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: Retirement Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Postmodern 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: January 2074
Description[?]:
| This bill is to lower the retirement age. People have the right on a beautiful, relaxing old day without having to work. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The professional retirement age.
Old value:: 75
Current: 64
Proposed: 70
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:51:29, June 28, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | In favour. |
| Date | 12:59:12, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Hell no. Too low. |
| Date | 13:00:29, June 28, 2005 CET | From | New Democracy | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | No. |
| Date | 15:23:27, June 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Calculate it out, assume one starts working at the age of 20. That would mean that now he'd have to work for 55 years of his life without being able to enjoy the last years in tranquility. It's simply too long. We should lower the retirement age to 65 in order to give younger people who are now often unemployed to get a job and to give the elderly the chance to enjoy themselves. You cannot just exploit the people like this! |
| Date | 15:23:51, June 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | *a chance to get a job |
| Date | 15:50:48, June 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | BTW, we have checked the retirement age of 5 random nations, and it varies from 60 to 67 (in a conservative theocracy). Our current retirement age is pure exploitation! |
| Date | 16:52:41, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Postmodern Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Yup. It's like slavery. In fact, I wonder if there are real countries with retirement ages as high as ours. Neoliberals & Freedom Party; how high is the retirement age in you countries? |
| Date | 18:50:25, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Humanist Socialist Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | For. |
| Date | 19:10:01, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | If it was 70 then we might consider it. However, at 65, with people living until their 80's or longer then the government has to support people for about 15-20 years. Now that would cripple our finances unless you support private pensions. But being socialists i dont suppose you do. |
| Date | 19:11:02, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Anyway. Another point. You dont have to retire at 75, you can take early retirement. After all, in Britain the retirement age is currently 65 (will go up eventually), yet you can retire earlier or later. |
| Date | 19:18:25, June 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | With 75 as the retirement age, you have exactly the opposite. Here's a statistic of the impact of the retirement age: http://www.firstfitnessoforlando.com/pictures/Impact%20of%20Retirement%20Age.gif I'm willing to accept the fact that in Rutania those lines are situated a bit more to the right, but basically, they're working themselves to death. And here's a statistic showing the average productivity per age: http://www.cato.org/images/pubs/testimony/ct-jg040909-2.gif As you can see, people who are 65 years old are way less productive than the young people who are now often unemployed because of the high retirement age. Imagine what that would be at 75! You see, the economy will benefit from it too as more productive people will get the chance to work, while older people will still have the opportunity to spend their money during the years they've still got ahead of themselves. By lowering the retirement age to 65 the older people would have plenty of opportunities to spend their money on travels, etc.. Because they will still be capable of doing that and they'll still have plans for the future. Which isn't the case if the retirement age is 75. |
| Date | 19:22:31, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Who pays to keep the 65 year olds? State pensions? Or Private pensions? If private, do we make it mandatory for people to save? |
| Date | 19:28:30, June 28, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | That's not an issue now, we'll deal with that once such proposal is added to the game. And I don't think it really matters, as the pensions are used to live of and to buy things so they are obviously re-invested in the economy, and the State gets its share through taxes. The system funds itself for a large part. |
| Date | 19:42:54, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Hold on now, you can leave the work force at any time, all this retirement age allows is for people to keep on working, to protect them against forced out of work at 65. No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to work, they can quit at any moment. |
| Date | 19:44:33, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Postmodern Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Ok. Let's say I replace the "65" with "70" and put this to vote; since Rodriguezland placed the exact same bill. |
| Date | 19:45:32, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Postmodern Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Oh and, Freedom Party : I'm not a socialist ;-) |
| Date | 20:05:43, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Alcoholic Par-tay | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Why do we even have to have an offical retirement age? It should not be up to government when people can work, it should be up to the people themselves. I support reducing the retirement age to "0" or upping it to "999" or something to represent this idea. |
| Date | 21:32:16, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | My remarks were not aimed at yourselves Postmodern, i know you are a left leaning liberal party. My remark was aimed at the SDP and HSP. |
| Date | 21:32:40, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | We agree with the Conservatives and the LAP |
| Date | 23:09:26, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Rodriquezland Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | ooc: Since im retarted and forgot to put a proposal on mine and didn't even see your (sorry). IC: I will support this bill . |
| Date | 09:49:51, June 29, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | " Hold on now, you can leave the work force at any time, all this retirement age allows is for people to keep on working, to protect them against forced out of work at 65. No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to work, they can quit at any moment." I'm afraid you are mistaking here, an official retirement age is an age at which (or after which) you can retire with full pension benefits. And often people are just tired at that age, they've worked hard enough and it's highly unlikely they continue working (unless they're the head of a company of course). However, in general, if you retire before the official retirement age, you don't get all retirement and pension benefits. So, you do (though indirectly) force the people to work until the age of 75. This bill would allow people to retire earlier while still being entitled to all their pension benefits, truly leaving the decision up to the people themselves. |
| Date | 17:48:20, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Not really, it depends on the contract you've worked out with your employers. Generally, especially in Delvar, the pension-benefits are linked with how many years you've worked, not how old you are, say you work for 30 years, starting at 20, a common plan is that you can retire at 50 with full benefits and a rather nice pension. The official retirement age forces people to stop working and legitimizes age discrimination. |
| Date | 19:11:16, June 29, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Are you making this up about Delvar? Because I can't seem to find that information anywhere. An official retirement age does not force people to stop working and does not legitimise age discrimination, it prevents people from being forced too work too long. The definition of an official retirement age is as follows: The age set forth in a retirement plan for employees to receive full benefits upon retirement. Retirement before the normal retirement age may result in a reduction in benefits. Most plans specify 65 as the normal retirement age. This is not a mandatory retirement age, that's an entirely different matter and should only be established for military personnel, airline pilots, etc. Those are the facts. |
| Date | 20:36:21, June 29, 2005 CET | From | New Democracy | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | OOC (and IC) opinion: When you stop working, you die. That's one of the most important lessons that I got in my life. |
| Date | 21:52:01, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Postmodern Party | To | Debating the Retirement Bill |
| Message | Then you have a miserable life. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 227 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 243 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 29 |
| Random fact: http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com and http://www.behindthename.com/random are great resources for coming up with character names from unfamiliar cultures. |
| Random quote: As for rape, of course, that is a direct consequence of the capitalist system of oppression. Capitalism relies on fuelling division and resentment to sustain itself, and so it sets men against women, race against race and so on. Men rape women because they are being oppressed by capitalism, so they take it out on women. Under Communism, there will be no rape, because there will be a full and natural harmony and equality between the genders. ~ Friedrich Pfeiffer General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Party |