Topic: Opting out of Social Security - page 5. (Read 7319 times)

Yes, this is a much better pro-SS argument than Gabi's.

As a Tory voter, I agree  There is a lot of stupid spending.  But the NHS, social programs, regulators and roads are needed and have to be paid for anyway.  Tax is as good a way as any.

The Queen baffles me.  One of the richest people in the world and she gets both an old age pension and a massive public subvention.

Americans don't seem to vote to leave people without insurance die outside hospitals so you have to work out how to deal with people who are not going to voluntarily buy insurance.

Your first idea won't work - sick people can't negotiate so in a system like the US one, you have companies with patent monopolies price gouging people who are afraid of dying.  You can't shop around for patented drugs so costs won't fall.  

Your second idea works.  In the UK, health care is paid by taxes.  Health results are better than the US and its costs slightly over half.

In UK,a lot is expected from Govt and as you rightly say,this does include providing healthcare/social services free at the point of use.Taxes go to loads of stuff in UK.
1.Health care (called NHS in UK)
2.Social programs
3.Lots of regulators (Ofcom-TV/advertising,Ofwat-regulator of water companies,Ofgem-regulator of the energy companies,well too many to list here)
4.The Queen (how else does the Royal family get funded? Via our taxes of course)
5.Environmental programs (save the earth kind of thing,plus funding renewable energy projects)
6.NI (national Insurance-UK equivalent to your Social security,funds govt programs/your pension)
7.Roads (funded by road tax which is based on your cars emissions.Low emission cars are tax exempt.)
8.20% VAT applied to all goods/services sold in UK (It's much more for cigarettes and alcohol though.Sports nutrition products are currently tax exempt but not for long though)

Well there are too many things to list for what taxes in UK go to.If you stop paying NI,you'll be stopping funds to everything that depends on it (pension,NHS,social programs).

We should think about what we would do if we needed help from those programs,that we stop paying into.Being self reliant (or as close to it as you can) will mean you can stop paying certain taxes and still enjoy a high quality of life.

This is probably true. I'm a fan of Nature correcting bad behavior, to some this seems cruel but it probably the best solution. We don't need people to be forced to buy Insurance in fact this is a VERY bad idea to give governments. I'm not even a fan of semi forced insurance like car insurance. We did fine for a very long time without it being a mandate as other countries still do. e.g. What in the world does a Credit Rating have to with the cost of Car Insurance?  It is a scheme to charge those with good driving records but bad credit more money(poor people). Wealthy people could careless cause they can self-insure and by-pass all the requirements.

Basically, what I am saying is. Yes people do stupid things that affect their longterm abilities but let them suffer the consequences of those actions. That is the quickest way to stop them from doing stupid things.

You want to bring down the cost of health care to affordable rates? Well, make insurance companies pay the people and the people pay the doctors letting the insured keep and savings that they wish to save from the 'covered' amount allowed.

OR just get rid of insurance.

True 'Doctors' are like true 'Artists', they are not in the profession for money; they have a deep seeded need to help.

I mentioned the Amish in this thread before, they have a system of 'insurance' but it isn't insurance in the traditional sense. They seem to live healthy and have long lives. They pool their money and payout at providers that accept their self-funded card which by they way pays out almost immediately without all the hassle.

Humans live in a bubble of confidence where bad stuff only happens to other people.  Many just won't save and won't buy insurance.  They will spend that money on more immediate pleasures.  Unless those that do save and do buy insurance are prepared to allow their improvident compatriots to die in the streets, they have to either force them to join schemes like social security or they have to accept that stupid folk are entitled to freeload.

This is a weird argument. Do you realize that if you stopped paying for social security you would have more money to spend on other types of insurance and plans for the future? Basically you are just assuming that SS is the best possible deal. If that was the case then why does the government need to force people to participate?

No one will flame you.  Its a perfectly reasonable position.

I don't think you've provided enough arguments to convince a majority your position is correct but you won't be flamed.  Personally I think government should do what its been elected to do.  In the UK, that includes providing health care and social services free at the point of consumption. In the US, that seems to include providing social security but you know your system better than me.

It's not the Gov's job to take care of you till you die, it's their job to step out of the way and let you responsibly live and plan for the your life   I wish they Gov. was smaller.  Your taxes are only supposed to pay for Gov. salaries, roads and such, not health care   Go ahead and flame me after this, I'm expecting it ha ha

If they aren't using those SS savings to buy alternative insurance and investment plans, don't they deserve to be fucked?

It's not like we [USA] actually HAVE a universal health care system. The government leaves people to die on the streets all the time, even those who faithfully paid taxes their whole lives. Not that private insurance companies are much more trustworthy, but at least let people pick the least bad of several bad options.

Yeah nice stop paying so when something bad happens to you you will be fucked. Or maybe you will do like that father who went in a hospital with a pistol to have help for his son who required medical assistance (but since they were poor and could not pay the insurance, no help for you, you poor, you die)

/facepalm

I found that site a few years ago.... I find it pretty damn cool to see it referenced here.

Bitcoiners. Good people!

Actually once you complete the paperwork they are legally obligated to recognize it. Of course people will find it odd, but that doesn't change the law.

They are a bit more optimistic then others I have read, but generally agree with that is said there.  A small cut now would satisfy the tougher projections though.

http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2010/07/27/selling-the-big-lie-on-social-security/

You're missing the point. It's not about insurance being voluntary or not. It's about how premiums pay for claims. Many people mistakenly believe, with regard to insurance and social security, that the payments they make in are supposed to somehow equitably match what their claims should be over time. Neither program is designed to work like that.

The OP likely is one who believes that he should be exempt from the program, because perhaps his payments made into social security might not equal what he'd receive on the back end - exactly like a good driver who never has a claim might believe that his premium should be even lower.

I do not believe that is true.  Currently, SS is running a SURPLUS (not that the rest of the government is not stealing that money).  Even in 2033, SS should be able to pay out 77% of benefits.  If current benefits were cut NOW by 10%, the surplus would take us through the 'hump' created by the baby boomers.  After that wave passes, SS is again sustainable.  Short sighted politicians are doing what is best for them now in exchange for screwing up the future. 

As originally intended, yes. But it turned into one big Pyramid Scheme that requires each generation to produce more children and give those children more and more jobs at the same or higher rates of pay.

Now if you truly restricted it to Widows, Orphans, disabled etc... then there is plenty of money. SS is a hidden tax that the government borrows from. Well used to borrow from. They can't anymore.

It will have to be means tested for any shape of it to stay viable. People still believe the money they put in for 50 years was theirs. I blame the government for that illusion and not clarifying it. You will have 1 worker trying to support more than 2 people on SS very shortly. Can't be done.

Start with the wealthy, if they don't need it, they don't get it. And 'need' needs to be clearly quantified.

The basic idea of SS is sound.  The two problems are that the money is not being kept in the trust fund.  It is being used as an interest free loan by the government, so basically it is not there.  The second problem is the payout needs to be reduced NOW but it is politically much easier not to.  So future generations are ripped off by the current one.  It is sad, because the reduction needed is actually doable.  Seniors would of course object to a 10% cut in current SS benefits, but with that the system would be sound (SS, not medicare/medicaid).

I wouldn't compare voluntary insurance with compulsory, they are two different beasts. Also, the reasons that people don't have any money to survive when they are 70 should be addressed. If this is due to poor decisions and failure to plan ahead...

There is also the way the government uses the money to play numbers games, etc. There are many problems with social security, I would like to opt out even if they keep what they have already taxed. I think many people feel this way.