Some comments [comment 08-28] are inserted below: -- 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? --------------------- [comment 08-28] That is not the proposal. -- It would seem to me that while the federal debt is in place, it would be hard to pay a social credit. --------------------- [comment 08-28] Why would the federal debt have anything to do with it? I'm afraid you're still thinking very much in conventional terms. Think in terms of the electric company or the phone company. You complain about something. To keep you happy they credit your bill in some amount. That amount that is credited to your account does not add to anyone's debt or take anything away from anybody, but keeps a happy customer. --
This is why I support shifting to a value added tax for general government --------------------- [comment 08-28] Which is just a sales tax on everything. The problem is not a shortage of taxes but a shortage of purchasing power. -- 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. --------------------- [comment 08-28] And where is the money to come from to pay the taxes? -- This income tax would sunset after the debt is retired --------------------- [comment 08-28] The problem is not debt but the inability to amortize the debt which is addressed by social credit. Social credit does not eliminate debt as a tool of finance but enables it to be amortized which is impossible so long as incomes are falling in respect to the costs of production. -- - and taxpayers could purchase self-liquidating bonds in lieu of paying taxes (surrendering the principal and interest - essentially prepaying their taxes). --------------------- [comment 08-28] Calling the bonds "self-liquidating" cannot make them self-liquidating so long as incomes are falling as compared to the costs of production. They cannot "self-liquidate" or amortize without extraneous credit (from the National Credit Account) in supplement to incomes. -- 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 --------------------- [comment 08-28] So you define government "profit" to be the surplus of taxation over disbursement? That is impossible so long as there is a shortage of available purchasing power in the hands of the public from which to tax--which is inevitable with labor displacement. -- (since the VAT I am proposing contains a system of social service tax credits --------------------- [comment 08-28] And what is the source of those credits to the population, the "profit" or "surplus" of taxes over disbursements? What you are proposing is simply a transfer tax from one group of people to another. -- which would have the effect of providing a guaranteed 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). --------------------- [comment 08-28] Pipe dream due to the shortage of purchasing power in relationship to costs. -- The credit would likely come from both the governmental profit --------------------- [comment 08-28] Don't you mean government surplus? The term "profit" is meaningless in this context. -- 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. --------------------- [comment 08-28] Which would be loans which are impossible to repay if incomes are falling in respect to the costs of production which makes the "Kelsonian model" just a pipe dream. The fact they may be "interest free" is irrelevant. -- The less these firms or governments use this credit, the more is available for payment. --------------------- [comment 08-28] Loans to firms or government which makes them the servants not the masters of finance especially if it is impossible to amortize the loans as demonstrated by A + B. -- Let me lay it out in a formula to be clear: government profit + money creation = discount window loans to ESOPs/cities + dividend Michael Bindner --------------------- [comment 08-28] It makes no difference if the loans are from commercial banks or from the central bank's "discount window" if they are impossible to amortize. The formula makes no sense whatever. Rearrangement results in this: money creation = discount window loans + dividend - government profit. It would appear that "government profit" goes into some kind of black hole for money creation would have to be less than discount window loans plus the dividend. Hare brained, to say the least. ____________________________________________________________ Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005 --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------
