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: Social Pact 2166
Details
Submitted by[?]: RSDP - Democratic Front
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: December 2180
Description[?]:
| The Social Pact of 2166 is a package of measures to enhance the quality of life of the working man. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Energy regulation.
Old value:: Energy is provided by private companies which are not subject to any special regulations.
Current: Energy is provided by private, unregulated companies but subsidies are given to those on a low income.
Proposed: Energy is provided by private, unregulated companies but subsidies are given to those on a low income.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Pharmaceutical drugs policy.
Old value:: The government subsidises the cost of pharmaceutical drugs for people on low incomes.
Current: The government pays partially for all citizens' pharmaceutical drugs, and pays entirely for those of low income citizens.
Proposed: The government pays partially for all citizens' pharmaceutical drugs, and pays entirely for those of low income citizens.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning phone services.
Old value:: There are no regulations on phone service.
Current: The state regulates the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Proposed: The state subsidizes the phone service of low income families but does not regulate the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The professional retirement age.
Old value:: 70
Current: 64
Proposed: 67
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:26:07, January 04, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | We are opposed, in principle, to regulating the phone service. We believe a system of progressive taxation is the way to go with regards to income compensation. The same applies to energy compensation; we would prefer a general change in the taxation system. We support lowering the professional retirement age and subsidising pharmaceuticals though. |
| Date | 17:33:22, January 04, 2006 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | Well, under this bill phone service and energy would not be regulated, but subsidised by the State for those on low incomes, just like education and health care. We agree that a general change in the taxation system is preferable, but we doubt that any such change would pass. Anyway, we'll split off the articles you support once more people have commented. |
| Date | 18:45:24, January 04, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | Against. We like the economy thanks. |
| Date | 21:08:47, January 04, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | Is that all? Is THAT your argument? :rolleyes: |
| Date | 21:09:43, January 04, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | And we like well-being and a decent quality of life, we like our citizens, no matter how big their paycheck is. ;-) |
| Date | 22:14:25, January 04, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | We like all our citizens and believe that all people will benefit more under capitalism than socialism Alas, we also do not view phone services as essential human rights |
| Date | 22:25:21, January 04, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | Communicating and energy is a right. ;-) And people will benefit much more under a system where there rights are guaranteed rather than under a system which says "we hope the companies won't violate your rights". ;-) |
| Date | 22:25:37, January 04, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | And you Capitalists only like the rich citizens, otherwise you'd support this. |
| Date | 13:00:40, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | "Energy is provided by private, unregulated companies but subsidies are given to those on a low income." It is unfair that some should have to pay for the electricity of others. "The government pays partially for all citizens' pharmaceutical drugs, and pays entirely for those of low income citizens." What is the point of this article? We already give the poor cheap drugs, why does the government need to pay for everyone's drugs regardless of their economic need? All this will do is create bureaucracy as peoples' money is taxed, processed and then reallocated to them in drugs subsidies. |
| Date | 13:01:29, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | *posted too soon. "The state subsidizes the phone service of low income families but does not regulate the rates providers can charge for phone service." A phone is not even a basic good, it is a luxury. "The professional retirement age." Refer to previous debate. |
| Date | 15:17:50, January 05, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | What debate? We have all the evidence needed to oppose the bill, but you didn't even want to listen! A phone is, in these modern times, a basic good. We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, mail is no longer send by carrier pigeons, in case you did not notice. ;-) |
| Date | 15:18:35, January 05, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | And it is unfair that some have no energy to light or warm their home because of circumstances beyond their control. ;-) |
| Date | 20:33:53, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | "A phone is, in these modern times, a basic good." Why? What is it required for? Chatting? Why does this make it a "basic good"? "We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, mail is no longer send by carrier pigeons, in case you did not notice. ;-)" We're talking about phones, not the postal service, which didnt exist in the middle ages and was never carried by pigeons, which were used for military purposes right up until WWII and by civilian authorities in countries like India well into the 70s, despite the existance of phones. |
| Date | 20:34:45, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | "And it is unfair that some have no energy to light or warm their home because of circumstances beyond their control. ;-)" Being unemployed or wasting all your money is not a "circumstance beyond your control". Rutanians should take responsibility for their lvies rather than blaming "circumstances beyond your control". |
| Date | 20:46:21, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Libertarian Alcoholic Party II | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | "And you Capitalists only like the rich citizens, otherwise you'd support this." Not just rich people pay taxes. Everyone who works has their income taxed. That's like 70% of the population or something. The LAP loves poor people by the way. Environment and Tourism Minister Rob "Pub Crawl" Murray was an alcoholic hobo before his career with the LAP. Now he's an alcoholic politician. |
| Date | 10:03:29, January 09, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | OOC: I am poor ganny, relatively speaking, so dont go on about capitalists not liking the poor, its just fucking retarded. IC: If we hate the poor, which we dont, the RSDP hates the rich, the productive members, those who earn their living and save money and dont waste it but actually budget. |
| Date | 09:48:20, January 21, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | OOC: If you're poor, you wouldn't have a computer. IC: That's the point, if we'd let you Capitalists manage the economy, the poor would be the productive members (and they are as well now), they'd just be kept poor by you. |
| Date | 13:03:59, February 04, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | Lets see, know they wont, we wouldnt tax them very much at all, we would allow them the freedom to progress and be the best they can be. OOC: Its called budgeting, while at college i worked 12 hours a week part time, saved up and paid for my own fucking computer. Now i budget and pay for my internet access, i dont get help from the fucking government, nor do i need it and nor do i want it. SO yes i am poor, the government classifies me and my family as low-income or poor. Hell, we arent that far above the poverty line, we just budget and dont believe we are entitled to something for just fucking existing. |
| Date | 14:58:09, February 04, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Social Pact 2166 |
| Message | Look, history has proved Capitalism wrong. So don't try to argue with FACTS. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 260 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 304 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 35 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. The activist is the man who cleans up the river." - Ross Perot |