Opting out

[test123]

Do you think adults should be able to opt-out of any government social program in exchange for equivalent tax deductions?

[Ragnus]

Of course. But at the same time they should expect no sympathy if they are in need of something that would have normally been covered if they have no coverage.

[Sepukku]

Survey question is ambiguous as to your post question. "Would I like to Opt Out?" No. I currently take advantage of some government programs. Do I think others should have the right to opt out? Yes under certain circumstances. So Poll Question should probably be altered by mod/OP if possible.

[Dantrag]

No. Same reason you need healthy people to have insurance. Without the pool of healthy people the cost of coverage would cost way too much.

[hey]

Voted no, but at the same time, i'd definitely like the option of opting out of scams, like social security. Though in that case, the better option would be to just kill it.

[Ashmada]

Of course not. The line of thinking implied here is beyond simplistic.

[Psion]

no, because by opting out, you not only put yourself at risk, but also often wind up putting others at risk as well. For instance, opting to not be eligible for welfare in exchange for a tax break? If you do happen to become broke enough to need it, well great, now you need welfare, can't get it, and may possibly resort to stealing to survive, which results in a burden to society.

[Demosthenes11]

No. Same reason you need healthy people to have insurance. Without the pool of healthy people the cost of coverage would cost way too much.

this

if you honestly believe you should be able to "opt out," you do not understand economics/government and should not be allowed to vote

[Conrad]

I think anyone who would opt out of social programs and thinks they're useless doesn't understand the idea of a "society."

[Callisto]

Would this mean they get banned from using social infrastructure/transportation? That might be amusing.

[quannum]

i got mine!

[Jeryhn]

No, because no one who is rich would pay into the system by virtue of being lucky enough to provide for their own care, etc., which would lead to there being no effective system for those who are unable to in the first place.

Troll poll is troll. Should pretty much rename the thread to "Taxes: Are they awesome? Y/N".

[Conrad]

Would this mean they get banned from using social infrastructure/transportation? That might be amusing.

they have to pay for fire departments, police, libraries, trash/recycling pickup, can't drive on paved roads, kids have to go to private school, and no USPS

sounds fucking GREAT

[BaneTheBrawler]

Gravel roads require maintenance and plowing as well. Dirt tracks only!

[Callisto]

I figured they'd have to just walk through the woods, except if it was a forest preserve they'd have to walk around it without using any public paths.

[aurik]

Even if you didn't take advantage of all that stuff, you're still buying from stores that receive deliveries on paved roads and are protected by police/fire/etc, employ people who have publicly funded education etc.

You can't opt out because it's impossible to not benefit from these types of things.

[hey]

they have to pay for fire departments, police, libraries, trash/recycling pickup, can't drive on paved roads, kids have to go to private school, and no USPS

sounds fucking GREAT

USPS isn't funded by the government.

[aurik]

It is exempt from federal taxes and operates a government-mandated monopoly, that's essentially the same thing as funded by the government.

[Conrad]

USPS isn't funded by the government.

you're right (though it used to be), but it's still a government agency

[Callisto]

Even if you didn't take advantage of all that stuff, you're still buying from stores that receive deliveries on paved roads and are protected by police/fire/etc, employ people who have publicly funded education etc.

You can't opt out because it's impossible to not benefit from these types of things.

urgh I generally just try to toss out some levity since I think these kinds of discussions are fucktarded(poopdeck wasn't my idea but I've been one of the main proponents of sandboxing politheo discussion), but in an attempt to be serious, would it be way offbase to say the rich benefit much more from infrastructure/normal government agencies(police/fire) than everyone else? Yes the handout-type of social service doesn't obviously, but it's not like they don't need the other stuff to make money.