OLD: Comprehensive Social Security Reform Act (See new thread: Reference Only)

[Napoleon]

Can I please get a copy of the bill as it currently stands in amended form?

[Napoleon]

And I motion to remove Section 6 from the bill, renumbering subsequent sections accordingly.

[Napoleon]

And I motion to remove Section 6 from the bill, renumbering subsequent sections accordingly.

Why in the world ? It has a clear and precise goal. Help to parents raising their child is an essential part of social protection.

And anyways, have a look at the section as it currently reads, because it has been significantly amended since the last version.

I wont be able to support any bill that offers a monetary reward for having more kids and growing the world's population, threatening the environment and our supply of natural resources and fresh water capacity.

[Napoleon]

We should also consider moving the retirement points from 1600 to 2000.

[Napoleon]

The repeal clause is insufficiently specific and could have unintended consequences.

What age do you think we should offer retirement benefits at? I'm also concerned that we offer more pointsa for unemployment than for education and training.

I don't see how this bill pays for itself as it stands.

1800 in that case, I think 70 is a good year.

[Napoleon]

And I motion to remove Section 6 from the bill, renumbering subsequent sections accordingly.

Senator, do you still seek this amendment?

Yes.

[Napoleon]

I'd vote Nay.

[Napoleon]

I'd vote Nay.

Guess why...

If I were a great Senator, I would say this bill is ridiculous and hackish.

BUT, I'm merely a simpleton among legends, so my reasoning is that this bill is too costly to afford while we spend so much money crusading overseas and that the taxes in this bill would be unnecessary if we cut our offense budget.

[Napoleon]

Tomorrow marks the six month anniversary of this cumbersome bill clogging the floor.

Motion to table

[Napoleon]

LOL being a shining example of maturity, am I right?

[Napoleon]

Aye, we can always move forward at a later date. 6 months is a bit too long and most of the Senate has no interest in actually debating or contributing to this bill for reasons unknown to me.

[Napoleon]

Will the included taxes fully fund this bill?

[Napoleon]

Can anyone answer my question?

[Napoleon]

Am I mistaken in my interpretation of that section? It seems as if the tax burden is capped at a certain level but how can we be certain that enough revenues are established?

[Napoleon]

I wasn't done debating this bill. I have concerns with some of the wording and workability still. I want to pass this bill but I think that more work is needed if we are to do it right.

I'm disappointed that the Senators who choose not to work on this bill also wont show up to vote on a motion to table.

The question for me, now, is whether or not it is better to pass and later amend this, or to vote it down and reintroduce it for further debate. I am leaning toward option two. It is truly a tough decision but I think a proper phase out/phase in system is undeveloped and the present form can cause systematic complications.

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Napoleon]

It's disappointing that this will probably end in defeat, considering all of the hard work several individuals have put into it. I hope you re-introduce it, Antonio.

Hard work that wasn't finished when the PPT decided to open a vote.

[Napoleon]

A large number of Atlasians will slip through the cracks if this is made law.

[Napoleon]

The sponsor offered a deadline of Monday. You opened a vote on Sunday. Either way, I was still trying to clear things up with this bill and you deprived me of that opportunity.

[Napoleon]

The Senator also said we should kill it and then voted aye. No one cares about Grandmother, though.

[Napoleon]

I actually had plenty of reasons for tabling this, which is why the motion received more Ayes than Nays. Sir, your attacks and deception are out of line.

[Napoleon]

It would be a hideous distortion of truth to blame the Senate.

[Napoleon]

My main issue is tying unemployment benefits to income rather than giving a fixed amount for everyone, perhaps tied to a percentage of median income or another factor.

[Napoleon]

My main issue is tying unemployment benefits to income rather than giving a fixed amount for everyone, perhaps tied to a percentage of median income or another factor.

The main issue here is the amount of disruption it causes in a persons life, such as if they are still making payments on things when the lose their job unexpectedly. Though maybe we can have it based on income in the initial period(s), and then have it just a low fixed amount after that.

Marokai, is there any way to estimate roughly the cost of an extension that is indefinite in time?

That would be the most preferable solution. We need to work out a better system before fiddling around with percentage points and other numbers.

[Napoleon]

I support your amendment shua. I think it is ideal.