Let different people buy in at different rates depending on what they need. You could offer different levels of service for:
social security
medicare
medicaid
even universal healthcare
people could choose how much they wanted of all of these and would be entitled to a level of service corresponding with their contribution.
"From each according to his wants, to each according to his contributions"...
2007-10-20 13:18:34 · 8 answers · asked by WJ 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
seriously, what's wrong with opting out of the safety net? I'd rather keep my money and take my chances.
2007-10-20 13:24:08 · update #1
The capitalist mindset demands that all capital must be continuously in flux making more capital. Should the process fail, the working class is always called upon to make up for it through the sweat of their labor. Those who create all the wealth always bail out those who exploit them. Guaranteed security for the working class is anathema to the owning class. Exploitation cannot take place where a social safety net exists. Manipulation of the working class is more difficult when workers have options. Eliminate the social safety net; what better way to avoid having to make the payouts than to bankrupt the entire economic system? A profound depressing of the economy facilitates the probability that pension payouts will not have to take place at all. In other words, let the big meltdown happen so all obligations to the working class can be expunged. Let the markets crash and let the cycle start over. This is the "boom and bust" that is the signature of capitalism. The bust, as Marx predicted, must take place as a result of capitalist contradictions. The system reverts to salvage operations as the working class is destroyed.
2007-10-20 13:21:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I'm not a liberal -- but strongly support an opt-in system -- if people want the govt to manage their money and provide services -- fine.
But a true liberal should support the kind of personal freedom and autonomy that allows an individual to opt-out of the programs -- no contributions from taxes, but get no benefits either.
I don't think the "level" system would work -- to many variables -- but allowing people to opt-in or opt-out of each program would be a vast improvement over the mandatory nanny mindset.
2007-10-20 13:31:48 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Deficit spending became mandatory through recession. That coated the two wars, the 2d TARP and the restoration Act. hence he added $5 trillion to the debt. His financial advisors have worked out that the deficit will flow down and it has long previous decrease back to the point on the top of the Bush term, $a million.2 trillion. the federal government has decreased its artwork tension considering the fact that 2009. No President has ever had to instruct a beginning certificates and he has taken the difficulty to get the two the fast and long kinds. And no candidate for any place of work is had to instruct college information. What on earth might you be searching for between his transcripts? he's indoctrinating your babies to drop pounds and learn difficult in school, no longer something greater. Why do you think of he's a Muslim while he became in a Christian church for 2 many years ???
2016-10-13 09:03:07 · answer #3 · answered by henshaw 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the BIGGEST problem with that plan is the obvious:
many people would only sign up for the smallest plans... and then realize they need much more help...
say we had a mild depression... the need for social services in every social level would skyrocket... and when the government said "well, you didn't sign up for that"... the people wouldn't be too happy...
in short, your program would work well (in one sense) as long as things are going well, but lead to borerline social anarchy if you tried to keep the same program in place during hard times...
the other problem with this would be it wouldn't generate enough revenue to supply the programs... those who need the programs can't pay for them? While those that can pay, wouldn't be a part of the programs...
so basically, it's like saying "why doesn't every poor person just invest a million dollars in the stock market to live off of"... because they don't have a million dollars... that's why
EDIT: there's about a 99.9 percent chance that everyone that opted out, if things went south, 99.8 percent of them would need to opt back in... and that WILL be a lot of votes, that WILL vote you out of office IF you don't let them back in...
2007-10-20 13:32:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The democrats need the people who actually make the money and produce things to be included so that they can buy votes by promising the less productive that they will take away from the more productive and give to the less productive. Your idea - which I think has merit - would interfere with the democrats method of getting votes.
2007-10-20 13:29:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well, that's a pretty rough draft you have there, but I am open to negotiations...what else you got? what are some of the details? We could also put it to a vote and let the people decide.
Update:
Why the thumbs down? We have to start somewhere, neither side should be shut out. Both sides must be willing to talk.
2007-10-20 13:22:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The correct, moral, version of the statement is:
"To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability."
It is a description of how society should be organized under socialism. There is no need to distort it for your right-wing agenda.
2007-10-20 13:21:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
That's what the selfish like to think.
2007-10-20 13:22:14 · answer #8 · answered by Mike 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋