Talk:Right to Pension, Unemployed Pay and Counseling Act (672)

Right to Pension, Unemployed Pay and Counseling Act (672) Alexander Paramount (NUP) OP

— 09/17/2024 5:51 PM

Tabled by MGA Antonio Recio Rufian as government sponsored bill An act to reform the Kodiak Social Security Act in order to optimize it, provide better and more helpful care and provide for those who truly deserve it.

Debate is set to September 20th https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Right_to_Pension,_Unemployed_Pay_and_Counseling_Act_(672) The Kodiak Republic Wiki Right to Pension, Unemployed Pay and Counseling Act (672) Replacement Act of the Kodiak Social Security Act (644) and amendment to The Retirement Act (644) An act to reform the Kodiak Social Security Act in order to optimize it, provide better and more helpful care and provide for those who truly deserve it.

Alexander Paramount (NUP) OP

— 09/17/2024 5:51 PM

@Assembly Member Debate for this bill is now open

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 6:01 PM I'd wish to present this bill as a change from the previous, inappropriate and inefficient social security bill.

Instead of 1.500 florins for every pensioner, regardless of the effort they've put in our nation in their whole life, they shall be rewarded accordingly to how much they've contributed to our nation, while also keeping their pension to a reasonable level, and also lowering the years needed that were raised more than a decade ago. The elderly deserve more.

The unemployment payment system that's currently being used is unreliable, non controbuting to the economy and easy to take advantage of. Now instead of getting paid for a full 18 months for no reason, people will get paid in a better way depending on the time they've worked.

Another issue was how easy it is to receive the payment. Throwing job applications and just showing it as proof to get free money is not the way to do that. An active counseling program where a professional will actively help unemployed citizens find jobs and develop new skills to help with the job hunting is an essential part of a modern nation that really wants to help its people. This bill is a total improvement, and saves a total of 225 million florins. I believe it's an easy aye for most MGAs.

Viktor Adler [PSV] — 09/17/2024 6:04 PM This bill is utterly horrendous towards our unemployed citizens. It traps people in a loop of poverty and unemployment, as without money, they cannot afford transport to job interviews, or work uniforms, or any of the other items which are essential to work. J.F. Sassoon [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 6:05 PM Having spoken to the author beforehand, I support this bill.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 6:10 PM It's ironic that you say that, because with the previous payments, a person would have to live with not more than 800 florins a month. With this bill, we provide a professional to help in every way possible to said unemploted people, and we actually have someone to verify a citizen's active attempts at searching for a job. They also get a higher pay in the end of the month than what's currently being given. Your excuses are unreasonable.

Viktor Adler [PSV] — 09/17/2024 6:13 PM There is no inclusion for those who have worked less than 360 days, not even for those who are unable to work due to disability.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 6:16 PM There's already disability aids that don't allow for other social service payments to stack on top. And those who've worked less than 360 days will still get to use the program plus enjoy other social service programs and payments.

Billy-Club Barber (PSV) — 09/17/2024 9:48 PM I'm not sure what we're expected to do with elderly people who arbitrarily receive only a fraction of the pension. Just let them starve I guess?

Tiberius Brown — 09/17/2024 10:25 PM Seems to be the general plan of the libertarians. Let the people starve and court the corporations.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 10:27 PM Arbitrarily is not precisely the reason. And they can request other aids.

Billy-Club Barber (PSV) — 09/17/2024 10:28 PM Its well known the amount of food or roof space you need is directly related to how many years you worked 30 years ago. That's why so many elderly people are only 3 feet tall

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 10:31 PM What you need, you have to work for it when you can to obtain it, you shouldn't get for free what you could've worked for to get it without restrictions

Billy-Club Barber (PSV) — 09/17/2024 10:41 PM a solid effort side-step. I will return then to the first issue I raised what are we expected to do then with the elderly who don't meet these arbitrary work minimums. let them starve? euthanise them? what?

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 10:48 PM They would still be elligible for other types of aid, and any future social care programs. An elderly person wouldn't starve with that payment most likely, but they wouldn't get the full benefit as it's dependent on the contribution to the nation.

Billy-Club Barber (PSV) — 09/17/2024 10:50 PM Great so we can vote this down until the "future social care program" is introduced

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 10:51 PM Like if the current system is any more helpful and reliable. You're showing that the PSV doesn't contribute to the nation, but instead blocks any attempts at advancing.

Billy-Club Barber (PSV) — 09/17/2024 10:58 PM You're literally underfunding pensions for no measurable benefit to citizens with no plan to ensure their safety

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 11:25 PM I'm redestributing pension pay to grant it to those who've contributed accordingly Citizens shouldn't expect to be granted free money for their last years if they never did anything to contribute like everybody else for the last 65, when they're able to do so.

Tiberius Brown — 09/17/2024 11:28 PM To each according to their government defined contribution rather than need, I see.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 11:30 PM From each according to their ability to each according to their need is something you people preach about Suddenly it's applied to a sector of the government in which when you don't do one you don't get the other And turns out we're the villains

Tiberius Brown — 09/17/2024 11:31 PM You misunderstand. To each according to their need does not rely on the government deciding if your contribution is good enough or not.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 11:31 PM No, let's best keep paying them 18k a year regardless of what they did and we'll just keep mocing the age of retirement upwards, since that's whats been done these last years.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/17/2024 11:33 PM The issue is we're talking about the money that people work hard for just so that the government can fund these things, money that then has to be properly administered by the same government. If the government's gonna be giving it away to absolutely everyone ignoring their contribution and their needs, it would be okay if it wasn't a finite budget we're talking about here.

Tiberius Brown — 09/17/2024 11:38 PM Again, what about those who have not been able to contribute in the traditional manner? Are we supposed to just let them starve and be homeless on the street? What about those who contribute all their lives, but not in the way that you define it? Community leaders who spend hundreds of hours helping the poor and needy for free, for example? I know form personal experience that leading a union is not lucrative. Am I supposed to be cut out of reaping the rewards of my social contributions simply because I did not directly add a few florins to the pockets of the economic elite? Additionally, what about those who are put in dire situations, like single mothers forced to labor in order to feed their children? Does a widow have to accept cents of retirement funds simply because she was only able to work for a short time? What about stay-at-home parents? Their labor is necessary and vital to our society. Are they to be cut out of pension simply because they labored at home, raising children, rather than working a job?

Tiberius Brown — 09/17/2024 11:46 PM All of these issues are ignored by this bill. Why? To save a few florins? And then we arrive at the unemployment section. Why are these the terms selected? Does a person who has worked only a year need only 4 months to find another job? No. In many cases, they need far more. This is a ridiculous assumption. Someone who has worked less time is proportionally more in need of aid in the long term. Their savings, if they have only worked for a year, are going to be far less than someone who has worked 5. You speak of deserve, but you ignore need. If you wait to cut waste, give this funding to those who need it, not those who don’t.

Arnold Malcolm (KSDP) — 09/18/2024 12:08 AM I have to agree with Mr. Brown here ((sorry if you go by another name)). It is not possible for people who are unemployed to find a job. When a company declares bankruptcy or collapses is one thing. But when a whole market or, God forbid, an entire economy collapses it's a whole 'nother game. I speak out of experience as I've seen, both as a citizen and politician, the economic collapse of the Kodiak Republic in its former times. Many people rely on these pensions, you can't just suddenly announce that you're taking them away and there's nothing we can do about it. ((Whilst this is a real world example I'm going to give it anyway:I live in Romania and a few months ago the government decided to recalculate pensions. The result you may ask? Catastrophe. The government claimed that most pensions would increase after the recalculation. In reality, most pensions halved, and one family reportedly got only 1 RON-0.22 USD as of writing this, after the recalculation of their disability benefit.))

Tiberius Brown — 09/18/2024 12:18 AM ((Mr. Brown is right :) ))

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/18/2024 1:37 AM For such fatal cases, it's expected that something else is done from the government to help rather than just rely on this, as it's been done, what I'm doing is fix the current legislation for the day to day life to make it more cost-efficient and be granted for those who deserve it.

The change of the pensions would be based on how many years of labor did they've performed in which they've been taxed, acting as something similar to a small savings hold for the future that the government would do, instead of what we have now which is giving only a maximum of 1,500 florins a month, dependent on the amount they've been taxed the last five years of their employment. The whole current system is unefficient, the pensions and payments don't reward the citizens to work for themseves while they can and the system to check that they're trying to find a job is easy to ignore. What these people from the PSV complain about is those who did the least through their life because they chose to not work nor study out of either selfishness, ignorance or whatever excuse, would become the victims of this new system, apparently.

What I see this bill doing is rewarding those who've spent their life working in kodiak for the most part and as much as they could properly, and in case of economic disaster, the government has already acted for said special occasiona with new legislation. I don't expect it to stop all of a sudden.

Tiberius Brown — 09/18/2024 2:18 AM Ah, yes, "stay-at-home parent" and "community servant" are selfish, ignorant roles. Good to know that SHRIMP believes in such good causes.

Ewan Vraer — 09/18/2024 2:20 AM Well of course, the stay at home parent selfishly prevents them and their child from working in the coal mines, and the community servant is helping those that, according to SHRIMP’s flawed ideology, do not deserve help

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/18/2024 2:21 AM Those aren't even considered as positions that could give you eligibility by the current system You people are complaining over an improved change while ignoring that what we're doing is making the system more efficient and helpful, not remove it from others.

Tiberius Brown — 09/18/2024 2:22 AM And your point is? My argument is not that the current system is flawless, just that your system doesn't address the issues already presented while making more issues appear. It is hardly more efficient, nor is it more helpful.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/18/2024 2:22 AM The issues you people mention are not the ones I wish to fix Not now at least

Tiberius Brown — 09/18/2024 2:23 AM We have already discussed issues that you have not responded to, ones raised by the specific changes you are making.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/18/2024 2:23 AM If there is a future need to deal with said issues, which I don't see at the moment, I'll be in favour of it.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/18/2024 2:24 AM I'd like to see you actually contributing to debate and argue what's a change for the worse and for the better instead of pointing fingers to the party you don't like Especially since you're agreeing with Communards but the evil libertarians sre apparently out of reach for you.

Ewan Vraer — 09/18/2024 2:28 AM I do not like your party, Mr Rufian, because of exactly bills like this, bills should help the general public, improving the scope of welfare and help for the unfortunate, not greedily cut down on it.

Tiberius Brown — 09/18/2024 2:28 AM I will again present the issues that you have yet to address which need addressing: What are we supposed to do with those who have only worked for a few years and then must retire? Are we supposed to leave them on the street? What about those that are forced to enter the workforce at an advanced age, either due to financial hardship or the loss of a spouse? Are they also to be left on the street to starve or eek out a meager existence eating boiled cabbage and rice?

What about the unemployment issues? How is 4 months arrived at? Is this sufficient time to find another job? No. Why is it tied to the amount of time working rather than the individual needs of the unemployed person? Are those that have worked longer and built up more savings not better equipped than those who have not? Would they not have savings to coast until another employment opportunity comes along? We are in the midst of an employment crisis. You mean to tell me that cutting unemployment will somehow help?

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/18/2024 2:30 AM If you call replacing a part of the investment to create a counseling system that actually helps find jobs "greedily cut down on the welfare" you're being blinded by political squabbles. Read my bill, compare it with the previous bill, then come back.

Tiberius Brown — 09/18/2024 8:56 AM It seems that Mr. Rufian has no interest in responding to any legitimate concerns as they have been raised by members of the Assembly and chooses instead to ignore them in order to deliver blunt one-liners.

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 09/18/2024 9:17 AM I must agree with some of the present commentary.

Qualifying for pensions based on labour is discriminatory to those that need the support as an older citizen but may never have met labour requirements. It is harmful to assume that there will be other welfare payments available. If there is a concern of 'gathering welfare payments and cheating the system' (at least that is the impression I am getting), then we are better off adjusting payments based on total payments or simply excluding different payments from being combined.

Pension payments ought to be asset based, then those truly in need will get the larger payments, and those too rich to need it won't. In this case the funds will go towards pensioners that need it the most. In the current proposal it would appear that any retiree will have access (assuming they meet labour requirements) regardless of need.

I also agree that the proposed unemployment payment structure is discriminatory and fits a certain view of ableness or circumstance. Particularly with our economic condition. It is meaningless how long they have been working before they became unemployed (in that they could also have been working less than a year to nil, due to circumstances such as being a student, a caretaker, parent, as already mentioned). To me, need is relevant based on... well, need. Their need generally resolves to - until they get employed again. The incentive will always exist, welfare payments are typically enough to meet basic needs but far from enough for more.

I am slightly confused as well as to what the proposed eligibility for unemployment payments is but I see this is detail lost on the original too. I think that needs more definition and the GA should define that (not the fault of the author).

On a positive note: Repealing the 'work for welfare' law is most definitely an improvement. I wholeheartedly support Article 3.

Jack Williams (KSDP) — 09/19/2024 3:49 AM I believe we see what the concensus is here, how about we motion to vote

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 3:50 AM It's been a day I am still open to any suggestions to modify this For as long as they are reasonable of course

Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 6:55 AM You've still failed to address any of the concerns presented by any of the members.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 7:08 AM I answered the concerns and critics, and again, I will do the changes I believe are needed

Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 7:09 AM You have not answered mine or Ms. Sousa's. Do you not have plans to address the concerns raised? Or do you plan on simply cherry picking questions to respond to and ignoring the legitimate concerns of the representatives of the nation?

Billy-Club Barber (PSV) — 09/19/2024 7:17 AM I believe he means that he has responded in turn to each complaint. No, I don't believe he has any intention to change his starvation bill

Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 7:19 AM If he means that he has responded to each complaint, that is not true either. I have yet to see responses to complains made by myself or Ms. Sousa.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 7:30 AM ((OOC, I'm thinking of what to change and can't make up my mind so I'm stalling here tbh))

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 6:59 PM I've done changes to the act

Article One: Added 1.3 Changed 1.4 rates

Article Two: Changed 2.2 rates

Article Three: Added 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 @Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) I've seen the commentary you've made and I agree that there was change needed. My aim with the requirement to work to receive pensions was meant to be a reference of how much they've contributed with their income tax over their years, like a longer version of the current model where they only account to the last 5 years while being employed.

((also OOC i still don't know fully what the NIFTAI is rn so i tried guessing, seems like the numbers in the minds of others weren't the same as for me))

I still believe that unemployed pay should be received for those who actually contributed to the state in order to pay for that, but I'll admit some people don't have the chance to have those opportunities. I've changed it to allow for those who are yet to be employed and made it possible to receive an extra 6 months if there is a need for it.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 7:10 PM If there are no more questions, I'd now agree to moving this act to voting if other MGAs wish to, although I still suggest we respect the accorded debate time.

Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 7:23 PM I ask again, with mounting frustration, that my concerns be addressed.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 7:30 PM Did you read the changes?

Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 8:48 PM Yes, and a number of my concerns are left unanswered.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 8:50 PM Maybe because those concerns are unreasonable.

Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 10:37 PM The concern that an unemployed person may be left starving and homeless of the streets after being laid off is an unreasonable concern? Man, I’ll have to drastically readjust my concept of reasonable!

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 10:39 PM Catastrophism is your best argument whenever you talk with someone you don't agree? Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 10:40 PM Is it unrealistic that a person who has been laid off after only a year of working will quickly exhaust their meager savings after only a few months? Providing them a paltry 3 months of time to find a new position is a recipe for failure. It’s not catastrophic, it’s realistic.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 10:41 PM You didn't read through my changes if you keep saying this Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 10:42 PM “If worked less than 360 days, 3 months of Unemployed Pay”. Unless I have gone blind, that is what Section 2.2 says.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 10:42 PM Read the article three changes Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 10:52 PM An improvement. But why delimit in the first place? Why not simply allow these counselors to determine if a person needs additional months of unemployment pay? Rather, why not allow the counselors to decide how long to extend unemployment in the first place?

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 10:57 PM Because then it would grant them further power to use against civilians, and we can either have counselors taking advantage of citizens with granting unemployed pay or even counselors who grant those pays indefinitely to their friends and colleages The reason to delimit it is to avoid possible future corruption.

Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 11:03 PM The issue with hard delimitation in the first place is that it cannot take into account the real situations of a person. Delimiting a newly employed individual to only 3 or even 6 months of basic pay when they may have little savings (having only worked less than a year) assumes that they will be able to find a position in that time, which is not always realistic, and that they will be able to survive after that period on their own, which is not always realistic either. This is one of my primary concerns that I believe has not been satisfactorily addressed.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 11:06 PM ((The months are supposed to be added instead of just granting them a max of 6 months, so like if someone has only 3 months and the counselor believes they need the max they'd get 9 in the end)) ((Idk if I typed it out incorrectly))

Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 11:07 PM ((I didn’t necessarily take the most generous allotment because everything says “up to”)) I find the entire delimitation backwards of what it should be. Those that have been working longer will have more savings and more likelihood of landing a position quickly. Those with little savings and less experience will have a much harder time making it post-employment.

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 11:12 PM ((I'm starting to think taking the current system of my country which I consider failing is not the best of ideas))

Tiberius Brown — 09/19/2024 11:23 PM ((You may consider looking at other libertarian platforms IRL and searching for what they believe about reforming unemployment. Either way, the libertarian perspective of unemployment and the socialist/liberal perspective are going to be entirely antithetical. Any way in which you do it, you’ll probably receive pushback.))

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/19/2024 11:28 PM ((I know))

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette)

pinned 

a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 09/21/2024 1:00 AM

Tiberius Brown — 09/22/2024 12:32 AM The author has apparently made all the responses they plan on. Despite the continued shortcomings of this bill, I motion that we vote.

Jack Williams (KSDP) — 09/22/2024 8:08 AM I second the motion

Jack Benjamin (KSDP) — 09/22/2024 12:53 PM I third the motion

Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 12:45 AM @Assembly President

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 09/23/2024 12:49 AM ((No worries have seen this, just haven't been at the laptop until now ;) )). As this debate has been ongoing for some time now and no additional points seem to be forthcoming, the motion to vote will be accepted. The vote will begin momentarily.

EasyPoll APP

— 09/23/2024 12:52 AM

Question Does the General Assembly approve the Right to Pension, Unemployed Pay and Counseling Act (672)?

Choices

letter_a: Aye

letter_b: Nay

letter_c: Abstain

Final Result

letter_a: ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [15 • 50%]

letter_b: ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [12 • 40%]

letter_c: ▓░░░░░░░░░ [3 • 10%]

30 votes from 30 users

Settings

stopwatch: Poll already ended (a day ago)

anonymous: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Poll ID: 8fec0fa2

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 09/23/2024 12:53 AM @Assembly Member The Right to Pension, Unemployed Pay and Counseling Act (672) is hereby put to vote. Ensure you read the act and vote.

Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — Yesterday at 12:56 PM With 15 Ayes, 12 Nays, 3 Abstain the bill passes.

This debate will be archived, and submitted to the archives and the law code updated. ((SOON)).