Advertisement
by Charlotte Ryberg » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:31 am
by Philimbesi » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:31 am

by Mesogiria » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:41 am
Philimbesi wrote:The ambassador stated to me earlier in the debate that the topic of how unpleasant a job would be up to a democratic vote.
by Philimbesi » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:46 am

by Parti Ouvrier » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:50 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I think a better compromise would be a simple resolution which bans compulsory retirement and affirms the right to retirement, while allowing member states to set a threshold of retirement of their choice (a la Threshold of Majority). It could go under Free trade, Mild, on the basis of improving economic efficiency and encouraging citizens to work as long as they like.

by Epistamai » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:52 am

by Parti Ouvrier » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:58 am
by Philimbesi » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:01 am

by Grays Harbor » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:02 am

by Parti Ouvrier » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:06 am
Epistamai wrote:How is this an international issue? Stop trying to force your lazy commie ways on other nations.
If you want your government to be ever present in the lives of your citizens than do so... just keep your economically disastrous and oppressive policies to yourself.

by Parti Ouvrier » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:09 am

by Epistamai » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:14 am
Parti Ouvrier wrote:Another comment based on irrationality. And coming from a nation that spends most of its budget on defense and law and order I find it incredible that you say that. How's NAZI Europe? Surplus capital and profit,(falling rate of profit) causes unemployment. We could abolish unemployment by sharing the work.


by Parti Ouvrier » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:19 am
Epistamai wrote:Parti Ouvrier wrote:Another comment based on irrationality. And coming from a nation that spends most of its budget on defense and law and order I find it incredible that you say that. How's NAZI Europe? Surplus capital and profit,(falling rate of profit) causes unemployment. We could abolish unemployment by sharing the work.
National defense, law and order, and education. The government should not be involved in anything else. The government's purpose is to create and implement laws, so that the private sector can run smoothly. National defense is a great example of a public good, that is also very important. Education is important for the government so that everyone can educate themselves, no matter what their background. Once they have their education, it is up to the individual to exercise personal responsibility.
I assure you that we attempt to privatize as much as we can, in the above cases, government funds the programs, which are delivered by private contracts. Police services are largely privately owned and contracted by the government, as is the education system and much of the military.
And yes, life in NAZI EUROPE is very nice. Very few communists.
OOC:
by Philimbesi » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:23 am
And I'm sorry, but I read.

by Mesogiria » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:24 am
Philimbesi wrote:You're most welcome... and you ask a most excellent question. One I fear I don't have answer for.
Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA
by Philimbesi » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:34 am

by Parti Ouvrier » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:43 am
Philimbesi wrote:While we're asking questions that aren't going to be answered. Getting back to the idea of state pensions. In the USP a quick calculation indicates we have 938 million retired citizens. )Incidentally that is 637 million more than the ambassador has in his entire country...)
I would assume the ambassador feels as though the USP should raise the income tax rate on it's workforce to pay for it?

by Mesogiria » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:46 am
Parti Ouvrier wrote:Philimbesi wrote:While we're asking questions that aren't going to be answered. Getting back to the idea of state pensions. In the USP a quick calculation indicates we have 938 million retired citizens. )Incidentally that is 637 million more than the ambassador has in his entire country...)
I would assume the ambassador feels as though the USP should raise the income tax rate on it's workforce to pay for it?
At least you admit it is an assumption.
by Philimbesi » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:46 am

by Glen-Rhodes » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:48 am
Grays Harbor wrote:Demand all you want to. This sort of social engineering is unwelcome to most here.

by Epistamai » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:49 am

by Parti Ouvrier » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:58 am
Epistamai wrote:Raising taxes to pay for those that were irresponsible for their retirement plans is immoral. Why should responsible members of society be punished for the frivolous spending and short sightedness of a minority? If you are going to be irresponsible with your money, no one else should be forced to bail you out.
If you want some sort of pension fund, that allow for the private sector to create one. It will be much better managed than a government program.
by Philimbesi » Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:44 am

by Grays Harbor » Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:53 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Grays Harbor wrote:Demand all you want to. This sort of social engineering is unwelcome to most here.
Please speak for yourself. Some of us have already drafted a proposal on social security.
- Dr. B. Castro
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement