David, I can see your concerns. However, given the facts that this type of system is rather simple to administrate. as it requires very little control or guidance. Of course I understand that there will be people trying to complicate things.In other words I think the savings will outweigh the extra cost. Will this take away from the rich? I doubt it because of the higher efficiency. More important it will add many people developing the future. I see no reason this would increase the money available in the whole society. To implement a flat tax system or VAT at the same time would give the government control over the liquidity. The tax return could have a basic deductible and if you did not earn more than the deductible the government would fill the gap with tax dollars.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem with this idea is that it will do what this guy in the video > said - make many government job obsolete. The big organizations we are > building in the public and private sector wants the complicated, very > inefficient system with all openings for corruption to stay in place. > I was amazed over how quickly the positive results appeared. I am talking > about things like higher productivity and willingness to take risks. > There is enough resources to feed everybody. > There is enough resources to get water to everybody. > There is enough resources to get a roof over everybody's head. > Getting LENR on the market would make all essential resources available. > If we made sure those resources were available and distributed, most > people would look to fulfill more sophisticated goals (see Maslow). > That would quickly increase the number of people helping to achieve > progress. > Logically it should be very simple to convince most people about the > positive a reform of this type can have. > I do not think that the democrats are any worse than the republicans or > for that matter Wall street. They like it and protect status quo together > with miscellaneous people who benefits from today's perfect for corruption > system. Continuing this way we will all be employed by big brother and look > for benefits generated by the system by the fact that regardless of good > intentions there will be plenty of loopholes. That society will take away > most ambitions, which are for a progressive society and replace them with > narcissistic ambitions. > All ambitions will have a hard time bear result if we continue thinking > that only size matters. > Small flexible organizations with a personal engagement paired with a self > administrating welfare system for all that is perhaps utopia but I am sure > it would make the experience of life much better for all. I guess somebody > think this is a socialistic solution. I think it is just the opposite. > Liberty and freedom will increase. To share the basic resources just > eliminate a war between them who has more of the basics than they can use > and those who cannot get hold of enough of the same resources because we > have an ambition to reward following the same model for basics as for more > sophisticated resources. > The Farm and 1984 were written at a time when capitalistic societies > looked down at centrally governed countries and there poor ability to > handle the resources. Now those experiments with communism are obsolete. > However, the centralization of power is the trademark of our generation (my > generation). We probably thought the failure of socialism was the the idea > of equality. Therefore we defended the capitalistic view and decided that > we could be just as controlling as any socialistic country. Thus creating > the same negative situation as the socialistic countries - the centralized > society. > I predict this will change within a couple of generations. It would be > great if it can happen from logical reasoning. LENR might just have a large > portion of the solution. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > [email protected] > +1 916 436 1899 > 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 > > “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:06 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I expect the major difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but >>> logically that does not make sense. >>> >> >> From the conservative thinktank, The American Enterprise Institute comes a >> proposal to replace the welfare state with basic income >> <http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-in-our-hands_105549266790.pdf> >> . >> >> >> The only time basic income was ever even tested on a limited scale in the >> US was under the much maligned administartion of GOP president Nixon. >> >> No, the biggest impediment, by far, to anything that bypasses the corrupt >> welfare state is the Democratic Party which treats civil service jobs in >> that bureaucracy as political spoils delivered via "community organizers" >> that deliver votes to the Democrats: >> >> >> >> Speech by President Richard Nixon >> <http://www.abelard.org/briefings/nixon_speech_guaranteed_income_citizens_wage.php> >> >> Good evening my fellow Americans: >> >> As you know, I returned last Sunday night from a trip around the world—a >> trip that took me to eight countries in 9 days. >> >> The purpose of this trip was to help lay the basis for a lasting peace, >> once the war in Vietnam is ended. In the course of it, I also saw once >> again the vigorous efforts so many new nations are making to leap the >> centuries into the modern world. >> >> Every time I return to the United States after such a trip, I realize how >> fortunate we are to live in this rich land. We have the world's most >> advanced industrial economy, the greatest wealth ever known to man, the >> fullest measure of freedom ever enjoyed by any people, anywhere. >> >> Yet we, too, have an urgent need to modernize our institutions—and our >> need is no less than theirs. >> >> We face an urban crisis, a social crisis-and at the same time, a crisis >> of confidence in the capacity of government to do its job. >> >> A third of a century of centralizing power and responsibility in >> Washington has produced a bureaucratic monstrosity, cumbersome, >> unresponsive, ineffective. >> >> A third of a century of social experiment has left us a legacy of >> entrenched programs that have outlived their time or outgrown their >> purposes. >> >> A third of a century of unprecedented growth and change has strained our >> institutions, and raised serious questions about whether they are still >> adequate to the times. >> >> It is no accident, therefore, that we find increasing skepticism—and not >> only among our young people, but among citizens everywhere—about the >> continuing capacity of government to master the challenges we face. >> >> Nowhere has the failure of government been more tragically apparent than >> in its efforts to help the poor and especially in its system of public >> welfare. >> >> TARGET: REFORMS >> >> Since taking office, one of my first priorities has been to repair the >> machinery of government, to put it in shape for the 1970's. I have made >> many changes designed to improve the functioning of the executive branch. >> And I have asked Congress for a number of important structural reforms; >> among others, a wide-ranging postal reform, a comprehensive reform of the >> draft, a reform of unemployment insurance, a reform of our hunger programs, >> a reform of the present confusing hodge-podge of Federal grants-in-aid. >> >> Last April 21, I sent Congress a message asking for a package of major >> tax reforms, including both the closing of loopholes and the removal of >> more than 2 million low-income families from the tax rolls altogether. I am >> glad that Congress is now acting on tax reform, and I hope the Congress >> will begin to act on the other reforms that I have requested. >> >> The purpose of all these reforms is to eliminate unfairness; to make >> government more effective as well as more efficient; and to bring an end to >> its chronic failure to deliver the service that it promises. >> >> My purpose tonight, however, is not to review the past record, but to >> present a new set of reforms—a new set of proposals—a new and drastically >> different approach to the way in which government cares for those in need, >> and to the way the responsibilities are shared between the State and the >> Federal Government. >> >> I have chosen to do so in a direct report to the people because these >> proposals call for public decisions of the first importance; because they >> represent a fundamental change in the Nation's approach to one of its most >> pressing social problems; and because, quite deliberately, they also >> represent the first major reversal of the trend toward ever more >> centralization of government in Washington, D.C. After a third of a century >> of power flowing from the people and the States to Washington it is time >> for a New Federalism in which power, funds, and responsibility will flow >> from Washington to the States and to the people. >> >> During last year's election campaign, I often made a point that touched a >> responsive chord wherever I traveled. >> >> I said that this Nation became great not because of what government did >> for people, but because of what people did for themselves. >> >> This new approach aims at helping the American people do more for >> themselves. It aims at getting everyone able to work off welfare rolls and >> onto payrolls. >> >> It aims at ending the unfairness in a system that has become unfair to >> the welfare recipient, unfair to the working poor, and unfair to the >> taxpayer. >> >> This new approach aims to make it possible for people—wherever in America >> they live—to receive their fair share of opportunity. It aims to ensure >> that people receiving aid, and who are able to work, contribute their fair >> share of productivity. >> >> This new approach is embodied in a package of four measures: First, a >> complete replacement of the present welfare system; second, a comprehensive >> new job training and placement program; third, a revamping of the Office of >> Economic Opportunity; and fourth, a start on the sharing of Federal tax >> revenues with the States. >> >> Next week in three messages to the Congress and one statement—I will >> spell out in detail what these measures contain. Tonight I want to explain >> what they mean, what they are intended to achieve, and how they are related. >> >> >> >
