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: Professional retirement age
Details
Submitted by[?]: Edelweiss Party
Status[?]: passed
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: September 2074
Description[?]:
| SocialGreens believes the professional retirement age should be lowered down to at least 65 or 63. The current age of 68 is to high! I don't know if any 'working population' including the numbers of/ and or register of employement are available, they might be useful for this debate. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The professional retirement age.
Old value:: 68
Current: 65
Proposed: 65
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:08:24, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | This is the age at which people are allowed to acess their pension funds, so it must not be too low. we would however support a reduction to 65, because by 68 physical frailty can often be a problem. |
| Date | 14:15:06, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Edelweiss Party | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | 65 also is a reasonable proposal, as I said before. I'll change it. |
| Date | 16:35:35, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | Argh! Not again! I still am not going to vote in favour of lowering it. Let sleeping dogs lie! |
| Date | 17:07:01, June 29, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | PSD: Don't be like that. Anyone is free to bring up anything they want to vote. If everyone hates it, though, t's just free to get voted down again is all. By the way, I'm agreeing with the PSD on this; I am not in favor of lowering it either. |
| Date | 20:29:07, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | LFP: mind your own business please. I'm allowed to express frustration with overkill on certain topics. |
| Date | 23:06:42, June 29, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | I will favor now.....now that the govt has got its hands on pensions. It saves more money for the govt. |
| Date | 02:46:28, June 30, 2005 CET | From | SDP | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | We believe in a good quality of life, work isn't everything - we support this. |
| Date | 08:43:55, June 30, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | Oh hold on...I got it baackwards...never mind- i oppose. By retiring early, the number of pensioners would dramatically increase, and so would the burden on the govt. |
| Date | 10:41:08, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | Is this forced retirement? Remember people what i said about your future being your decision and how if you dont plan for the future it is your downfall? No one should Mooch off the Government people should work as long as they like and buying a crate of beer a week or getting those dreads or a new dress is a poor excuse for not planning your retirement plan. |
| Date | 10:57:37, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | PP: the government isnt paying anything towawrds pensions - the bill that proposed that wasnt passed, only the one mandating that people create a pension fund was passed. If this is indeed forced retirement I will vote no. If that is the case it would be far more sensible to have one age at which citizens are allowed to access their pensions, and another much older compulsary retirement age. I would be glad if Socialgreens could clarify. |
| Date | 11:18:29, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | If this is forced retirement i will again vote no. |
| Date | 15:38:48, June 30, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Professional retirement age |
| Message | The government isn't paying anything towards pensions. Thanks to that, we will change our vote and be in favor, so that people can access the pension accounts we set up for them earlier. I do not believe there is such a thing as a compulsory retirement age. This is just the age at which people can retire with full benefits from their place of work. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 137 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 63 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Voters have an extra appreciation for bills that actually get passed, so if you want to maximally take profit from your votes, make sure you compromise with others. |
| Random quote: "In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a cheque. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Martin Luther King Jr. |