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