velvetpage (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
velvetpage) wrote2006-12-04 04:12 pm
velvetpage) wrote2006-12-04 04:12 pm
Spartacus
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/spartacus.htm
For those too lazy to click/read: basically, this guy wants people to opt out of receiving social security benefits, to refuse to take the payments that will/are being made to them by the government. He says it's a way of refusing to make the working pay for those who aren't working.
On the one hand, I can see the value in this. If people who don't need the money, don't take it, the system ends up having more resources for those who do need it, or more tax money for other things. I know many elderly people who could afford to do this. One of the things I dislike about socialism is that determining need is so hard. While I would like to help those who need it, and only those who need it, it's often really tough, not to mention expensive in bureaucratic terms, to figure out who needs it and who is lying to get it. (I believe there are a lot more of the former than the latter, mind you, and given a choice, I'd rather pay for a few cheaters than NOT pay for one person with a genuine need.) If people who didn't need it were to choose to opt out, it would make life simpler for those who believe that it's not unreasonable to ask the working to ensure that those not working can afford to eat and keep roofs over their heads.
On the other hand, I can see how such a movement would go in the long run. You get enough people opting out of any social system, and sooner or later there are enough people who can say, "We're all paying into this, but only X small number of people are using it. Let's stop paying for it." The mechanisms for that could be radical - cancel the program altogether - or more benign - give tax breaks to those who opt out, or rebate cheques on the amount they've paid in, or some other mechanism where the taxes that goes towards Social Security (or whatever it's called in your country) is partially or completely refunded to those not participating. Governments could get away with reducing the benefits, setting eligibility requirements, or other things to reduce the amount they're paying out. End result: the system stands the chance of being undercut far enough to force its collapse.
That's unacceptable to me.
For those too lazy to click/read: basically, this guy wants people to opt out of receiving social security benefits, to refuse to take the payments that will/are being made to them by the government. He says it's a way of refusing to make the working pay for those who aren't working.
On the one hand, I can see the value in this. If people who don't need the money, don't take it, the system ends up having more resources for those who do need it, or more tax money for other things. I know many elderly people who could afford to do this. One of the things I dislike about socialism is that determining need is so hard. While I would like to help those who need it, and only those who need it, it's often really tough, not to mention expensive in bureaucratic terms, to figure out who needs it and who is lying to get it. (I believe there are a lot more of the former than the latter, mind you, and given a choice, I'd rather pay for a few cheaters than NOT pay for one person with a genuine need.) If people who didn't need it were to choose to opt out, it would make life simpler for those who believe that it's not unreasonable to ask the working to ensure that those not working can afford to eat and keep roofs over their heads.
On the other hand, I can see how such a movement would go in the long run. You get enough people opting out of any social system, and sooner or later there are enough people who can say, "We're all paying into this, but only X small number of people are using it. Let's stop paying for it." The mechanisms for that could be radical - cancel the program altogether - or more benign - give tax breaks to those who opt out, or rebate cheques on the amount they've paid in, or some other mechanism where the taxes that goes towards Social Security (or whatever it's called in your country) is partially or completely refunded to those not participating. Governments could get away with reducing the benefits, setting eligibility requirements, or other things to reduce the amount they're paying out. End result: the system stands the chance of being undercut far enough to force its collapse.
That's unacceptable to me.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2006-12-04 10:30 pm (UTC)(link)In Canada, people with larger income are taxed back for any overage in various types of social benefits, including what might be a temporary set back between jobs [think welfare]. For those who are retired, wealthier Canadians will have to pay more taxes, and there are even entries for returning portions or all of the social benefits they received. I think this system better, because, most people don't cheat, although many may fudge, grin, on their income taxes.
It is best that people don't opt out, because, it is the fairest way.
no subject
I have a feeling that people who cheat the system are in the minority almost everywhere. There is such thing as generational welfare, but it's rarer than the detractors like to think. But it's hard to come up with any numbers to support that. It may be simply that I'm overly trusting.
You're welcome to read my journal, but I'd like to know a handle by which to think of you - real name or not doesn't matter.
no subject
EI is now operating more like an insurance system (than it has in the past) - I don't participate, am not required to participate, and cannot draw on EI. I'm not sure EI qualifies as a tax-funded program, as it is funded by contributors.
CPP is like EI in that it is funded by contributors and by employers...not really "social services" IMO, as it is not funded through general tax revenues.
The final one is social assistance, and I don't know enough about it to comment - but it seems to me this is the *only* general program (administered provincially) to which this argument applies.
no subject
no subject
But if we are talking about income redistribution, the fact that Canada has publicly-funded medical care will trump any argument about how "socialist" Canada is vis-a-vis the US: public medicare is a huge income redistribution system and it is NOT geared to income - all taxpayers (all citizens, and all landed immigrants, and most refugees, in fact) are entitled to no-cost basic health care when there are clearly taxpayers who desire to purchase their own healthcare beyond what is publicly funded.
(Also - with two kids and you on parental leave, I'd be very surprised that you don't qualify for the Canada Child Tax Benefit - if your net income is $100,000 after taxes you would still qualify for some CCTB. I don't presume to know your income - I just know that the income cut-off for the loss of benefits is quite high.)
no subject
no subject
no subject