension schemes to this. PSS votes no at this stage, but reserves the right to change our vote pending further discussion. |
Date | 06:52:08, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | No, unemployed Likatonians aged 65-67 wouldn't be eligible for state assistance other than the medical assistance that is given to people on low-incomes (covered in other laws). In response to a) The Likatonian government will not be able to provide a public pension forever especially as life expectancy continues to increase creating greater numbers of retirees on public pension. b) Likatonians who retire at 65 will still receive public pension benefits at age 67. We hardly find pushing back payment two years to be denying anyone their twilight years especially if they have adequately planned out their retirement. c) Our citizens are responsible for keeping track of their own finances and savings in order to plan for retirement. It would be foolhardy to be totally dependent on government pension, and so the PP is working under the assumption that those who do choose to retire prior to age 67 will have their pension plan worked out to their liking. |
Date | 10:04:17, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | PSS, after careful deliberation and consideration, will support this proposal. We thank the PP for taking the time to constructively debate. |
Date | 15:49:41, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Retirement Age |
Message | Conversely, the AAS has now been swayed by the EXCELLENT points the PSS has made. We ARE judged by how we treat our least fortunate... and we need not create a 'gap' where people who have devoted their WHOLE LIVES to our Nation, are allowed to 'fall through', just for the sake of fiscal convenience. The AAS can see much better ways to save money.... for example - all AAS/AAP party members have always been paid exactly the same wage... which is a reasonable, means-tested sum. We are in this for the service... not the financial rewards. How many other Party members, or government officials, are paid on a similar scheme? The other point is - the AAS objects to the way the Progressive Party states "The Likatonian government will not be able to provide a public pension forever especially as life expectancy continues to increase". As the PSS points out, the Likatonian budget currently runs at a surplus... so there is no problem feeding and clothing our 'silver citizens', yet... And, if there IS going to be a problem... it is hardly fair for the government to shirk that responsibility. After all, our older citizens are the ones who HAVE paid for the system we have. It is unjust, and immoral, to take from THOSE citizens, AGAIN. If there is a fiscal problem here, it is up to the government to fix it. Not to palm that problem off on others - and hope that a few old people dying of cold will be less politically inconvenient than a budget shortfall. The AAS has been swayed by the wise words of our allies in the PSS. We oppose. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes |
Total Seats: 169 | ||||
no | Total Seats: 261 | ||||
abstain | Total Seats: 70 |
Random fact: The voters enjoy active parties who take upon themselves the initiative to create laws. |
Random quote: "And what is Aleppo?" - Gary Johnson |