***>This could be done selectively as well, penalising luxury goods and subsidising essential basics.<***
You could but it would mire you in endless debate and require complicated bureaucracy for enforcement. Penalizing luxury goods and subsidizing essential basics is not the purpose of the program which is to close the gap between prices and purchasing power. If you want to penalize and subsidize other programs can do that. It is simpler to look at gross sales figures at the point of retail. If the sales are X and the discount is five percent, the retailer is credited .05 X. It is the reverse of a sales tax except it is not charged against tax collections but is charged against the National Credit Account. The balance of that account is merely an estimation of latent capacity starting from the assumption that there IS latent capacity. There's no need for exact numbers. The difference is that social credit assumes abundance whereas orthodoxy assumes scarcity. The flow of dividends would start small and increase through time so unanticipated consequences can be handled as they arise--which they always will. ***>There are other systems that could be used to distribute the National Dividend.<*** In broad concept there are not--meaning the discount and dividend. Well, you could directly fund government projects. So then it becomes a debate on how much to give to government and how much to disburse as cash dividends to the people. The amount given to government removes from government a layer of answerability to the people. They can spend without the people's approval. Okay, they can go through the pretense of taking a vote for show. They can bribe whomever they want to stay in power. They and not the people say what's best for the people. We see something like this in many of the oil and mineral rich states, where revenue and royalties from the wealth goes directly to government. That means those in control of the government. Little of it seems to "trickle" down to the people. Rolls and skyscrapers, and mud streets in the hicks. I would much rather see government required to justify taxation to fund its projects. -- --------- Original Message --------- DATE: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:52:21 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: >On Wednesday 27 Aug 2003 8:50 pm, Bill wrote: >> The National Credit Account carries a balance >> available to fund dividends that is estimated to be >> the totality of latent productive capacity. > > >Bill, >With all the national statistics produced monthly, quarterly, yearly, is there >a short way by which this figure can be calculated? I would like to >piggy-back on existing structures as far as possible. For instance, we have a >VAT system which could surely be used to achieve (something of) the just >price compensation, simply by reducing, zeroising, or ´negativising´ the >rate. This could be done selectively as well, penalising luxury goods and >subsidising essential basics. > >There are other systems that could be used to distribute the National >Dividened. > >Jessop. >------------------ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
