|
Poll: Would you participate in voluntary tax programs, like Social Security?No (360) 77% Yes (105) 23% 465 total votes Your vote: Would you participate in voluntary tax programs, like Social Security? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
What if things like Social Security, Medicare, etc were voluntary?
By this, I mean that you have the option to not participate in this program offered by the government. You could waive your SS tax, and in return you wouldn't get any money from the government once you retire.
If these programs were optional, would you participate in them?
Personally, I wouldn't. I've always seen Social Security as the government taking a percentage of your pay, and putting it away for you, so that when you retire you'll have income. I believe I'm responsible enough to manage my own finances, and don't need to government to do it for me.
|
If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
|
I voted no. I'm probably not going to retire in the US anyways so medicare won't really affect me and I plan on saving for my retirement.
|
Wasn't there a story where there was a fire at a specific house that was just on the rim of the city's borders. They didn't want to pay some tax or expense for firefighters to come all the way over there. So when they did have a fire, they just let it burn and firefighters were sitting on the edge of the city's limits to see if any fire went on the property.
I think I'm confused, but this poll reminded me of that story. Most people won't pay because in the short-term it seems like a loss.
|
On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote:
If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
Yep, because people in general are stupid.
Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc.
In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care.
I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them.
Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself.
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
No I would not. I would reconsider if the government could actually prove they are capable of being efficient with our money.
|
Doesn't this get to why welfare was even needed in the first place? People are assholes. If they weren't, we wouldn't need these programs in the first place.
|
I don't really think we need social security anyways. It was a nice stunt to help after the Depression, but World War II did more for us than SS. I think people should be able to save their own money for retirement and support themselves without the government.
|
Osaka27089 Posts
On February 01 2011 17:29 overt wrote:
Doesn't this get to why welfare was even needed in the first place? People are assholes. If they weren't, we wouldn't need these programs in the first place.
Ugh. Never had hard times eh?
Rather than a generational issue, a better question is something like municipal fire insurance. Some people in unincorporated areas pay for fire department service and it isn't mandatory. But if your house goes up, they won't come.
|
Would participate in Medicare but not Social Security. I live so cheaply that I don't even have furniture. Take that, capitalism! I plan to retire long before 65; but I recognize a vast amount of people are so dumb and easily influenced into consumerism that they end up retiring with zero savings. Personally I can get a better ROI than the payroll tax, though.
Actually, I would participate in the disability portion of Social Security that reimburses for job related disability (I think it does that).
|
C'mon, guys. Where is the sense of community spirit. Just because you guys feel you may never need it, doesn't mean you shouldn't pay it. It means theres more money in there for the poor people who do. Poverty has very little to do with laziness, and more to do with where, when and under what circumstances you are born.
Also, given the lack of proper welfare provisions in the USA, you should be glad it's there, because while you might be able to get more out of your money if you saved that percentage of your tax yourself, money payed into Social Security wont disappear should you lose your job, or declare bankruptcy. Taxes are not based off personal requirements, but rather providing for the greater community. According to Wikipedia, Social Security in the USA keeps 40% of Americans over the age of 65 out of poverty, and I think that's pretty great.
|
wealthy people wouldn't participate if it was a % tax.
poor people couldn't afford if it was a flat tax.
voluntary doesn't work.
|
Canada907 Posts
I think the framing of the question is creating weirdly skewed answers.
Does anybody else find it hard to believe that 80% of people wouldn't participate in ANY volunteer government social program? So 80% of people wouldn't participate in medicare?
I think people are voting no based solely on whether they want to participate in social security or not.
At any rate, even if only 20% would have opted out it still shows why these kinds of things are mandatory.If someone spent all their money and got old it would fall onto the state to take care of them as in most of the world it is considered unacceptable to let old people die on the street. It would have to place a tax on working people in order to support the portion of the population that overspends before they get old - by forcing everyone to save at least these people will be partially supported by their own money when they get old.
And if any of you decide to take a investment course, you'll realize just how many people fail to plan properly for their retirement. So many people screw it up. It makes sense to force those people to subsidize their own retirement.
edit: never mind the humanitarian disaster that would occur if there was no support system for the persistently 5+% of unemployed people sitting around in the U.S.
edit2: or perhaps people are voting no because of misreading the question, like kipsate's comment below me.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
No, why?Because people if some people don't pay for this and others do, they can reap the profits of those who pay while not paying themselves. I am no economist but I believe this is called the Free Rider behaviour(not sure). I Like taxes as a concept and I approve of it if everyone pays, but not if its voluntary. Taxes are used for stuff like street lighting aswell, and you can't just turn that off just because some guy didn't pay his taxes.
|
I would probably pay it depending on my own income and how selfish I feel. :D
In the end however I probably wouldn't pay anything if I didn't have to.
Then there's point where you think what is necessary to pay for goverment like social security. Personally I think it's one of the top prios but someone else might think it's not.
|
I voted no, kowing myself too good. While it sounds good at first, I am pretty sure when it comes to giving away my hard-earned money I might be too muhc of a miser to do so. And if I gave some of my money it would surely not be comparable to what I pay in taxes and social security fees right now. So, no, knowing myself I think voluntary payments would not do the job in my case.
|
Well for starters if its voluntary, its not a tax. Much like in the US you don't have a National Health Service, when there is no mandate, things cost a butt tonne. Private health insurance is far more expensive as a consumer and as a business than a single payer national programme, you can argue about socialism all you want but its true, the US have one of the worst private healthcare systems in the western world (when Medicare is the most efficient healthcare systems in the world) and are the only major country to not have socialised medicine. If socialism is so bad, then why does everyone with a brain use it?
Secondly, if they didn't make you pay taxes by putting you in jail if you don't then no one would pay. Hell there are many many super rich busniess people who avoid paying taxes all together simply by living somewhere like the caymen islands for 9 months of the year. Businesses find any loophole they can to pay less tax.
Taxes are essential to keep countries running, believe it or not services run by the government are usually way more cost efficient than private versions. When they privitized the railways in the UK the costs spiraled ridiculously, both to operate and to travel on them. The reason people think that government spending is so out of control is because unlike private companies they actually have to report to the public and can be ousted from their jobs by us if we feel they are doing a bad job.
Imagine if the public could fire bank CEO's for doing a bad job. Then we'd see how long it would take to sort them out.
|
the guys on here are 12-25 years old mostly. who in their right mind at that age would participate in social security? We all feel invincible until we're 30. This poll isn't very representative
|
Wouldn't participate in Medicare or SS. Reason is that the government isn't efficient at all with our money. Medicare is going bankrupt soon and by the time I retire SS won't be there for me, mainly because it's really a giant Ponzi scheme.
Not to say that I think either of these programs are terribly bad in idea, just in practice.
|
On February 01 2011 18:05 naggerNZ wrote:
C'mon, guys. Where is the sense of community spirit. Just because you guys feel you may never need it, doesn't mean you shouldn't pay it. It means theres more money in there for the poor people who do. Poverty has very little to do with laziness, and more to do with where, when and under what circumstances you are born.
Also, given the lack of proper welfare provisions in the USA, you should be glad it's there, because while you might be able to get more out of your money if you saved that percentage of your tax yourself, money payed into Social Security wont disappear should you lose your job, or declare bankruptcy. Taxes are not based off personal requirements, but rather providing for the greater community. According to Wikipedia, Social Security in the USA keeps 40% of Americans over the age of 65 out of poverty, and I think that's pretty great.
Isn't that what the Salvation Army and Red Cross and dozens of other aid groups are for?
If you want to help the poor, you have the option of donating to those groups.
Social Security/Medicare etc are meant for your own benefit, not so you can pay for other people's retirement.
On February 01 2011 18:08 Gnial wrote:
I think the framing of the question is creating weirdly skewed answers.
Does anybody else find it hard to believe that 80% of people wouldn't participate in ANY volunteer government social program? So 80% of people wouldn't participate in medicare?
I think people are voting no based solely on whether they want to participate in social security or not.
At any rate, even if only 20% would have opted out it still shows why these kinds of things are mandatory.If someone spent all their money and got old it would fall onto the state to take care of them as in most of the world it is considered unacceptable to let old people die on the street. It would have to place a tax on working people in order to support the portion of the population that overspends before they get old - by forcing everyone to save at least these people will be partially supported by their own money when they get old.
And if any of you decide to take a investment course, you'll realize just how many people fail to plan properly for their retirement. So many people screw it up. It makes sense to force those people to subsidize their own retirement.
edit: never mind the humanitarian disaster that would occur if there was no support system for the persistently 5+% of unemployed people sitting around in the U.S.
edit2: or perhaps people are voting no because of misreading the question, like kipsate's comment below me.
Wait, you really believe that government has a social responsibility to take care of its citizens, regardless of how the citizens have taken care of themselves?
So if I spend all of my paycheck on booze, hookers, and gambling, and in my old age I fall into poverty, the government has a responsibility to take money from people who are currently earning wages, and give it to me to live on? Never mind that my financial situation is the result of my own negligence?
So then, at what point is the government out of line? After all, if they wanted to ensure that all of their citizens lived adequately, shouldn't they take 100% of our money, and then spend it on things for us? That would ensure we don't squander any of it. However, this would be virtual slavery.
With the freedom that comes in a capitalist economy to spend as you wish comes the responsibility to spend wisely, with the foresight to save for rough times. This doesn't just concern retirement or medical matters either. If your car breaks down, and you have no money in your bank account to pay for repairs, that is your own fault. The government shouldn't step in and give you money to fix your car. Likewise, they shouldn't save you from poverty if that poverty is the result of your own poor decisions.
I'm all for helping people that are struck by a natural disaster, or are laid off from their jobs, or become ill. However, I cannot understand why we are obligated to help those who are too irresponsible and ignorant to help themselves.
On February 01 2011 18:11 Kipsate wrote:
No, why?Because people if some people don't pay for this and others do, they can reap the profits of those who pay while not paying themselves. I am no economist but I believe this is called the Free Rider behaviour(not sure). I Like taxes as a concept and I approve of it if everyone pays, but not if its voluntary. Taxes are used for stuff like street lighting aswell, and you can't just turn that off just because some guy didn't pay his taxes.
If you waive your taxes, you don't have to pay for people who are still accepting SS/medicare/etc.
Also, I'm only talking SOME taxes be voluntary, not all. Obviously the roads still have to be maintained, police and fire have to exist, etc.
On February 01 2011 18:13 Ryndika wrote:
I would probably pay it depending on my own income and how selfish I feel. :D
In the end however I probably wouldn't pay anything if I didn't have to.
Then there's point where you think what is necessary to pay for goverment like social security. Personally I think it's one of the top prios but someone else might think it's not.
How necessary you view social security probably depends on how reliant you will be on it in the future.
Do you plan on living off social security when you retire? Or do you think you'll have enough personal savings to live on?
On February 01 2011 18:15 storm8ring3r wrote:
the guys on here are 12-25 years old mostly. who in their right mind at that age would participate in social security? We all feel invincible until we're 30. This poll isn't very representative
Who cares if it's representative? I'm not using this poll to conduct extensive research into popular opinion on public welfare programs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
