Inserted comments [comments 08-29] below: -- On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 8:24 pm, William wrote: > It is the reverse of a sales tax > except it is not charged against tax collections but > is charged against the National Credit Account. ------------------- Jessop here:- The National Credit Account could simply pay an amount over to Revenue to replace the loss in Sales Tax or VAT. This entirely avoids setting up a separate delivery system for the Just Price procedure. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -------------------- [comments 08-29] There is no *loss* in sales tax or vat--they are entirely separate programs that shouldn't be co-mingled. The purpose of the National Credit Account is not to post credits to government but to post credits directly to consumers boosting effective demand for the products of industry which allows industry to recover the costs of production in free markets. --
William also wrote:- > ***>There are other systems that could be used to > distribute the National Dividend.<*** > In broad concept there are not--meaning the discount > and dividend. -------------------------- Jessop here:- I have in mind the South African setup where the entire land is delimitated in Municipalities, urban and rural. Municipalities collect rates and service charges from all owner- or occupier-entities. I had in mind that the municipal account could also serve as a vehicle for delivery of a National Dividend simply as a credit entry on the account. The municipal system, though already in operation, is still under development. Is my suggestion feasible? * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * ** -------------------- [comments 08-29] The programs shouldn't be co- mingled. What's to prevent the rates and service charges from being simply increased thereby short circuiting the credits away from consumers to the benefit of bureaucrats? You've got to have checks and balances and you do that by having separate constituencies for the various programs who will separately fight to defend the programs that benefit themselves individually. Consumers as consumers are a constituency that should receive the credits directly because the purpose of the program is to boost spending by consumers not government. -- William also wrote:- > 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. --------------------------- Jessop here:- I know, and I hate that. Corruption and grasping of politicians and officials is a curse. But I think that what I have outlined would circumvent that a little, at least no less than any other means of Social Credit delivery. * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * Thanks, Bill, for your contribution. Jessop ----------------------------- -------------------- [comments 08-29] Which is why it is not social credit if it goes directly to government. It should go to the people and let government try to tax the people. If it goes directly to government then government doesn't have to ask permission of the people to spend it (which the people will grant if the request is reasonable). We are trying to achieve economic democracy not benevolent dictatorship. ____________________________________________________________ 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
