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: Employment Insurence Bill of 2069
Details
Submitted by[?]: Proletariat Revolution Party
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: September 2071
Description[?]:
| Employment Insurence, or EI, will be provided to employees who have been laid off or fired from their most recent job. EI is not welfare; it is a portion of money derived from the employee's current rate of pay and set aside as a security blanket in the event of loss of employment. EI deductions will be 3% of the bi-weekly pay, which will be paid into a special account, and accessible upon termination of employment. It will be given to the recepient upom completion of the proper paperwork for the funds to be released. The funds will not be released as a lump sum, but rather to promote fiscal conservatism and responsibility while there is lack of work for an employable citizen. In the event of a recession, a rain-day fund set up by the government will be used to provide finacial assistance to the unemployed worker; skilled or not. In the event of a recession, in order for the unemployed citizen to qualify, they are required to give something back to the nation. It should come in the form of community service, and the form of service is left up to the individual. The government will use 0.5% of it's annual GDP in order to fund this. Anyone who is left unemployed due to economic circumstances, (recession, market slumps, depressions...) can qualify for the aforementioned government assistance. Those in the highest income bracket aren't given the same level of assistance of those in the lower end of the income bracket. Prospective employees, who upon leaving school cannot find a job in any area, regardless of whether or not itn's in their area of skilled work, also can qualify for the above mentioned government assistance if they too participate in some form of community service. Upon the termination fo employment due to retirement, the money that has been taken from the pay, will be streamlined into the retirement pension. In the event of death, the EI will be paid out to the surviving spouse, or child(ren). |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:15:10, June 20, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | It sounds like a good way to run the system that won't cost the state anything beyond administration. What happens if the funds are never needed, though? |
| Date | 23:19:36, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | Well, maybe we could then divert the funds into either either the person's retirement fund, or at their request, into an education savings plan for their child(ren) or grandchild(ren)?! |
| Date | 05:03:17, June 21, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | I think it should just be diverted automatically into their retirement fund. They can do whatever they want with that fund, after all. Streamlining it in such a way will cut administration costs. |
| Date | 20:02:24, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | people seem to be losing large portions of their incomes here, but i suppose it is just like raising taxes to fund government benefits... except rather less fair. two points here 1.How do you stop somebody who has just become unemployed blowing the whole fund in a week? How do you stop people deliberately getting fired when their money has got big enough, spending it all then getting another job? 2. what happens if there is a recession, or the market for a particular type of employee decreases, and work becomes hard to find - somebody who has only just left education will not have built up a fund, and will also be the least likely to get employment, as it is easier not to hire anybody new than to fire existing workers. because of these problems, unless you can come up with satisfactory solutions, I would be far more in favour of raising taxes by a similar amount to fund a dole. |
| Date | 20:12:57, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | 1 - It would be released like a regular paycheque. 2 - recessions are part of the way the economy works. Yes, they are partially inevitable, and yes, there may be people who will be unable to find employment in their field. Lastly, if we raise taxes, it is nog going directly to fund welfare so our citizens can sit around being useless. It'll be directed to people who have registered and are actively seeking work and/or providing service to the community. Disability welfare is different. |
| Date | 02:29:31, June 22, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | We oppose. This is merely a disguised attempt to change our present tax system. |
| Date | 06:10:23, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | This will NOT change the current system; it's going to add another element to improve the system, and set aside money so that people have something while they struggle between jobs. |
| Date | 11:11:25, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | Its good, I just still havent heard an answer to what is going to happen to those who are unemployed soon after leaving education, who therefore have no fund. |
| Date | 15:46:13, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | I added it. ~_^ This bill is just getting so long that you've missed it. And yes, there aren't instant jobs upon leaving school... |
| Date | 17:27:43, June 22, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | i won't support this because i have an alternate plan for welfare... |
| Date | 19:22:41, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | What? Welfare for all the morons who are too lazy to work? This way helps out those who help themselves; those who are disabled aren't counted here because they'd be treated differently for welfare needs (as their needs are unique). |
| Date | 04:39:46, June 23, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | PEL: Yes, it will change the current tax system. Unless, of course, this item quoted below matches with a flat tax system. "It will paid into through taxes, which will be raised by 0.4% at the lowest end of the income bracket and 2.1% at the highest income bracket." |
| Date | 05:13:36, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | It will raise but raising doesn't change the system. |
| Date | 09:28:41, June 23, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | Yes, it does. By creating tax inequalities across the board, you have just changed us from a flat tax to a progressive tax. Do not take us for fools. Do not attempt to decieve the Council by hiding a tax bill within a welfare bill. I was in support of this until that tax part was added, and now I'm not sure if I want to support even if that's removed. I don't appreciate attempts at deception. |
| Date | 11:02:18, June 23, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | This does change the system away from a flat tax ...we seemed to have miss that part on a first reading... |
| Date | 16:30:12, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | Geez, you guys are starting to sound like chickens! I left out the tax bit - squawk squawk squawk! I put it in... squawk squawk squawk... |
| Date | 18:58:57, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | I still have a small part of the GDP going to this, but there is no tax "change". |
| Date | 23:59:25, June 23, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | The problem with changing the tax system here wasn't because you proposed to change it, but rather, because the bill wasn't proposed as a tax bill. You're free to propose a tax change, but make it more obvious. Don't hide it behind another bill, because no matter how good a reason you have, that just insults the intelligence of the other Council members. |
| Date | 00:30:26, June 24, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | And now, there is NO extra tax increments included; just a line for bi-weekly deductions and a fraction of a percentage contribution from the GDP. |
| Date | 09:07:58, June 24, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Employment Insurence Bill of 2069 |
| Message | Some form of unemployment insurance is necessary, all the better if it's personally funded. This isn't quite as personally funded as we would like, but it's much closer than most systems. It seems that the government-added parts are too small to be effective and unnecessary besides... but oh well. At 0.5% of our budget, the amount spent on that will be acceptably trivial. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 93 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 47 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 60 |
| Random fact: Make sure your nation casts its nominations in Particracy's very own Security Council elections! For more information, see http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=8453 |
| Random quote: "Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: the communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.'" - Phelps Adams |