To: Citizen's Income Online at URL http://citiinco01.uuhost.uk.uu.net/discussion/index.shtml and friends on several mail lists Good day folks, Mr. Douglas P. Wilson's forceful presentation of the Tory world view, which is known to us colonials as the Conservative world view, seems to have brought the Citizen's Income Discussion to a full stop and rendered the archives inaccessible. That is regrettable, because the Tory world view is morally wrong, technically indefensible, and politically unsustainable. Its only foundation is a baseless fear of the masses and a reluctance to trust the public with a technically valid model capable of explaining why our industrial economies operate with 4-10% unemployment, 2-3%/year inflation, and a 5% of GDP deficiency of purchasing power in the lower end of the workforce. But let's see if we can bring the Citizen's Income discussion back to life by means of the topic for April, which is: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- How can IT (a Citizen's Income, I presume) assist social regeneration? For example, can IT assist in the creation of social and economic capital in disadvantaged areas? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- The very existence of "disadvantaged areas" in modern societies is the direct consequence of public policies based on the Tory world view and the social degeneration which follows when such policies are continued over time. But we cannot resolve this dispute until we separate the Citizens Income (equal amounts to each citizen, without regard to other income) into its three basic components using costs from my post Which Way To CI/BI? 01/23/2000, which are: Life cycle elements, (cost as percentage of GNP). 1) birth to 17 years = 4.6% of GNP 2-3) 17 to 65 years = 13.0% of GNP 4) 65 years to average 76 years = 3.0% of GNP. Item 4 is established in most industrial nations and I am very thankful to be enjoying the benefits of it. I have never advocated Item 3 in any of my writings and as a conservative/tory/yankee I share Mr. Wilson's concern that "there is a lot of people who would use it to support a life of idleness and public nuisance." So we have only the absence of an adequate item 1 to explain the "disadvantaged areas" in our modern societies. The idea and significance of "adequacy" with regard to item 1 is suggested by a sigmoid curve describing the transition of a society, from one level of well-being to a higher level, as the amount of item 1 is increased from the existing value of income tax exemptions and other tax breaks for dependents in the US, up to that amount at which no further increase of well-being is observed. Or, to put it more concisely, up to that amount which will give the parenting household the same discretionary purchasing power as a single, gay, lesbian, or celibate household of equal income. No words of mine, nor of any other author that I have read to date, can describe the basic mechanism of this question as well as the input-output diagram Figure 8, The US Systemic Defect Of Omission, of the global model at URL http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html Figure 8 is also available at URL http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/european-social-policy/1999-04/0019.html together with some of my unpersuasive words. In deference to folks who see the charging of interest as the prime cause of what ails us, it helps to put some real numbers on debt service in the US. Again, from the FEDERAL RESERVE BULLETIN, the US debt aggregate of $13,408.0 Billion in July 1995 consisted, as it always does, of two components: First, Federal Debt, July 1995, ..................... $3,614.4 billion. At the prime rate of 8.8%, federal debt service = $318.1 Billion/year, or 4.5% of the US GDP in July 1995. Notice that Figure 8 of the global model should be updated to show that the above 4.5% of the US GDP federal debt service is presently part of the total tax burden. And since Figure 8 is drawn to show only earned income along line (0-a), it is also necessary to show the 4.5% of GDP federal debt service received as unearned income above earned income line (0-a). Second, Nonfederal Debt, July 1995, ................ $9,794.2 billion. At 8.8% interest, Nonfederal debt service = $861.9 Billion/year, or 12.3% of the US GDP in July 1995. Notice that Figure 8 of the global model should also be updated to show the above 12.3% of GDP nonfederal debt service added below the 30% total tax rate line (0-b) to properly locate the break-even points for each parenting family, according to the number of dependents in the family. And since Figure 8 is drawn to show only earned income along line (0-a), it is also necessary to show the 12.3% of GDP nonfederal debt service received as unearned income above the earned income line (0-a). As other authors have shown, the greater part of these two increments of unearned income will be received by persons with incomes in the top 10% of the income distribution. In the order of their declining difficulty of evasion, but still rarely evaded: we suffer death, taxes, debt service, and the expense of supporting underage children and students. Are we so committed to the Tory world view that we will continue keep item 1 below the optimum level, just to maximize the return to usury? As John Courtneidge wrote to list [EMAIL PROTECTED] in reply to my previous post, Who Benefits From The Status Quo? >> The answer to your titled question is: - No-one. << Kind regards, Wesburt
