Alaska Longevity Bonus Advisory Question, Measure 3 (1986)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Pensions
Pension.jpg
Policy
Pension policy
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Alaska
LawsHistory
List of measures

The Alaska Longevity Bonus Advisory Question, also known as Measure 3, was on the November 4, 1986 ballot in Alaska as an advisory question, where it was approved. The measure asked voters whether the Alaska Legislature should adopt an annuity option longevity bonus program.[1]

Election results

Alaska Measure 3 (1986)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 99,222 60.13%
No65,78939.87%

Text of measure

The language appeared on the ballot as:[1]

Bonding Measure No. 3
Advisory Votes on Longevity Bonus Annuity Program
(Ch. 99 SLA 85, SB56)

The Fourteenth Alaska State Legislature considered two alternatives to the present longevity bonus program. Both were adopted into law, but neither will take effect unless the legislature chooses one of them. The legislature has asked for an advisory vote of the public on the annuity option which is described below.

The annuity option provides that every individual who reaches age 65 by January 1, 1988, including those already receiving the bonus, would receive a longevity bonus payment of $250 per month. In addition, a person under age 65 on January 1, 1988, could participate in an optional annuity program by depositing all or part of his or her permanent fund dividends in an account held by the state. Upon reaching age 65, a person would receive a monthly payment in an amount determined by how much was contributed to the account. The annuity payments would be supplemented with declining longevity bonus payments paid for with general funds until the annuity accounts were large enough to provide monthly payments of $250 a month.

The second option provides that every individual who is 65 years old by January 1, 1988, including those already receiving the bonus, will receive a longevity bonus payment of $250 per month, but that anybody younger than age 65 by January 1, 1988, would not be eligible for benefits.

Should the legislature adopt the annuity option?[2]

See also

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

External links

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 ICPSR, "Referenda and Primary Election Materials," accessed January 29, 2015
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.