145 VIEWS
Pinterest LinkedIn LINE

E-Woman’s roundtable has begun. → Here

This leading question is not good.

For something like this to be meaningful, a vote must be taken after fairly presenting the views of both supporters and opponents. Here, however, only the supporters’ views are presented unilaterally before votes are solicited.

So, with no other choice, I will play the opponent.

(Those familiar with debate will of course know this, but arguments in a debate are claims made from the assigned position, regardless of one’s own beliefs. Please do not misunderstand that point.)

A numbering system assigns every citizen a number that remains unchanged throughout their lifetime, for use in social security and taxation.

Our ability to foresee the future is limited. Circumstances may arise in which the number must be changed. If the system is designed on the premise of “a number unchanged for life,” such circumstances could prove disastrous. Systems should be designed on the premise that numbers can change. Indeed, the Internet, our predecessor in the use of identifiers, began with MAC Addresses, numbers that were “supposed not to change,” moved to IP Addresses, which are expected to change, and then evolved further to use domain names. It is quite regrettable not to learn from this experience.

The 1st reason is to provide social-security benefits accurately. Various income restrictions apply to social-security contributions and benefits (such as long-term care insurance premiums, national pension premiums, elderly patients’ out-of-pocket medical expenses, and nursery fees), and the system would make it possible to check accurately and efficiently whether the reported income is correct. In Europe and the United States, this type of information exchange is routine.

Is that true? As for benefits, if people apply for benefits when declaring income, would a number not be unnecessary in the first place? For example, I understand that in the United States, people also claim benefits on their tax returns. Are we confusing a workflow problem with a numbering problem? And although the statement invokes Europe and the United States, are you aware that general use of Social Security numbers in the United States is being increasingly restricted because it has caused extensive identity-theft damage?

The 2nd reason is that it would become possible to build new systems spanning taxation and social security.
A representative example is the refundable tax credit. It has been discussed previously at this roundtable. A refundable tax credit reorganizes and integrates the social-security and tax systems so they can operate together efficiently. It provides tax reductions (tax credits) or benefits to low- and middle-income households that work a certain number of hours, supporting poverty reduction while creating incentives to work.

Could this not also simply be handled at the time of filing, making it unrelated to a number? In particular, would it not be completely unrelated under a system such as universal basic income?

The 3rd reason is the introduction of a tax numbering system to ascertain income accurately. The Democratic Party is currently beginning discussions on expanding income information submitted to tax offices.
There are problems as well. The greatest challenge is privacy. This is the most divisive issue: how to reconcile it with the vague anxiety that arises in a networked society. It is necessary to discuss in detail what specific privacy problems would arise and what measures could reduce this anxiety.

Surprisingly few ordinary people distinguish between revenue and income, so many may misunderstand this point, but assigning a number cannot ascertain income in the first place. Expenses cannot be ascertained, nor can matters such as consumption from one’s own production. Or would people have to provide their “number” every time they buy something, as in South Korea? Moreover, if the use of numbers by financial institutions were mandated in the name of ascertaining investment income, the private sector would also require enormous systems investment, which would appear as price increases across many goods and services.

As described above, introducing a number is unnecessary to obtain the benefits stated here, and the enormous cost of introducing it is highly likely to be wasted.

Furthermore, introducing such a number would lead to demands for it everywhere. Records would be matched without permission, your behavior would be tracked, and your privacy would be infringed.

Also, as has actually happened in the United States and South Korea, criminals would impersonate you and cause you harm. For example, you might be made to appear to be a criminal and lose your social credibility.

Even under those circumstances, do you support introducing the number? (laughs)

I wonder what result we would get if we asked the question this way before voting.

That concludes my attempt to play the opponent.

Incidentally, my personal position at present is that a number can be assigned under assumptions such as the following:

・Design institutions and systems to use numbers/codes on the premise that they can change.
・Start immediately by first enabling benefits to be obtained within each individual system.
・Recognize that numbers/codes cannot be used for authentication. To ensure this, regulate each
　number/code so that it can be used only within its respective system.

And so on—but that is a separate discussion.

Related posts