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: Pension Act of 2069
Details
Submitted by[?]: Proletariat Revolution Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: April 2071
Description[?]:
| INTRODUCTION ============= While there is a recommended/mandatory retirement age here in Likatonia, presently at 68 years old, there is no real frame work for pensions and benefits for the retirees, who have given many years of service to their country. ANNUAL DEDUCTIONS =================== The annual deductions, which will be payed into a state sponsored pension plan will come partially from the state's budget and partially from the income of the citizen. The annual deductions will either be done year round and calculated into the income tax filing done annually if the deductions are done automatically. Or, if the person doesn't work for a company that provides one automatically, they will have to provide their own. Either way, the base percentage per annum from the yearly salary should sit at about 4-7%. GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION ======================== The government will pay in an amount that in direct ratio to the amount that each citizen invests into his or her account. The ratio is 1:5. The government provided pension plan will be issued to all citizens. The amount that the government pays in is directly in proportion to the amount invested, as stated above, either through a company provided plan or a personal RRSP (Registered Retirement Savings Plan). |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:09:42, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | What do you think? PP? |
| Date | 10:23:14, June 21, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | I think that there should be a cap on how much the government can add in, and that all companies should be required by law to do these deductions automatically. That won't necessarily secure our vote, but it's the bare minimum before we'll talk about any kind of support. Actually, we already have a pension plan provided. Check the bills currently being voted on. What you're proposing isn't a new plan, just a very large extension of the old minimalist one. |
| Date | 12:44:09, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | This is the kind of thing I was aiming for in my previous pension plan, but didnt think it would have enough support - I hope i was wrong! but yes, a cap is necessary, to prevent abuse of the system. |
| Date | 16:19:53, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | Of course. This was a rough draft. And yes, this is an extension. |
| Date | 17:30:53, June 22, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | I don't support a govt role- based on current experience, i think the best option is to run awarness campaigns instead. |
| Date | 19:21:30, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | It would be incentive. If people save, the goverment helps out. It would be proportianate. |
| Date | 04:38:41, June 23, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | The LFP also doesn't support a government role in this. The deductions are already going to be automatic, so incentive is unnecessary. |
| Date | 05:14:24, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | Not if the person runs their own business and is self-employed... or the company is small and out of the reach of that aspect of the labour law. |
| Date | 06:02:36, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | Uh... Why do they have to put the proceed to vote and proposals so close? Can we just consider this a frame work to be improved upon at a later date? |
| Date | 07:17:18, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | This is insane way to much Government in put. |
| Date | 09:46:49, June 23, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | The cap on how much the government will contribute was never instated, so our vote is an automatic no. |
| Date | 10:50:35, June 23, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | The thing is I understand your intention and favor it PEL, but few americans in the real world take advantage of such matching schemes, so i'm assuming few in Likatonia would. I'd be happier to support proghrams that would be a little more effective. |
| Date | 10:51:47, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | We are really sorry to have to vote no for the same reason. If you could bring it up again with a cap we would happily support. |
| Date | 13:46:00, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | PP - just because a few bloody Yanks wouldn't doesn't mean other RL nations think the same bloody way. And a cap would be proportionate to contribution! |
| Date | 13:48:40, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | The contribution percentage is the citizen's choice and the government pays in based on a ratio. |
| Date | 23:54:44, June 23, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Pension Act of 2069 |
| Message | Someone who was extremely rich could pay in a billion dollars and the government would be forced to add in 200 million. I'm sorry, but this doesn't sound like a program to help the poor so much as a free money handout to rich people. That's why the cap on government contribution is necessary. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 27 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 96 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 77 |
| Random fact: Character names must appear plausible and should consist of at least a first name and a surname. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented |
| Random quote: "Hence it comes about that all armed Prophets have been victorious, and all unarmed Prophets have been destroyed." - Niccolo Machiavelli |