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: Pensions
Details
Submitted by[?]: Telamon Social Democratic 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: June 2171
Description[?]:
| We wish to highlight that this bill does not ban individuals from saving a private pension. It merely removes the bond between the public and the private systems. The law clearly states that "state operates a compulsory public system COMBINED with an optional private pension" [my emphasis]. This we take to refer to a system where the state somehow regulates the optional private pensions so that they form a overall pension system that has a public and a private part. In some countries this takes for example the form of tax incentives that are linked to certain features of the private pension plans (retirement age etc.). We have nothing against anyone up for retirement, quite the contrary. We simply wish to keep separate whatever means people wish to save money for their retirement and the public compulsory pension system. I see no way that saving up for retirement could (and we mean could in the sense of being able to) be banned as it is simply a form of saving. You can still save for your pension, the state just takes no interest in it. We do not have any legislation that limits the kind of insurance companies are permitted to sell (including pension scemes) and we have no limitations to the use of bank accounts or stock and bond investments. Thus we can not see how the proposed legislation could possibly mean banning private saving for retirement. It simply states that the state takes no position on any private pensions plans and operates a public, compulsory one. We could understand other interpretations in the matter if the bill 1) specifically banned private saving for pensions, 2) if our legislation had any means of preventing it in the first place. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the pension system.
Old value:: The state operates a compulsory public system combined with an optional private pension.
Current: The state operates a compulsory public system combined with an optional private pension.
Proposed: The state operates a compulsory, public pension system.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:12:26, January 12, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Pensions |
| Message | I always interpreted the law as allowing private pensions and the one you propose as not. What it says is that there is a compulsory pension system run by the government and you can also have a private one if you wish. As far as i am concerned you law would ban this and i cannot support that. |
| Date | 13:13:41, January 12, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Pensions |
| Message | we could perhaps have done with a debate on this |
| Date | 14:04:38, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Telamon Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Pensions |
| Message | The law clearly states that "state operates a compulsory public system COMBINED with an optional private pension" [my emphasis]. This we take to refer to a system where the state somehow regulates the optional private pensions so that they form a overall pension system that has a public and a private part. In some countries this takes for example the form of tax incentives that are linked to certain features of the private pension plans retirement age etc.). We have nothing against anyone up for retirement, quite the contrary. We simply wish to keep separate whatever means people wish to save money for their retirement and the public compulsory pension system. I see no way that saving up for retirement could (and we mean could in the sense of being able to) be banned as it is simply a form of saving. Thus we can not see how the proposed legislation could possibly mean banning private saving for retirement. It simply states that the state takes no position on any private pensions plans and operates a public, compulsory one. |
| Date | 15:09:58, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Pensions |
| Message | I don't agree to this at all. Why can i not have some extra money into my own account? |
| Date | 19:11:00, January 12, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Pensions |
| Message | TSDP: All I can say is whilst i see your point, I interpret it differently. I simply interpret COMBINED as being able to be subsdituted with AS WELL AS or any other similar phrase denoting that the state runs a compulsory private pension system with people being allowed to save privately as well if they wish. The wording is sufficiently ambiguous to make the meaning unclear, but this is my interpretation of it and as such I vote no to this law. |
| Date | 17:09:00, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Pensions |
| Message | What UCA said. oO |
| Date | 05:31:42, January 14, 2006 CET | From |  Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United | To | Debating the Pensions |
| Message | What CPT said |
| Date | 05:31:57, January 14, 2006 CET | From | Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United | To | Debating the Pensions |
| Message | x_O |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 103 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 196 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 56 |
| 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: "The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites.'" - Larry Hardiman |