NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, maybe I made an error (this is entirely possible, and is known to happen), and something else caused the change in my stats (if so, someone please tell me). However, should this not be the case, then whoever wrote this issue was smoking some *seriously* nice crack (and do please share):

#122: Pensioners In Protest [Emperor Matthuis; ed:Sirocco]

The Issue
Falling standards at @@NAME@@'s retirement homes have prompted OAPs to take to the streets and demand better treatment.

The Debate
1. "There needs to be more done for the elderly," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a resident of 'This Old Man' retirement home. "We can't work to support ourselves anymore, and the pensions we get are measly. We need more benefits such as higher standards of living, free bus tickets, and a continuous supply of @@CURRENCY@@s. All it requires is a little more generosity on the part of the tax payers - after all, we fought the war for their sort."

2. "I'm not giving any of my hard-earned wages to a bunch of old fossils," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a devout tax payer. "If they weren't smart enough to save enough money for their later years, then why should the government pay out for them now? They had their chance and they didn't take it. If they really want money so bad, they can go out and work for it like everyone else."

*****************************

K.... so I get this issue, and being that I don't believe in age discrimination, I decide to adopt position 2.

Now, this results in the old people not receiving money from the government. Suddenly, my civil rights drop a level.

And I'm like WTF? (mate) (http://allthingsflash.com/endofworld.swf)

Now... maybe I missed a paragraph/page/chapter/book/course somewhere (and if I did, I apologize), but since when does someone's right to public money come as a result of their *civil* rights?

I mean, it ain't like we're discriminating against grampa over here, when grampa (same guy) was 20, we didn't give him any money either.

-Grampa can still say whatever he wants to whoever he wants, whenever he wants, as loud as he wants.
-Grampa can stick whatever part of his body he wants into another willing person's body, dressed up as whatever he wants to be (still).
-Grampa can marry paul, pauline, paulette, or a pomeranian.
-Grampa can read "How to BBQ your neighbor and get away with it".
-Grampa will not be arrested without due process (not like there's much for him to get arrested FOR).
-Grampa can drink/eat/smoke whatever he wants, in whatever quantities he wants, wherever he wants.
-Grampa can wear (or not wear) whatever clothes he wants, wherever he wants.
-Grampa can worship who, or whatever he wants to worship.

How the heck am I denying grampa civil rights cause I won't send him a check? Even IF I am denying grampa civil rights, aren't I granting civil rights to everyone else who doesn't have to pay for grampas check, thereby increasing my civil rights, since grampa is only a fraction of my population?

OK, so seriously, what sorta crack was someone smokin' over here? And whatever it is, why didn't you share?

-Morgan

Well, you see, previously the old people had the right to get money from the government for their upkeep. Now that you've taken away that right, the overall level of civil rights will go down just a tad.

Since when did they previously have that right? I don't remember giving them such things in earlier dilemmas, and they sure as heck weren't BORN with those rights.

Besides which, that doesn't address the issue that everyone who's not 55+ or 65+ or 75+ years old would no longer have to pay taxes for their upkeep, so in a cost-benefit calculus here, the whole thing evens out, or improves civil rights, since surely *taking* money from the younger population to pay for the elder population is a violation of their civil rights if *giving* money to the elder population is a violation of their civil rights.

Additionally, I don't consider my civil rights, and the civil rights of another member of my region's civil rights dropping a whole level to be "just a tad".

-Morgan

Some things we just have to assume, or nothing would get done.

No one one's 'taking' their money - it's being paid as tax. No one's got the right to not pay tax, otherwise what would be the point?

Maybe not just a tad - but it is removing the right for elderly citizens to live the rest of their lives in comfort, and making them have to work until they die. I guess you could consider that worthy of a whole level drop.

Sirocco did you seriously edit the issue, because i don't remember writing it.

Not sure. I'm fairly certain it had three options when I started though. The third option didn't have much relevance if I recall correctly.

Not sure. I'm fairly certain it had three options when I started though. The third option didn't have much relevance if I recall correctly.


Thanks, i remembered submitting like 13 other issues, but not that one.

I to chose the second choice on this I didn't notice a change on my rights but did a slight one in income tax 8)

My grandparents were taken care of by family rather than government thats the way it shold be we made sure we paid for their food,meds and so on instead of government all they needed was support from their children and other family members.

Taking their money or paying it in tax, doesn't make much difference now does it? Either way the youngin' is out of money, and if having money is a "civil right" now then you're denying it to the youth, and providing it to the elderly.

Since when does *anyone* have the right "to live the rest of their lives in comfort"?

If it's such a fantastic right let's just give it to everyone then, why discriminate against the young?

No one has the right to a certain standard of living either, it's as pointless as having a right to not pay taxes. If some elderly have given themselves the right through their hard work that's something that shouldn't be taken away from them. If I produce enough bananas that I can have bananas for the rest of my life, then their my bananas. But being 65 doesn't give you the right to all the bananas you can eat, just like being 25 doesn't give you that right either. To give grampa the right to all the bananas he can eat implies that we're forcing Junior to make those bananas for him which is tantamount to slavery, which sure as heck won't raise civil rights.

What'll you do if the young go on strike refuse to produce anything at all until they are no longer forced to take care of the elderly?

-Morgan