I assure you, the incomes of the rich are increasing. Their taxes could be raised in order to pay off the national debt.
By government profit, I do mean a surplus - although profit is the correct term if social services and education are spun off to faith based organizations and income redistribution happens within the firm rather than the society. What remains are energy and mineral extraction, land leases and sales and profits from government research (which would be licensed rather than given away to manufacturers). This excess would be distributed.
Michael Bindner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
