1. Do you favor aggression or persuasion when it comes to Social Security?
Should people be forced to participate in Social Security and suffer punishment if they refuse? Or should people be free to not participate?
Should the Social Security Administration be required to persuade people to participate in competition with other retirement programs? Or does the current Social Security program not go far enough for you? In other words, is even more aggression necessary to provide for people in old-age? Use the slider below to show how much aggression or persuasion you want with regard to Social Security.
Pick 10 or 20% if you want a tax-funded safety net focused only on seniors in dire need.
Pick 30 or 40% if you want a dragnet plan (like Social Security) that includes both the rich and poor.
Pick 50 or 60% if you want to increase taxes to keep Social Security solvent.
Pick 70 or 80% if you want to control how people invest their savings.
Pick 90 or 100% if you want The State to control all savings, investment, and retirement income.
- How many people moved toward persuasion or away from it, and by how much?
- How your Aggression Quotient (A.Q.) compares with the average A.Q for this issue?
- How many people joined the Zero Aggression Project through the Aggression Tracker for this issue?