Re: What if and Why of Zero Taxation

["Schulte-baeuminghaus" <schulte.baeuminghaus@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear John,


If by a "stipend" you mean a handout, then I do not agree - except in the
emergency that the society has failed to provide reasonable employment
opportunities for those who are willing and able to work.
On most of the other points, I think we come together only by chance - or
mischance.

At one point, you say -

> However, I don't recall any restrictive monetary measures at
> the time.

Do you remember anything that happened in July 1969?
I'll jog your memory: Man landed on the Moon.
That same month the Fed raised interest rates.
A sad synchronisation.
We never again achieved the economic stability and, in many ways, the
economic and social equity that we'd had in the first quarter-century after
World War Two.
That program of Moon landings was completed in, I think, 1973 or
thereabouts.
We've never been back to the Moon since. We've never been to any celestial
body since - except with unmanned craft. We've had shuttles that stick
pretty close to home and a space base in construction after Mir that perhaps
just qualifies as being located in space.
In nearly thirty years, we've never repeated the remarkable feat of the Moon
landing in July 1969.
People born then will be thirty-three years old this year. They've grown up,
got married, had kids and are well launched in their careers and they've
never had the thrill that we had of watching a man again make that first
"great leap for mankind."
There are no doubt clusters of reasons for this. Perhaps we got a thrill out
of the Moon landings but not much practical benefit.
The "bottom line" wasn't all that exciting.
Perhaps NASA and others are still working out how to land men on Mars and,
as Kennedy said, "return them safely to earth."
Most things have several, probably interlocking causes.
I don't want to insist on one cause when there might well be several.
But has it ever occurred to you that what the Fed did in July 1969, just
about the time that Man first landed on the Moon, might have had something
to do with our failure ever to attempt another such enterprise since?


James Cumes



----- Original Message -----
From: John O'Donnell <jackodonnell@xxxxxxx>
To: Schulte-baeuminghaus <schulte.baeuminghaus@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <VOW@xxxxxxxxxx>; <dulwich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<gang8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: What if and Why of Zero Taxation


> 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.
> .