Re: Basic Income and Taxation

["William B.Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxx>]

The A + B theorem concludes that in a pure system of endogenous
credit, debt must compound exponentially compared to consumable
production.  That is to say, the ratio of debt to GDP will increase
without limit in a system where the totality of the money supply comes
into existence through loans.

The ratio of debt to GDP should in principle be constantly
proportional to the rate of growth.

This may be obtained in there is a continuous injection of debt-free
money in compensation to debt, as illustrated by the yellow under the
curve "a + c" at
http://www.geocities.com/socialcredit/supplemental.jpg

This will facilitate spending for 1) essential government services and
infrastructure; 2) subsidies to industries judged to be critical to
national security; 3) and most importantly, consumers' dividends.

So long as this spending is held within controlled limits, the
injection of debt-free money cancels or obviates the necessity for
debt dollar-for-dollar, and will not be inflationary.

Bill Ryan william_b_ryan@xxxxxxx
Internet: http://www.geocities.com/socialcredit



From: "Harry Veeder" <veed0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: basicincome@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: BI: BasicIncome and Taxation
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:23:26 +0100

So are you saying that some portion of basic income
can come from the minting and distribution of money directly,
bypassing the traditional mechanisms of deficit spending and
the redistribution of income through taxation. If so I agree.

Harry Veeder


----------
 >From: Robert Rosenstein <econotech@xxxxxxxx>
 >To: basicincome@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 >Subject: BI: BasicIncome and Taxation
 >Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2000, 6:44 pm
 >

 >Hello all:
 >
 >I have begun to read through all the past postings and annotate the
 >material I thought new and useful in considering this subject. Although I
 >have a long way to go, at this juncture I would like to bring up three
 >points, all related, that I think are basic to the discussion. They are
 >theory / taxation / and the context of the discussion.
 >
 >TAXATION: It is, in my opinion, both theoretically (mathematically) and
 >practically (sociologically) impossible to meet the needs of society
 >through taxation. And this, of course, includes basic incomes.  The
 >standard or Pavlovian question asked by politicians when demands are made
 >for necessary programs, "I agree with you, but where does the money come
 >from?" has a basis of truth: the money is assumed to always come from
 >taxation - and the money derived from taxation is never - and I think
 >from now on, ever, can be enough to do the job.
 >
 >CONTEXT: If the above premise is admitted - and I hope it will be
 >discussed - then there must be a decision as to the context of this
 >discussion. It seems to me that there would be two choices:
 >
 >1) It can be discussed within the context of our present monetary system,
 >in which case - again, in my opinion - the discussion would be primarily
 >theoretical and consequently of little value.
 >
 >2) It can be discussed within the context of the future, in which case
 >the discussion would not be primarily about  BasicIncome but rather about
 >the changes that are necessary in our monetary system: which is to say in
 >our economic and governmental structure - which is really all one and the
 >same - so that BasicIncomes can become a reality.
 >
 >THEORY: Several persons, in their postings, have spoken of psychological
 >factors and the theoretical basis (or justification) for a universal
 >BasicIncome. These are certainly interesting -but at another level - for
 >they do not, so far as I can see, add anything substantial to the
 >discussion. I can make, what I think is a very reasonable
 >Technological/Economic argument for the need of a BasicIncome (although I
 >would rather argue from a strictly biological basis) - but I think that,
 >at this point, all such discussions  would lead us further afield from
 >our goal. The fact is, we live in a real world, inhabited by real people,
 > whose well-being is absolutely dependent on the regular availability of
 >money - all very practical matters.
 >
 >Robert
 >
 >Robert Rosenstein
 >econotech@xxxxxxxx



____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1