Re: What if and Why of Zero Taxation

["John O'Donnell" <jackodonnell@xxxxxxx>]

Schulte-baeuminghaus wrote:
>
> In any tolerable society, everyone must have a right to a job - to play a
> part in the society in which he or she resides.

Having a "right" to a job is substantially different than
either having access to work or employment being necessary
to prosperity. It implies that society has an obligation to
keep people busy with or without having any desire for the
product of that work.

> Most people think that a "job" confers on them a role, an identity, a worth,
> even though that "job" is often hard and the financial rewards may be small.
> He or she has associates through the work he or she does. Work provides a
> purpose that might otherwise be lacking.

This is why a distribution that provides some minimal
standard of living based on the effect the distribution has
on economic production rather than the standard of living
that the stipend provides would not create a society of
loafers. [i.e. -- A stipend such as my "citizen's dividend"
as described in _Three Steps, etc._ rather than a basic
income distribution based on some ill defined standard of
need.] It would only provide the opportunity to people to be
free too chose their own occupation or study rather than
being forced to work for a living while at the same time
reducing the market demand for wages that increase the
variable cost of production.

> That doesn't mean that the person who doesn't want to work - because of age,
> physical condition or simple mood - must be compelled to work. But the right
> to work should be there - must be, in any society that I call acceptable.
> It is NOT good enough "to simply distribute access to the things that are
> prosperity or the means to obtain those things."

Put that way I very much agree. But that is not the
proposition I put forward. I only remarked that when looking
for a solution to a problem one should not be so fast in
stating a necessary condition that locks out alternatives.

> I remember going to New York in 1970, about a year after the Nixon
> Administration and the Fed had applied restrictive fiscal and monetary
> measures to "fight inflation."
> Those measures, of course, only made inflation hugely worse; and they caused
> a surge of unemployment. About a million people lost their jobs in a few
> months - perhaps more.

If this refers to the Nixon price controls, I again agree.
However, I don't recall any restrictive monetary measures at
the time.

> I remember seeing people interviewed on TV about the measures. In particular
> I remember one woman - representative of many - who was in tears, not
> because she had lost any money - "I get as much money as I did before" - but
> because she had lost the daily contact with her friends and mates in the
> workplace, and -
>
> "Before I was doing something, now I'm doing nothing."

This sounds like the result of extended unemployment
payments, not restrictive monetary or fiscal policies. It is
also another statement of the reason people with the
opportunity to not work given by a stipend that only
represents their share of society created wealth, and not a
free ride to idleness. [i.e.. -- A stipend based on the
Henry George analysis of the meaning of rent.]

> A society that humiliates people by taking away - or failing to give or
> allow - purpose in life is a failed society.

Taking away or failing to allow I agree would be a detriment
to sanity. However, requiring society give is just as bad.
To me the solution is to give each person a stipend from the
proceeds of society generated wealth so that each is free to
pursue the study or occupation desired and not be forced to
remain at a job simply because it is necessary to survive.

> As to taxes and full employment, of course tax collections will be or can be
> greater if everyone is contributing to payment of taxes than if they are
> collecting from the revenue. That means that, ceteris paribus, the rate of
> tax can be lower at full employment to finance the same set of government
> outlays as before.

This assumes that taxes are needed to finance government
rather than simply to give value to the currency. So long as
the currency can be maintained at a standard of value by
taxation that causes capital growth [i.e. Again, see _Three
Steps,etc._.] and borrowing that makes up any insufficiency
of the tax to maintain that value there is no need for
further taxation based on government spending.

> We seem to have lost the concept that we had after World War Two that
> employment - a role for everyone in the society WHO WANTS ONE - is a
> blessing in a multitude of ways.

You seem to be putting a burden on society to provide the
wrong thing to individuals. Leaving the opportunity to
contribute is one thing, making some artificial society
created function is quite another.

> It is an economic blessing.
> It gives us a more tranquil, contented, peaceful society.
> It can bring us together more readily in common purposes.
> It makes for greater political tranquillity and harmony among the various
> income and interest groups.
> Don't ever think that your fellow human beings are slothful, selfish,
> useless. Perhaps some of us are. Perhaps from time to time all of us are.
> But it's not what the vast majority of us want.
> If you think people are not worth anything, that's what you'll get - people
> who SEEM TO BE not worth having.
> You'll get crime, disorder, terrorism and the last thing you'll believe is
> that you brought it on yourself.


I agree with all of this. I disagree only with the
government actions that can accomplish these conditions.

> Offer people a challenge, ask them to do something for their community or
> the wider society rather than directly for themselves, and you might be
> surprised at how many positive responses you get. Just as one example, I've
> been surprised - and delighted - at the response we've had to Victory Over
> Want (VOW) in just 23 days.
> A challenge to people's good heart and good sense is always worth a try.

Allowing this is great, requiring it is dictatorship. Allow
the challenge, don't ask, and provide people their share of
society created wealth so they are free to choose. That's
freedom from want as well as freedom from government
intrusions.

<<SNIP>>
--
			-- jbod

		Tax Privilege, Not People
___________________________________________________
Come visit and see a new economic perspective --
       http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1067
           Comments/arguments welcome.
.