So what is the truth? Of course it would be reassuring if I knew it and could write it out simply and expose all the distortions. I assure you that I do not have that ability. What I can share with you though is my questions and to some degree, my answers, without the hubris of insisting that they are true. What question could I pose that would find agreement with 99.95% of the worlds population - what answer would become self evident from the proper question, for I believe that the question is more important than the answer. My question would be, "Do you want the most you can possibly have and still allow others to have enough for some of their wants and needs? The world has 6 billion people, I’m told and .05% of 6 billion is a very small figure and yet even that small percentage amounts to 30 million people. (This is equal to the population of Canada.) I am optimist enough to believe that everyone except 30 million would answer "yes" to the above question, for who could want for more than they can possible have and still deny another a pittance. This leads to a following question, "What system could we devise that reduced no one, encouraged everyone (less 30 million) and provided a Basic Income sufficient for food, shelter, cleanliness and the possible opportunity of exploring some of their desires to every person within a nation. (or on the whole planet) My answer is simple, "Limit wealth!" Just as a Basic Income would provide a floor for all the peoples in nations, so would a limit on wealth impose a ceiling on personal accumulation. But wait, didn’t the first question indicate that "the most you can possibly have" as the statement you would answer "yes" too? Indeed, it did. So now let us ask if there could be a relationship between the meaning "have" and "use"? For I think we might agree that "to have" what you can’t possibly "use" is not necessary. So if - in this proposal I make regarding the reason for a Basic Income we can, for now, equate "have" and "use" as synonymous, then the next question is, "How much, in terms of wealth can you use?" So now we come to crux of my inquiry. How can we allow the most talented, the most acquisitive, the most creative, the most entrepreneurial, to be motivated to their maximum ability? I believe the answer is to pick some number as a dollar ceiling for wealth accumulation that far exceeds what a person can "use" in terms of goods and services. Let me pick the number that came to my mind as a response to that inquiry. It is 50 million dollars of wealth. I define wealth as the market valuation of any good or service or property or money that a person has command of and has a monetary value. So a person, i.e. family could own a 5 million dollar house, a 10 million dollar boat, a thirty million dollar airplane, five million in cash and other possessions as his personal wealth and surely, 99.95% of us would agree that is sufficient for anyone - no matter what their achievements. What then happens to the excessive wealth, that amount over 50 million dollars? It would be remitted to the state for redistribution through a Basic Income. Now there is one other extension that I would add to this solution and that is that Corporations be limited to 50 million in profit per year so that those institutions that make excessive profits such as, banks who make a billion dollars a quarter would remit their excess profit back into the demand side - rather than the accumulation side of the equation as a methodology of a constant rebalancing of the economic system. The difference between individuals and Corporations is that on individuals, it is their wealth as defined by "any good or service or property or money over which they have command", while for Corporations, it is applied only to their profit. For both these evaluations, we could state a yearly evaluation. This might lead to the situation that the individual has reduced his wealth through consumption over a years time to 45 million dollars and is able to engage himself and re-earn the additional 5 million he has consumed over the next year or following years.
