Why Is There So Much Resistance From American Tax Payers To Do A Mandatory 21 Day Forced Quarantine

Should the UK bring back mandatory military service?

Hello. 18 year old here. I would probably be called up if it was implemented today.If this National Service were to be implemented, it would not work. Britain has only ever needed to implement it twice, and both times there was a World War on. Even then it took until 1916 for the government to reluctantly impose it in World War One.And there is no pressing need for it like there was in 1916. Who, or what, is so threatening that I need to be coerced into training to fight them? The answer, certainly to the vast majority of teenagers, is nobody. Therefore, you will end up with a bunch of teenagers who do not want to be there and will consequently not be motivated to “be the best” as the slogan goes. If you want experience in working as a team, there is the National Citizen Service for that. If you want to go on long walks with heavy packs on, do the Duke of Edinburgh award.And while they are stuck in a barracks pining for their normal lives, they are not off earning GCSEs or A levels, or entering University, or working (depending on how long the national service is and what age it targets). As a result, less educated young people, and fewer of them in work which surely means a worse economy, especially if the UK government is having to pay for all of it.Also, the military is a defence force. It is there to defend people, not to train young people. The Armed Forces themselves would be against this idea because while it gives them more manpower it would be more expensive and they would not be as good as actual recruits. Those who want to join the military will join up anyway, so why force those who don’t to join with them? And when they get out do you really want those troublemakers to have military knowledge?It has been said also that it will only breed resentment in young people. It would certainly breed resentment in me, at least if I could not think of any justifiable reason for it (and it would have to be a hell of a reason).Basically, the recruits would hate it, the military and government would hate paying for it, there is no need for it, it is disruptive and it does not really fit with the way that modern war is fought anyway.It is a terrible idea. You would be better served by doing other things.

Why don't American restaurants pay a reasonable wage? With a culture of almost enforced tipping of 20%, why not abandon tips and pay fairly?

Who goes first? Seriously, which restaurant adopts your policy first, and closed up shop a month later?A lot of people are approaching this from a theoretical standpoint: the tipping culture is largely responsible for America having the best restaurant service in the world (blablabla, you ate at the Mandarin in Bangkok once and they don’t tip in Thailand and the service was still amazing blablabla anecdotes don’t mean shit), and they’re absolutely correct.But there’s a practical side, too. Which restaurant owner has the enormous metal cojones (or masochistic desire to tank his operation) it would take to be the first one in his neighborhood to voluntarily triple his labor costs and wind up with an empty dining room?There’s a contingent on Quora that’s very vocal in their hatred of tipping and I’d like to know if they’d be willing to pay 30–50% over market rate for their meals. Since they’re the same super fun people who bitch about restaurant food being more expensive that supermarket food, somehow I doubt it.And before you say that customers will obviously understand that the cheaper bill + tip will be about the same as the more expensive bill without tip, keep in mind that consumers are rarely the rational animals economists like to pretend they are, and even less so when it comes to luxury products and services. They check OpenTable, Yelp, or the menu board next to the entrance and make a snap decision. They don’t pull out a calculator and carefully consider all the angles.Oh, and when unicorns star pooping rainbows and everybody magically does away with tipping, we’ll be left with this same group of schlubs complaining that service isn’t as good as it used to be and why should we be expected to pay the same price as before? At least we used to be able to tip less…

Why is America so opposed to universal health care when so many other developed countries (if not all) have it?

Americans are against socialized medical care but in reality we have socialized medical car for ~60-70% of all medicine in the US. The VA is socialized medicine. The military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) have socialized medicine. The poor have Medicaid (socialized medicine) . The retired have Medicare (socialized medicine). The Bureau of prisons socialized medicine. The Bureau of Indian Affairs socialized medicine. So we don't have to look far to see socialized medicine. What we like about it is it is free. What we don't like about it is that if you get sick, truly sick, it sucks! If you need a heart transplant it is hugely expensive, CABG expensive, cancer treatment expensive, dialysis very expensive. So I listed 4 of dozens of conditions that are so expensive that you could never afford. Sell your house, liquidate your 401 K and you still can't afford it. Without insurance <1% of the US can afford it. With insurance you need cancer treatment you get it now.Contrast that to socialized medical care. You get sick and you cant afford it (that part is the same) but then how do you get cancer treatment? You wait! You wait for a government controlled system that has limited resources. They use those limited resources to give you free GP visits and cheap prescriptions. When it come to expensive items  there is not enough to go around. So you wait. A lot of times you die waiting. Anyone read about the VA scandal? When you are waiting to see an oncologist and your life is on the line all of those "free" GP visits don't seem all that great. So what did you trade for one GP visit every year $100 and free medication $1000/yr. You say to yourself yeah I certainly spent more then that on my car, my food, travel, my house. I could have paid for this. Now however it doesn't seem like such a great deal.In countries like England, Australia, New Zealand (these are the ones I am familiar with, no doubt there are more) most people buy insurance if they have any concern for there health. If you need surgery for cataracts you might wait 6 weeks instead of 3 years. Hip replacement 4 months as opposed to 4 years. These are some of the things that I see every day. Don't worry about me. I will figure out how to get medical care. you however, if you vote for socialized medical care, well, good luck! I will see you in the Emergency Department. Let me know how it's going for you.

What do Americans understand that Europeans don't?

As a Spaniard who has visited several times the US, I would dare to say that the main thing that Americans “got” while us Europeans got it all wrong, is the fact that your work is a product, and that so is your “worker” self. Work is not a right, nor a part of your life: It is just a product that you offer and sell into an uncaring market.Consequently, Americans understand that the job market is ruled by the laws of supply and demand, and that self-promotion and actualization are almost mandatory in order to archieve material success. Spain thinks on a diametrically opposite direction. Uncoincidentally, we also have the highest unemployment rate of the entire developed world. Because we get jobs soooo much better than these horrible neo-liberal Americans, right, guys?While this might sound as a tirade against unions and working regulations, this is not my point. I understand that these are necessary for any job market to function.This is instead a tirade against the utter inability of our goverment to understand that making your workers and their education attractive for businesses is a requisite for employment, and against the mindset that self promotion and “selling oneself” is a gross thing. No, it’s not. It’s a quite American trait that we should acquire, unless we enjoy keep having a sluggish job market.

Why are the majority of Americans so against removing their right to bear arms?

“Why are the majority of Americans so against removing their right to bear arms?”Because we remember why we’re Americans.I’m not talking teleology (i.e., the purpose for which we are Americans)—I’m talking causality (i.e., the prerequisites which enabled us to be Americans rather than British subjects).I live about 30 minutes from Lexington and Concord.When rumors of an independence movement reached the British, they knew what the asker of this question does not: that if they confiscated our guns, the Revolution would die in its cradle.We knew it, too—and we didn’t let them.We didn’t win the Revolutionary War because we had a superior military—that’s insane. The British had the most powerful military in the Western world at the time.We won because the British had to ship their soldiers overseas, whereas we had a ready-made infantryman in each and every farmboy.Paul Revere’s famous “midnight ride” wasn’t an “emergency broadcast” telling people to lock their doors and hide—it was a call to arms through every village and town.Who were the notorious “Minutemen”? Farmers, and smiths, and shopkeepers.Who was the “militia”? It was all of us.Every tyrant knows this—that a disarmed populace is ripe for whatever oppression the tyrant wishes to devise, but a well-armed populace will make him pay in blood for each indignity.Does he have a superior army that will inevitably win against the citizen insurrection? Perhaps. But he’ll rule over only a barren field of bodies.So, why are we against disarming ourselves?Not because we think the current government is tyrannical, or even is likely to be tyrannical—but because the way to prevent the rise of a tyrant is to be certain that any would-be tyrant knows that the spirit of Lexington lives on, and that the nationwide militia that fired the “Shot Heard ’Round the World” has plenty of shot and powder to spare.

Why aren't taxes voluntary?

I feel like a second grader in writing this answer, as many stalwarts of Quora have answered this question. Taxes are a compulsion because human beings are self centred. If you analyse how many people in the world don't pay taxes or they escape paying taxes is around 90%.The reason is simple. When it comes to socialism we turn our face away. And when there's a Government who has to run a nation we make ourself Blind. Knowingly or unknowingly we have enjoyed the benefits provided by the states and like our Human nature of exploiting nature we also exploit our own states by not abiding rules and taxation policies. Suppose we make taxations voluntary what may be the following consequences?Governments will remain unchecked, secure as they will overlap the  accountability mechanism.Almost all of the Governments Income is earned via taxes, in such a situation Governments will be malnourished from monetary resources and thus the marginalised class will be affected.There will be increase in Inflation. People's money will be flushing in markets triggering price level.Chaos in stock markets as corporates might turn their approach to fierce competition and consumers may be exploited.Sustainable approach will be a meagre dream as resources will lose their value and a cap for their conservation will be taken off.Resource pooling will be a problem.Private sectors may dominate markets and the concept of welfarist state might take a back seat.Corruption might become low because of less regulations.Central and State Governments breed on tax revenues, their will be total panic as tax collection will be less and distribution of wealth among states might be a case of another law and order turmoil.The country's Balance of Payments will become a permanent syndrome and this might escalate another economic depression all over the world.We all need to know that global economics takes precedence over global politics. All the past wars, present tensions and future battle's have a crux of economic turmoil.A strong vigilance by Governments and Tax bodies is important for every economy to prosper as a proper interaction is needed for survival and growth of a nation.Taxes are like foundations pillars of a society, they need to be strong at proper place and well structured and distinguished. Only then an economy can sustain pressure and prosper. A bad fiscal policy may be seed for future anarchy , so voluntary taxation is like chopping of feet by our own axe.

What prevents the many proponents of single-payer healthcare from working together to start a large national foundation to provide health insurance to Americans who need it?

You're talking about a traditional union, as that is how they got started, and not actual single-payer schemes.Ok, going by what you describe, a true single-payer system.First, scale efficiency means it has to be a closed shop. Everyone pays in. Not just volunteers, everyone. Unconditionally. It doesn't scale well below about 95%, due to loss of herd immunity. The only way to have everyone pay, efficiently, is through taxes. Pay one person one amount, have one collector and one distribution point.Second, currently, hospitals and doctors can pick and choose who they'll accept. Under this, they'd have to accept everyone. If the law isn't changed, insurance companies only have to pay vendors not to accept the new insurance. America is a very corrupt nation, so legalizing corruption makes things worse.Third, hospitals have to be reformed. Fixed wages, regardless of work done, to improve the quality of that work.Fourth, water and air quality should be brought to EU standards except where already healthier.Fifth, unhealthy food should be banned outright. I don't see any particular problem with haggis, that should be ok, but McDonald's… Stick to seeking revenge on the Campbells.There is no value in healthcare in a cesspit. Healthcare is only useful in a somewhat healthy environment. Healthy food boosts intelligence and the immune system, so reduces the need for healthcare in the first place.But this would take the Federal government and 80% of the States working together. It could not be done by a rotory club effort.Sometimes things don't scale up, sometimes things don't scale down. This is one that won't scale down just as private health won't scale up.

What do you think of the idea of mandatory birth control for welfare recipients?

The government uses its power to tax and spend not only for the direct object of the spending, e.g., roads, schools, etc., but also to effect social change. So federal highway funds were tied to states adopting a legal drinking age of 21, or setting maximum highway speeds to 55 mph. Federal education funds are tied to federal goals on equal participation of men and women in college athletics, or on primary schools provisioning an acceptable bathroom allocation scheme for transgendered pupils.Given the already existing tendency for the government to use its funding carrot and stick, it should surprise no one if this is extended into other areas. For example, government subsidies of healthcare will likely increase the use of taxes that promote healthy lifestyles, e.g., taxes on sugary beverages. As for welfare, we already see that corporate welfare, i.e., the bailouts, being argued to promote a number of initiatives, from CEO pay restrictions, to a state veto on bank capital allocations.Given the high comfort level the government has with using its control of taxes and subsidies to control every other part of our life, is it inconceivable (pun intended) for them to use it to mandate birth control for welfare recipients? My guess is this is unlikely. When the feds use their muscle to control states, this appears to meet with less resistance than when they try to control individuals directly. States don’t vote. People do. Since over 1/3 of Americans are recipients of government means-tested welfare, it would be electoral suicide for anyone to even be perceived to have less than ecstatic thoughts about these entitlements. Ask Mitt Romney. Instead, the same goal is promoted via other means, such as mandating contraceptive coverage in ACA exchanges.

Is it true that the only reason why European countries can afford universal healthcare and free college is because the USA subsidizes their military defense?

Haha. No. I only need to look at my own country: the Dutch Defence Forces had a peacetime strength of 65.000 men during the 1970s and 1980s, we had some 913 tanks, hundreds of fighter aircraft (first the F-104 and later the F16) . In times of war, they could be brought up to 250.000 men (40.000 men were drafted for a 9 month period every single year). We had two army corps, one of which could be deployed within 48 hours and carted off to West Germany to take up positions along the Linge.We had a much more expanded welfare state and universal healthcare (never free: by the early 2000s you would have paid around 35 euro’s per month (and you could also opt for private healthcare) —- today you’d pay three times that and the principle universal coverage has been completely hollowed out ) and the national debt was also much lower (we had higher taxes though). Today, we don’t even have a shadow of a defense force, our welfare state has been severely curtailed, state services have been privatized, the highest tax brackets are lower and our mutual healthcare assistance funds were privatised in the 2000s. Education was never free either (parents paid “lesgeld” (a kind of contribution to the education of their children) and you could get a general loan for tertiary education (today, this has been hollowed out as well and you can only get a loan paid back through taxes if you study takes “a regular time” and masterals are completely privatized so fewer people now attend university than before and the number of people getting in debt will become more problematic over time (as the current system is brand new).Surely we must have had a massive budget crisis and national debt with all these services that were built up during the 1950s to 1970s ? Actually - the problems began during the privatisations and cutbacks of the 1980s:(Historie van de staatsschuld als percentage van het bruto binnenlands product (1925-2010))Total national debt. Do I see a pattern here ? Repeat after me: tax cuts and privatisations doesn’t work.

Which country is better to live in, between the USA and Germany?

Depends on who you are:The USA is better if you are:Very richHave very high income potential (Company executives)An entrepreneurA Nazi (Germany somewhat restricts political speech for this political faction)Interested in a military careerWant to live in a deeply rural place with lots of your own land (Montana/Wyoming), without the government getting in your businessYou want to homeschool your kidsGermany is better if you are:Of an income level where there is ever a possible question about how you would be able to pay for a major medical emergency.Opposed to being involved in warsInterested in going to college for freeInterested in learning a tradeAn atheist (How Americans Feel About Religious Groups)