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: State Pensions.

Details

Submitted by^[?]: Liberal Party for Equality

Status^[?]: passed

Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: January 2070

Description^[?]:

Every retired citizen of Likaton should be entitled to a pension, so that once they are beyond the age at which they can work they are still provided for. To ensure this let it become mandatory that every citizen puts 2% of their yearly earnings after tax into a pension account which can only be accessed after they have reached the official retirement age set by the Likatoninan government.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date	14:42:08, June 18, 2005 CET
From	Liberal Party for Equality
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	I would be extremely grateful if the PP or anybody else who knows what they are talking about could propose some numbers.

Date	19:53:28, June 18, 2005 CET
From	none
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	I would be extremely grateful if the PP or anybody else who knows what they are talking about could propose some numbers.

Date	21:32:56, June 18, 2005 CET
From	National Centrist Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	Perhaps instead of this we could require companies to offer some kind of savings plan. Alternately, we could establish a 1% savings system where every citizen contributes 1% of their income yearly and it is held in an account in their name. These accounts cannot be touched by any other person nor by any other governmental agency. When the person reaches retirement age, they gain direct access to the account. If they die before using up the amount within the account or before accessing it at all, it is divided between their nearest kin (after being subject to the inheritance tax). If no next-of-kin are available and they do not have a will designating other recipients, the account goes into the general revenue fund.

Date	23:53:50, June 18, 2005 CET
From	Right Wing Liberals Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	Who has been removed? I am in favour of a minimilist pension scheme but it should be the responsibility of the person to save.

Date	00:11:55, June 19, 2005 CET
From	Liberal Party for Equality
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	RWL:It was me, but not signed in, repeating myself... somehow? I am willing to be quite flexible on the system, as long as the elderly are not left destitute. We could have a system whereby they pay part of their wages into it and it is supplemented by both the emplopyer and the government as long as the worker contines to pay... this gives them freedom as to whether to contribute and a motivation to do so. OOC: modelling that last system on the 1905 liberal reforms in the UK, if that needs clarifying.

Date	03:32:49, June 19, 2005 CET
From	National Centrist Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	Government matching schemes we, the LFP, will not support. Our richer members of society might abuse them and render our government destitute. For that matter, rich anti-government groups could use them to bankrupt and dissolve our government.

Date	12:13:13, June 19, 2005 CET
From	Liberal Party for Equality
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	No, i explained that badly. This would require them to pay a specific amount - like a dollar a week or something - which is the maximum we supplement. and it has to go into a pension which cannot be accessed until retirement.

Date	19:40:24, June 19, 2005 CET
From	People's Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	How about just mandating that you put in 5% of your salary towards building up wealth. If you are paying down your house, then your payments would count towards this 5%. That would require no govt outlays and remove a big headache

Date	01:47:18, June 20, 2005 CET
From	National Centrist Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	People's Party: That's the same thing we were proposing, except 4% larger.

Date	19:28:12, June 20, 2005 CET
From	Liberal Party for Equality
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	Fine then, sounds like that would have the most support - obviously I would favour a small level of government funding, or at least some personal choice, but as the first won't get any votes and the second would barely change anything, it would be pointless. Let us compromise and say 2% of earnings, after tax. I think 5% would be way too high.

Date	21:12:47, June 20, 2005 CET
From	People's Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	Well 2% won't be enough to build up any real retirement security...so then you'd spend welfare money to bail people out. What I was proposing meant people could put their towards anything even paying down their house would count towards that 5%

Date	21:14:14, June 20, 2005 CET
From	People's Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	Nevertheless, I shall support as long as paying down your home still counts.

Date	23:01:57, June 20, 2005 CET
From	National Centrist Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	It seems strange to include paying down one's home as part of a pension plan. Are they going to sell the home when they hit retirement age? Possibly, but certainly not necessarily. That money won't really guarantee you anything if it goes into one's home.

Date	07:31:33, June 21, 2005 CET
From	Right Wing Liberals Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	First of all it being mandatory to put 2% in to this fund is a great idea but noone should be confused to think this means they cant/Couldnt and more importantly shouldnt add more. It is obvious this would not be enough and any one that thinks otherwise is a fool. This is a stepping stone People must take responsibility for their actions and if they wont a good lifestyle in their golden years they should start preparing now.

Date	07:37:36, June 21, 2005 CET
From	Right Wing Liberals Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	Welfare is stupid if people prefer to by 2 crates of Booze a week(Or some other needless comodity) Governments should not nurish Stupidity.

Date	08:59:05, June 21, 2005 CET
From	People's Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	you can't sell your home, but you can take out a reverse mortgage...that way you sell your house slowly to the bank. If you're going to be dead in a few years anyway, you might as well use the money you invested in your home..

Date	09:02:15, June 21, 2005 CET
From	People's Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	Plus your home will appreciate with time as do stocks, faster than inflation. So you can build quite a pool of wealth in your home equity that can be tapped by a reverse mortgage. However unlike stocks, you can live in your house.

Date	10:17:52, June 21, 2005 CET
From	National Centrist Party
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	RWLP: This is an automatic 2%. People are, of course, free to put away as much as they like in personal savings. We should encourage that practice. The government is, in this, providing only a basic and personally funded safety net. We are providing for disaster without robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Date	12:37:06, June 21, 2005 CET
From	Liberal Party for Equality
To	Debating the State Pensions.
Message	Why do you oppose RP? If you had spoken up we may have been able to change it.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote

Seats

yes

Total Seats: 183

Republican Party (17)

Total Seats: 17

abstain

Total Seats: 0

Random fact: Real-life quotations may be used in Particracy, but the real-life speaker or author should always be referenced in an OOC (out-of-character) note alongside the quotation.

Random quote: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 70