The question still remains, who won't be benefiting from money creation if it is shifted to social credit?
Is it bond traders or perhaps the federal treasury? How will it impact the economy to not use credit to create money?
It would seem to me that while the federal debt is in place, it would be hard to pay a social credit. This is why I support shifting to a value added tax for general government and to a personal income tax on all personal and estate income over $100,000 (not family income) to specifically fund net interest and debt retirement. This income tax would sunset after the debt is retired - and taxpayers could purchase self-liquidating bonds in lieu of paying taxes (surrendering the principal and interest - essentially prepaying their taxes).
On my web page, www.iowafiscalequity.net, I also describe a regional organization for the goverment - with regional reserves tailoring monetary policy to each of 7 US regions. Ideally, these regional reserves would issue any social credit in order to stimulate the regional economy.
At what level would the credit be? It might be as little as the profit of the regional government and reserve system (on land sales, resource royalties, electronic spectrum auctions and reserve operations) in excess of cost (since the VAT I am proposing contains a system of social service tax credits which would have the effect of providing a gauranteed family income of $12,000 per child or spouse at the regional and state levels, plus credits for faith based social service providers for mental health care/corrections and education - with most of these costs carried in the private sector most public sector activity would end in these areas).
The credit would likely come from both the governmental profit and from money creation, although money creation would also be used for capital credit - either on the Kelsonian model to individuals or to employee-owned enterprises and local governments as a whole. The less these firms or governments use this credit, the more is available for payment. Let me lay it out in a formula to be clear:
government profit + money creation = discount window loans to ESOPs/cities + dividend
Michael Bindner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like that; it is certainly not rocket
science.
First of all, we have to address the concerns of the
skeptics, so the checks would have to be very modest
in the beginning. Perhaps $100 or $25. That can be
increased gradually as time goes on with increasing
political acceptance. The infrastructure is already
in place for the initial disbursements--the network
for the existing entitlement programs and welfare
programs, income tax refunds, etc. This was not the
case in the early 1930s.
Perhaps not equally to everyone at first, but
targeting certain recipients whose spending would
have the greatest stimulative effect on the economy
and immediate benefit to themselves. Again, the
reason for specific targeting is to address concerns
of the skeptics. The ultimate goal would be
equality, of course.
I should say sending checks out weekly is not
unreasonably difficult. My gripe with Alaska is they
send checks out only once a year.
Bill
----original message----
Pretend my degree is in public policy and finance
rather than in banking (which is in fact true). What
actions happen on what date by whom to distribute the
national credit?
Let me venture a guess and you can tell me if I am
correct.
Sept 15: Federal Reserve estimates amount to be
distributed to national credit account.
Sept 22: Federal Reserve transfers funds to U.S.
Treasury to write checks for national credit.
Oct-Nov: U.S. Treasury issues cheques or direct
deposits credit cheques to individuals. Cheques and
deposits are the same for each citizen, regardless of
income.
Is this a likely scenario, or would payments be
spread out throughout the year, lets say quarterly.
How large would you estimate each cheque to
