Proposal: Investible Basic Income Guarantee

[ThePythonicCow]

Various proposals have been made, over the years, for providing a guaranteed basic income to all citizens of a nation. As a simple example, everyone would get $1000 per month from the government, period, no special qualifications. This would replace more complex social welfare programs, and provide a basic level of income for everyone. See for example The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) (http://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.php) description.

Such proposals essentially share the governments power to make a nations money with all citizens.

I would like to propose a variation of this. Rather than share the monthly income stream, share the capital generation power that generates that stream.

Investible Basic Income Guarantee:


Materialize the power to generate such stream of monthly income as "shares of stock in the government". Everyone gets say 100 such shares. If they hold onto those shares, the dividend would provide a basic income. But let those shares be bought and sold on an open market. This would enable citizens that didn't need that income right away to invest those shares in business activities which they supported.

This would provide a powerful source of investible capital. Rather than having the government itself decide where to invest its taxed, created or (unfortunately, at present) borrowed funds, the people of the country would decide that, individually.

I would combine this with abolishing the central banks and income taxes. The central banks hijack the money creation powers of a government to become the money lending powers of the banks, by which means they have endeavored to control human civilization since the times of Babylon. Income taxes extort payment on that debt, and require far too much central collection of data, from the citizens of a nation.

Replace (NOT substitute) the income tax with a national sales tax, along with tariffs and fines, to provide the requisite back flow of money to its source.

I will confess that the above suggestion of "tradable shares in the national income stream, distributed to all citizens equally", aka an Investible Basic Income Guarantee, just came to me an hour ago. So perhaps it's a totally stupid idea for some reason that someone will soon point out to me, or perhaps it will seed some more thought along such lines, improving the idea ... or perhaps both.

===

There two distinct aspects of money, which should best be kept separate.

Money is used to allow "generalized transactions", whereby I can trade anything for anything, without finding the exact person who wants the opposite trade so that I can personally barter with them.
Money is also used as a store of wealth, so that I can store up future capability to obtain what I might need then, in easy to store and general terms. If I stash rice and beans in my pantry, that is fine if my future need is food, but does me no good if my future need is petro for my stove or car.

Money used for transactions should be in ample supply, in proportion to current economic activity.

Money used for wealth preservation should be in constant and relatively scarce supply, so that it maintains its value.

These are distinct and competing uses, with distinct optimum configurations. Having a nations money distinct from "shares in a nation" provides the essential basis for these two distinct uses.

Of course, the Babylonian Bankster Bastards should be removed from control of either supply, so that they cannot pump and dump the money supply in order to foreclose on all our common property, eventually "owning" humanity and all resources and means of production on the planet.

[Limor Wolf]

Originally posted by Paul: "perhaps it will seed some more thought along such lines"
Thank you, Paul, this is perheps the best excercise to move us forward from economical distruction that leads to enslavement to a more 'free format, equality for all' type of society, so any thoughts around this are essentially needed. With very little idea in the details of current economy, It is reasonable to assume that everything to do with the concept of credit, interest rates loans etc, need to go 'bunkrupt' so to speak.

But a few more thoughts in relation to your own.. different nations have different level of income per capita and different profit capacity, the capital of a country is determined by many various factors that are certainly not equal. This also makes bartering between countries less than optimal, if for example you are a resident of one of the poorer countries in Africa, what are you able to offer in exchange of water.. what is the profit of the country's 'fine product' that can act as a dividend to it's citizen.

Another sincere thought is if there is any practical way to separate between money for transactions and money for wealth preservation..
My first thought is that it may be quite difficult to prevent someone from succeeding and prospering in their special area or field, unless some new social etiquettes will be legislated along the economy ones. That requires a new type of consciousness.. removing the banksters bastards also require a new type of consciousness..and if and when that happens then Free Energy will be out of the closet and will change the face of world economy. Currency will become obsolete (as well as borders), but may remain as an artifact in a museum for 'good' old time's sake.

In my view, to continue and play in the same set of rules with roughly the same tools is unavoidably a no-go, and it might be that we are in a make or break time that potentially may lead to human enslavement or to a very different economy paradigm that we have yet to learn about

Blessings ~

Limor

[Joe Akulis]

Is this similar to the concept of a "state owned bank"? Like Ellen Brown was championing for a while? (Maybe still does.)

[ThePythonicCow]

But a few more thoughts in relation to your own.. different nations have different level of income per capita and different profit capacity, the capital of a country is determined by many various factors that are certainly not equal. This also makes bartering between countries less than optimal, if for example you are a resident of one of the poorer countries in Africa, what are you able to offer in exchange of water.. what is the profit of the country's 'fine product' that can act as a dividend to it's citizen.
My opening proposal in this thread was offered from the view point of a single "first world nation" (the U.S., obviously).

The problem of poor nations seems to me to be a different problem. It has been grievously aggravated by the harvesting of the labor and natural resources, and the destruction of other cultures, lands and ecologies, on a vast scale, for eons.

Just as crime, poverty and inequality are used as justifications for centralizing power within nations, so is it used on a global scale. Centralized, broad spectrum power corrupts.

I offered my above proposal not so much that I had any clue how we could get there from here, but more as another way to understand, from yet another perspective, the ills of our current situation. The path to wellness begins with an awareness of one's illness.

I don't have any similar such proposal to offer, at this time, regarding international trade and economics or the economies of the poorer, more pillaged nations. As with a sick person who mental and physical state has been ravaged for decades in so many ways, restoring health to the more ravaged areas and peoples of this planet will be a complex, multifaceted, evolving endeavor. In my view, simply establishing some more global power, "in the name of the poor", is unlikely to be a step in the right direction.


Another sincere thought is if there is any practical way to separate between money for transactions and money for wealth preservation..
My first thought is that it may be quite difficult to prevent someone from succeeding and prospering in their special area or field, unless some new social etiquettes will be legislated along the economy ones. That requires a new type of consciousness.. removing the banksters bastards also require a new type of consciousness..and if and when that happens then Free Energy will be out of the closet and will change the face of world economy. Currency will become obsolete (as well as borders), but may remain as an artifact in a museum for 'good' old time's sake.
Such investible basic income guarantees as I propose, in the form of stock in ones nation, would be funded, and paid out, and bought and sold, using the same money as other goods and services.

The desired separation between trading money and investment money is not by using a separate form of money, but rather by the time-dependent behavior of such "stock", versus that time dependent behavior of "money".

The money used in transactions is valued more for its widespread acceptability and low cost of transactions. Investments are valued more for their long term ability to initially provide funding for worthwhile projects, and in the longer term for their ability to return value to the investor, in proportion to the financial success of the funded project.

So, the dividend returns on my proposed investible basic income guarantees should not be in fixed dollar (or other monetary unit) amounts, but rather, like dividends in other stock investments, should vary over time with some financial metric of that nation, such as the amount of its exports or of the tariffs collected on trade crossing it borders.


In my view, to continue and play in the same set of rules with roughly the same tools is unavoidably a no-go, and it might be that we are in a make or break time that potentially may lead to human enslavement or to a very different economy paradigm that we have yet to learn about
Yes, the current set of rules has been demonstrably broken beyond repair for millenia, suitable only for further enslavement of humanity.

[noprophet]

I like your idea a lot. Money is like blood, it has to keep moving for a healthy system. Mass accumulation is a clot.

Money being spent in the "basic necessities" sector is also, as far as I can tell, the real form of job creation as those are the service jobs which are supplied by the manufacturing force.

One person building a factory might create 200 jobs, but a thousand people buying groceries will create a hell of a lot more.

[christian]

A basic income would be cheaper than the current social welfare apparatus.

However, there is one big problem with this scheme. Say you have a flat sales tax that finances reasonable government expenditures. Let's say the basic income is part of this. What happens when suddenly there is not enough tax revenue to support this? Raise taxes? Until when?

I think it's more realistic to downsize government to a minimum and to organize welfare flexibly, voluntarily. Thus the givers will always have a direct say in who gets what from them, and the takers will always be aware that they're benefiting from the voluntarily mercy of a wealthy person (and hopefully behave accordingly, i.e. humbly), not from a government that takes from wealthy citizens at gun point.

The downsizing of the state coupled with voluntary organization of the citizens also eliminates the need for any extensive government legislature.

[ThePythonicCow]

Is this similar to the concept of a "state owned bank"? Like Ellen Brown was championing for a while? (Maybe still does.)
Ellen Brown's state bank, if I recall correctly, keeps the essential nature, and critical flaws, of the current system in place -- most money would still lent into existence, and the primary benefactor of most money issuance would still be subject to central control.

Currently, central banks (big bank cartels) lend money into existence, lending to nations, local governments, businesses and individuals. National governments then spend, lend, or grant the portion of that money that they borrowed out into the rest of the economy.

Ellen Brown's state bank would have states and nations spend, lend or grant their portion into existence, instead of borrowing it from banks. That's a step in the right direction perhaps, but no where near far enough. Most money (to local governments, business, and individuals) would still be lent into existence by the banks, and the investment in large projects would still be centrally controlled, from the national treasury in this case. So the Better Business Bureau (BBB), aka the Bastard Babylonian Banksters, would still have a few central points of control from which they could pump and dump the business cycle, as they continue to enslave humanity.

Ellen Brown's proposal does not (that I recall) comment on how we might unravel the complex, centrally controlled, social safety net of programs, another centralization of powers that worked better decentralized.

[ThePythonicCow]

A basic income would be cheaper than the current social welfare apparatus.

However, there is one big problem with this scheme. Say you have a flat sales tax that finances reasonable government expenditures. Let's say the basic income is part of this. What happens when suddenly there is not enough tax revenue to support this? Raise taxes? Until when?
As I noted in my reply above to Limor, such a scheme should pay out in proportion to current revenues, not on some fixed amount.

That reflects the fundamental difference between a company issuing stock, and a company borrowing, in order to fund projects. If the company issues stock and then has a bad year in the future, it pays out less dividends on the stock, and continues onward. If the company borrows money and then has a bad year in the future, it goes bankrupt, and Wall Street Merge and Acquisition vultures pick up the pieces at pennies on the dollar.

The same should apply to nations. They should not guarantee future social benefit payouts in fixed amounts (as if they were loan repayments) but in variable amounts, in proportion to their varying income from fees, taxes, and tariffs.


I think it's more realistic to downsize government to a minimum and to organize welfare flexibly, voluntarily. Thus the givers will always have a direct say in who gets what from them, and the takers will always be aware that they're benefiting from the voluntarily mercy of a wealthy person (and hopefully behave accordingly, i.e. humbly), not from a government that takes from wealthy citizens at gun point.

The downsizing of the state coupled with voluntary organization of the citizens also eliminates the need for any extensive government legislature.
Complex, centrally controlled, micro-managed social welfare programs need to go - yes.

[christian]

As I noted in my reply above to Limor, such a scheme should pay out in proportion to current revenues, not on some fixed amount.

My fault, I hadn't refreshed the page to see that.

Anyways, that sounds like some form of tax return. A proportional tax return is a conceivable way to deal with a budget surplus.

So everyone pays a flat tax, but you can sell your share in potential tax returns. If you have a free market, trading a possible tax return can easily be done. You wouldn't even have to create any legislature for it. A buyer and a seller could just make a contract and that's it.

Another thing that could be possible is to pay someone to pay all my taxes in the future. He could use what I initially pay him to start a business and maybe even pay more of my taxes than I had given him in the long run, but we both would benefit if his business is successful. Or he'd just go to Vegas and I'd have to continue paying taxes.

[Flash]

your proposal was the election Platform of a poiitical party here in quebec, in the sixties. At the time, they were talking of 2,000 per year per family, and to get rid of all the social apparatus except for health coverage. THey have not been elected.

I always thought it makes sense. And this would bring us to the everyone survives economy and a much more balanced work market, I am sure. Also, mothers could chose to stay home or go to work. etc etc. not viable in a debt base economy, so it was never implanted.

[christian]

Anyways, that sounds like some form of tax return. A proportional tax return is a conceivable way to deal with a budget surplus.

Thinking about it though, I'd prefer if a government budget surplus would lead to a tax decrease…

[ThePythonicCow]

your proposal was the election Platform of a poiitical party here in quebec, in the sixties. At the time, they were talking of 2,000 per year per family, and to get rid of all the social apparatus except for health coverage. THey have not been elected.
That non-investible basic income guarantee, in a fixed amount, has been proposed in various forms, many times, such as (quoting from my opening post) the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) (http://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.php).

My above proposal differs in a couple of key ways:

You can trade them on an open market, thus providing a major source of funding for business development that is not dependent on government or banker control.
The amount paid is (like stock dividends) proportional to the varying income to the government, which adapts over time to the economic activity and changes in the value of money.

[ThePythonicCow]

A key distinction of my above proposal is that it disperses the control over what happens to newly issued money to the individual citizens of a nation.

So long as new money is issued for purposes controlled by some central authority, whether as money lent by a central bank to whomever, for whatever purpose, in whatever amount, they so decide, or whether money is spend, granted or lent by some government in whatever way they decide, then the power of money is centralized and will be controlled, sooner or later, by the most power hungry.

Both central control and usury (demanding exponentially increasing returns on newly issued money, until default, bankruptcy, and foreclosure turns all income streams and resources over to the control of the lenders) need to be removed. Usury is the means of obtaining control of ownership of the commons, and central control over money issuance, even if not debt-money, is the path to bankster forcing their usurious money on us.