 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
But science and industry have made it possible to satisfy human needs without full employment, leaving the gap between purchasing power and production which this report has explained. But instead of supplying its citizens with the needed National Dividend, governments have tried to fill the gap through a welfare state based on income redistribution, through socialist state controls, through bank-furnished credit, or a combination.
Wealth distribution can be summed up with one word: TAX.
When the TAX is involuntary (by fraud or force), then, bad things happen. This is an inevitable fact. It is simple economic reality. The act of fraud and force is rewarded. Anything rewarded will prosper. This is fact - like watering one plant and the flip side is the plant that has no water (or not enough).
If the Scheme intends to utilize the existing involuntary tax mechanism to destroy the complicated wealth distribution scheme and replace that scheme with a less complicated one, then, we all will benefit (the lesser of two evils) - even the rich will benefit.
A less complicated wealth distribution scheme will be easier to understand and it will be less costly compared to the current and extremely costly, complicated, wealth distribution scheme.
When the scheme becomes obviously beneficial to everyone, then, the involuntary nature will naturally disappear (without the need for fraud).
When the involuntary nature of TAX is no longer actually involuntary, then, government will become nothing more than an insurance policy. The TAX will be a necessary cost of gaining the benefits of economic scale (economies of scale) whereby the sum of all economic power is divided by the number of individuals. In other words: The COST of wealth is divided by the number of people participating in the voluntary association.
Example:
Person A pays the TAX (the insurance premium) against economic loss (of all forms calculable including invasion by foreign army, meteor strike from space, global warming, and car accident) and the premium COST (price) charged to that single taxpayer is the total cost of the insurance POT OF GOLD divided by the number of people insured with the policy (with an additional risk factor in case the individual voluntarily enjoys risky behavior such as heroin use or even unprotected prostitution, etc.), where, the TAX POT OF GOLD is an estimate on the required WEALTH needed to pay the calculated COSTS of knowable calamity.
Can you see this?
Example:
If the SYSTEM insures against anything worthwhile, then, people will voluntarily pay the costs. If not, then, NOT.
How about insurance against invasion by foreign army?
Take a ballpark guess at the current military budget and divide that by the number of people paying the TAX and what do you get?
Suppose the military budget is 1 trillion dollars per year (including the current secret expenditures) and consider the TAX base (those who are now, currently, producing actual wealth and paying into the current SYSTEM = not including people who merely get tax subsidies and pay tax = a net loss because those people must eat too) to be 100 million people.
That is: 1 trillion dollars a year divided by the number of people creating that wealth:
$1,000,000,000.00 divided by 100,000,000
What do you get?
10
Do you see this?
The insurance premium for our current military is 10 dollars per year.
How about doing the math backwards?
100,000,000 million people pay an insurance premium to keep the bad guys out of our country and each person pays 10 dollars per year. How much wealth does that represent (not actual wealth) per year?
Not 1
Not 10
Not 100
Not 1000
Not 10 thousand
Not 10 million
100 million times 10
What does that equal per year?
Answer:
One billion
See how I am?
I’m not very good at math. I wonder why?
Who determines how much TAX that we volunteer to pay?
What do we get for it?
Do you want to go back to school before you send another dollar to the ‘authorities’?
$1,000,000,000,000.00
That is one trillion.
Again:
1 trillion divided by 100 million:
$10,000.00
There is a reason why this is called HIGH FINANCE.
Reverse – again:
100 million citizens pay a premium for anti invasion insurance and the required POT OF GOLD needed is estimated at 1 trillion dollars, so, each wealth creator must come up with 10 thousand dollars a year (above the cost of living).
$10,000.00 x 100,000,000 = ?
I have to count the zeros on the MS calculator so hold on…
1,000,000,000,000
That looks right now.
Where was I?
Let me tell you something with someone else’s words.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
The idea is to remove the monopoly power of legal currency from the criminals who now hold that power. That monopoly power of legal currency is arguably the worst evil. Money is not the root of all evil - a criminal may want you to believe such nonsense.