The e-Women's Roundtable Conference has begun. Here
This leading question is not good.
In the first place, something like this would be meaningless unless a decision was taken after both the proponents and opponents had fairly stated their opinions, but here only the proponents' opinions are being stated unilaterally and votes are being asked for.
I have no choice but to play the part of the opposition myself.
(Those of you who are familiar with debates will of course know that arguments in a debate are based on a given position, not on one's own beliefs, so please make no mistake about that point.)
The number system is a system in which every citizen is assigned a number that will remain the same for their entire life, to be used in social security and taxation.
Our ability to foresee the future is limited. There may come a time when a situation arises in which we must make changes. If, at that time, we design a system on the assumption that numbers will remain the same for life, we will fall into a fatal situation. When designing a system, we should create it on the assumption that it will be changeable. In fact, the Internet, which is a pioneer in numbers, started out with MAC addresses, which were "supposed to remain the same," then moved on to using IP addresses, which are assumed to change, and has even evolved to using domain names. It would be a shame not to learn from this experience.
First, to ensure accurate payment in the field of social security. There are various income restrictions imposed on social security burdens and benefits (nursing care insurance premiums, national pension insurance premiums, elderly medical self-payment amounts, nursery school fees, etc.), and this will enable accurate and efficient checking of whether these incomes are accurate. In Europe and the United States, this kind of information exchange is commonplace.
Is this true? As for benefits, if benefits are declared when income is declared, wouldn't numbers be unnecessary in the first place? For example, I have heard that in the United States, benefits are declared on tax returns. Aren't you confusing a problem that should be solved by the workflow with a problem of numbers? Also, when you say in the West, did you know that in the United States, the general use of social security numbers is being severely restricted due to the large number of identity theft cases that have occurred?
Second, it will be possible to create a new system that spans both the tax system and social security.
A representative example of this is the tax credit with benefits. As we have discussed in the past at the roundtable discussion, the tax credit with benefits is a system that streamlines and integrates the social security system and the tax system to operate them in an integrated and efficient manner, and provides tax cuts (tax credits) and benefits to low- and middle-income households who work a certain amount of time, providing an incentive to work and also helping to combat poverty.
This is something that can be done when filing tax returns, and has nothing to do with the number, right? In particular, if it were to be like a basic income system, wouldn't it have no relevance at all?
Third, a tax number system will be introduced to supplement accurate income. The Democratic Party is currently discussing the expansion of income information to be submitted to tax offices.
On the other hand, there are problems. The biggest issue is the issue of privacy. This is the most divisive point for and against, and it is the issue of how to reconcile the vague sense of unease that arises in the Internet society. In response to this, it is necessary to have an in-depth discussion on what specific privacy issues will arise and what measures can be taken to alleviate the sense of unease.
Surprisingly few ordinary people can distinguish between income and earnings, so I think many people misunderstand this, but even if you assign a number, you cannot grasp income. This is because you cannot grasp expenses, and you cannot grasp things like personal consumption. Or, will you have to apply for your own "number" every time you buy something, like in Korea? Also, if financial institutions were forced to use the number in the name of grasping financial income, it would require huge system investments on the private side, which would be reflected in price increases on various things.
As mentioned above, it is not necessary to introduce numbers to enjoy the benefits described here, and the enormous costs of introducing numbers would likely be wasted.
Furthermore, if such numbers were introduced, you would be asked to enter them everywhere, and they would be used to arbitrarily match your name and track your movements, violating your privacy.
Also, as has happened in the United States and South Korea, criminals may impersonate you and cause harm to you. For example, you may be framed as a criminal and lose social credibility.
Even in that situation, would you support the introduction of numbers? (laughs)
What would the outcome be if you asked questions like this and then voted?
That's all I've done, playing the role of the opposition.
Personally, at the moment:
- Systems and institutions are designed to utilize numbers/codes with variable assumptions.
- Start immediately by making it possible to obtain benefits within individual systems
- Be aware that numbers/codes cannot be used for authentication.
Numbers/codes will be regulated so that they can only be used for individual systems.
I think it would be good to assign numbers based on these assumptions, but that's a separate topic for another time.