On Sunday 28 Sep 2003 10:25 pm, Bill wrote:
> Actually, let's definitely not call it "the BIG."
> What we want is a dividend, not a grant. 

Agreed, Bill. We shall refer to it as a National Dividend, which will 
distiguish our proposal from others which are tax-based.

> 1) You report your income; 2) You are assessed an
> amount to pay based upon your reported income, and
> are sent a bill; 3) You pay the assessed amount.  Is
> that correct?

Yes -- but there is another aspect to it. Those with a salary below a certain 
threshold, and with no other source of income, do not render a Return. In 
formal employment, a worker is subject to SITE and PAYE deductions by the 
employer who pays the money over to the Receiver. Below a certain salary 
threshhold, no tax is payable so there is a Nul SITE deduction. At the next 
cut-off point, the deductions fall under SITE only and the employee does not 
render a Return at the end of the year; the amount deducted as SITE 
constitutes the employee´s tax liability. Above the level at which SITE is 
deducted, PAYE cuts in and the employee does render a Return of Income at the 
end of the year. However, for our purposes, it should make no difference: the 
´grab-back can still be incorporated into the SITE system. (SITE and PAYE 
fall into thesame tax-table continuum.)

> "grab back" when paid to be routed to the social
> credit not the general revenue account so it can be
> "re-cycled" as dividends?  How does this differ from
> a loan from a revolving fund?  And what does it
> accomplish?  I still can't be understanding you.  Or
> perhaps I am.

I suppose it can be seen as a loan from a revolving fund, but should taht make 
any difference? It is only people who fall into the tax-paying bracket who 
´pay back´ the loan. To them it is a loan, to others it is debt-free.

> Count it as income.  Tax it as income.  Why not?
> That's the simplest way to do it. 

Could do, but there is a drawback. The National Dividend could move some 
people into a higher tax-bracket and they would end up in the above 
sittuation. But that could be remedied by a simple adjustment in the 
tax-brackets. Another downside -- do you think some of the ´higher--ups´ 
would make sure that their take from industry would increase to make up for 
the additional tax, so it would find it´s way into prices?

These are all problems which can be solved. The first part is to convince 
government that the money is available for the Dividend.

Thanks for the thought-provoking comments, Bill. I appreciate it. Thanks also 
for the section from the Duneden address. Major Douglas makes things very 
clear.

Jessop.
---------------------






On Sunday 28 Sep 2003 10:25 pm, you wrote:
> ***] The National Dividend (or shall we call it the
> BIG?) is not included in your Income so is not
> subject to tax, but the ¨grab back¨ is added in to
> the Receiver's calculation of the Tax you owe him.
> Once in his hands, the grab back amount is not fed
> into the general Revenue Account but goes once more
> into the Social Credit account to go out in further
> payments of National Dividends (BIG´s). [***
>
> Actually, let's definitely not call it "the BIG."
> What we want is a dividend, not a grant.  A grant
> implies that it is a gift.  It is not a "gift" that
> is "granted" by the "haves" to the "have-nots," but a
> dividend deriving from right of ownership that we all
> share drawn from realizable productive capacity as
> reflected in the national credit account--which will
> benefit everybody.  That is the message we are trying
> to convey.
>
> As I understand what you are saying, the income-
> taxing process in South Africa is in three stages.
> 1) You report your income; 2) You are assessed an
> amount to pay based upon your reported income, and
> are sent a bill; 3) You pay the assessed amount.  Is
> that correct?
>
> Your proposal--the amount paid to you in your
> dividend is not counted as income for taxation
> purposes, but is "grabbed back" in the assessment.
> The fact that it is not counted as income allows the
> "grab back" when paid to be routed to the social
> credit not the general revenue account so it can be
> "re-cycled" as dividends?  How does this differ from
> a loan from a revolving fund?  And what does it
> accomplish?  I still can't be understanding you.  Or
> perhaps I am.
>
> Count it as income.  Tax it as income.  Why not?
> That's the simplest way to do it.  As your income
> increases from all sources, including the dividend,
> you become phased out of the various existing welfare
> and support programs as you reach their respective
> stop-limits.  If the income tax is graduated, you pay
> more and more of your proportional income in taxes--
> as does everyone else.
>
> The point is, the dividend does not derive from the
> expense column of anyone's ledger, neither private
> enterprise or government.  It is credit paid to
> consumers from the national credit account.  The
> credit can be spent for anything, goods and services
> from the private sector, or taxes to government for
> the services of government.
>
> The dividend checks themselves clear back to the
> national credit account--not government's account,
> not private enterprise's account, not the banking
> sector's account--thereby closing the "gap" between
> "prices" and "purchasing power."  In this respect it
> is nothing more than an accounting adjustment so that
> it reflects reality--which is what accounting is
> supposed to be about.
>
> As the accounting gap closes, the economy, as an
> economy, more and more approaches technical
> efficiency (which is always increasing)--thereby
> continually minimizing the meaningless exploitation
> of both labor and natural resources per unit output.
> --

--^----------------------------------------------------------------
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
--^----------------------------------------------------------------


Reply via email to