Subject: The best economic plan
11-11-08
Government payouts instead backed by all the assets in the entire country:
This is not a religious subject so I could be wrong; but, (pursuant to some of my earlier writings) why don’t we just let the National Debt increase by having the government “just” print a bunch of money, then give everyone a basis needs check every month? Plus, let’s also let the National Debt “increase” by ending all taxes. That’ll be great news for the rich, eh? Then just print up a bunch of money with “nothing” to back it up, and give it to all government employees and government vendors, to “motivate” all the same to work. Then the National Debt will figure into the quadrillions. But, every dollar that goes overseas will still buy you a can of pop here in the states. Why? Because everyone who profits in private enterprise will still enjoy the added profits of manufacturing it. Once nobody has to work anymore, they will all have the time to work for “more”; thereby producing with pride and happiness those added profits they want. Oops, all those who used to make shoes just happened to be sickly or content with not working and to just live on basic needs. – Well, that just means there’s a very valuable added-profits-market available for many other people to take advantage of for “more,” because everyone will want to have shoes. If for some reason, more and more people become content with living on basic needs, where overall production starts to decline, then advertise more vacation destinations, video games available, the advantages of obscure products, etc. which will just get people motivated to want “more.” Then we’re back on track. There’s an “assumption” that no one will work anymore if no one “has to” work anymore. But, once people realize that all the things they read in advertising can only be had by making more money, then I’m sure everyone will “want to” work for it; thereby allowing the stuff to be made; thereby allowing the ends-meet payment to be continually made to everyone. It’d be far from communism as the rich can just keep getting richer as it pertains to making more stuff, and get to keep it all, with no tax. But then there’d be that outstanding National Debt. But no one will ever really be concerned too much in wanting to pay it off as there will be absolutely no advantage to do so. It’s like how the American debt of World War Two greatly raised the National Dept and killed a lot of American workers, but the economy became “better” than it was “before” the war. It’s like how not too long after the government implemented the 16th Amendment in 1913 by taxing income, the entire economy crashed in 1929. And more National Dept spending brought it out of its rut.
You see, for any economy to flourish, you just have to have lots of people working, that’s all. And if war can be replaced by productive advantage, I think people will go for it.
If the government just ended the IRS today, then every worker would automatically have more money to spend. Then sales and services will increase greatly stimulating the economy. But, because of that, quickly businesses would start decreasing wages, because employees have shown that they will come in and do the work for less. Then things will simply revert back to what we have now. In this way, the rich who want to benefit from Reaganomics can, because they’ll have more to keep. Also if the government, right now, just printed up a bunch of money and paid for everyone’s basic needs, then everyone would automatically have a bunch of extra money to increase sales and services and greatly stimulate the economy. With this factor especially, quickly employers will decrease everyone’s salary, to again, what we have now. This will also greatly increase Reaganomics for the rich. Employees who used to come in to just make ends-meet, are still coming in to work while being paid a low salary. Why would that be? They are also all starting to work better because they are all happier for some reason, like rich people are and college students who’s parents pay all the bills. Productivity is going up as a result. How could all this stuff be happening while the National Dept is skyrocketing? And to who does this new “National Dept” owe? Where are they? Inside the free money printing press? Technically, there can be no National Dept as long as the population has the assets to back it all up. And assets come only from workers.
Actually if the plan didn’t work, then the dollar will lose its value where the government allocation wouldn’t be enough, to an eventual point where we’d all have to return to getting jobs to make ends-meet, like we have it today. So the plan really can’t lose. I still don’t see, though, why we’d ever need taxes again.
The system of course would fail if few decided they wanted more than basic needs; but, I don’t really think boredom will ever overrule getting more, unless an unfair degrading stress is put on them, like welfare pressures today. I think the boredom of just doing the same “fun” things everyday will make people even more want the “more” or something different to play with.
Many people ask for answers to the IRS, Reaganomics for the rich and lucky, getting the poor out of their rut, etc. Well, here are all the answers. You say: “How could that be possible?” “Dumb” is the answer to that.
This plan hurts no rich person.
People / businesses can still get loans for more, sooner. The fact that so many people are willing to get loans today means they all want more sooner. So why not just give it to them instead of all the banks getting it? Therefore, if the banks fail because everyone gets their all their desires taken care of, then just give all the bankers lots of the free government printed money, and tell them to not cause any more problems, by just staying home and not working, for the rest of their worthless / trouble causing lives. Then that problem should be solved, and in a totally fair manner: in total acceptance to the bankers. There will be absolutely no advantageous productively lost if the former bankers don’t work; and, there are so few of them that their having free extra money won’t hurt things hardly at all. If anything, they’ll just be spending it making more sales for the rest of us. Then, all those former bank employees can do all the work that Bill Clinton says is “needing” to get done. When all the worthless / non-productive bankers are all dead and gone, then there won’t be any more around to pay.
You see, a government paid basic needs income paid to everyone will eliminate the rich to never be able to take advantage of poor people forcing a low slavery type wage again. All will be happy and healthy “goal” motivation instead of today’s popular “pain” motivation. They will all “want to” go to work for new and different, rather than “hate” going to work for the same old same old. You see, one will run for health reasons, and one will run to flee from someone trying to harm them. Who runs happier and is motivated to want to run more often?
Apparent slavery was abolished, but unapparent slavery wasn’t.
Usually a “crummy” job is a job that doesn’t pay very much, rather than a job that requires lots of college, is hard to do, or is even dangerous (as long as it pays good). So people will still goal for these non-crummy jobs, allowing the getting of everything done that needs to be done, while the government can continue to print free money equally for everyone’s basic needs.
Everyone can still invest in the stock market, etc. No one will be able to shout “unfair” because anyone who wants to not work can. But, who’s going to want to just sit there with the same old same old when his neighbor has the newer innovation?
Once all the waste is eliminated in inferior product designs, uneducated people in the workplace, products made to fail before their time, we may only have to / want to work 20 hour weeks instead, to get it all done. This would leave more time to ponder new innovations, and time to enjoy all the new things that can be boughten from a world full of happy and motivated workers. Technological advances is key to advancement, as technology today could probably make everything that was made during say the Renaissance in a fraction of the time it took workers back then to make, relative to each individual. Yet the world still reeks with poor and grieving people. Giving more time to allow people to “think” out new and better ways will surely grant good return.
A good economist will probably “just say” this won’t work, but that’s because they are constrained in thought by the status-quo, and have never thought outside their box. Another barrier is that they have been taught that it would be unfair for someone who doesn’t work to eat. Therefore, reading my paper on Lewis and Clark is first-base in this solution. All this would stabilize fairness for the poor; and, it would be complaint free, as anyone would not have to work. “Dumb”: You’re not going to believe it is the reason.
Actually, when things like John Deere makes a better tractor that produces more yield, or anything that allows “more” for less work, the government allocation to everyone can continually increase, restricted only when it starts decreasing current / needed productivity. When a major technological improvement comes, people might have to sacrifice a little overall to get it going, but everyone would be willing to do so just like any investor today is willing to wait a while for an assured higher return. Eventually we may have one machine that does all the work for us, but if that happened like today, everyone would be in the poor house, because no one would have a job anymore to pay like the one person for the benefits of the machine. Today, when technology advances, poor people and ends-meet wages don’t. And the way our system works today, it never will.
Just ask yourself if you would still work, if the government sent you a check that met your basic needs? Or, just ask yourself if you would still work and keep what you’ve got, if you could move back into mom’s basement and do hardly anything all day? No, I’m saying you won’t be going back to school, but you will have ends-meet like you did when you were going to school? It’s all the same thing. Lots of kids have the incentive to get jobs while still in high school, so think what their incentives would be if they weren’t taking the time to go to school. All the poor people who work today just to make ends-meet would also continue to work, just like they’d all continue to work if you gave them all a big raise right now. Again, all that’s needed is for an incentive for “more” to keep people working.
Try it for a week and see if anyone stops working for “more” for that week. Worst case, nobody works that week and we’re out little. Otherwise, why not consider everyone start working the weekends too? It’s because we’d all just find everything just bouncing back to the poor working 56 hour weeks to have the same as what they used to do in 40 hours. Then we’re also probably have 140% more faulty and dishonesty manufactured / advertised products.
If the government can create money to pay lots of workers to make non-ends-meet bombs and bullets for war, then they could have just paid all the same people the same wage for doing nothing. So, if we can have those same people work to create useful things for the consumer, then there will simply be more useful things for them to consume in reward.
There will be no more worry about basic needs, thereby making the incentive to work always a positive thing. And those who do better will get to keep it all without paying any taxes.
If you believe in Reaganomic with today’s tax system, then you easily can believe that allowing that tax dollar to instead go for new products, ideas and markets, all that new stuff will cause “more” incentive for the poor to keep working as it will trickle down to “more” than basic needs.
If all this wouldn’t work, then taxing the rich to raise welfare is the only other fair way.
Barack Obama said the best way is to start from the bottom up. Well, this is starting from the real bottom, not just starting with the middle class. And it should work (ethically) better than starting anywhere else.
Technicalities / repercussions:
Now the problem comes in initially when everyone all-of-a-sudden has a lot more money to spend. Hopefully most people will save their money, but still lots will start spending to the point where everything currently made is all bought up. Sales will be great for private enterprise; but, you’re going to need more workers to keep up with the new demand. So more people will be needed to work to keep up with the new demand, while many will be taking advantage of not working and just living on basic needs. So, the solution is to gradually convert and adapt to it: Say basic-needs goal for a single person living alone is $12,000 a year (less per person when living with someone else). 12,000 divided by 12 equals $1,000 per month. Over a ten year period, the government could start paying everyone (in the entire country) $100 per month for the first year, then $200 per month the second year, etc. With this gradual approach working with the adjusting bounce-back abilities of private enterprise, “demand” will better be able to keep up with yearly increases. It would be suggested for employers to decrease employees’ wages to match, say, two-thirds of the government allotment. Then not only employers will be getting work done for less, but all employees will be getting a two-thirds of government allotment raise. Of course, this gradual approach allows us to see how well this new method is working overall, and could allow us to increase the government allotment faster, and/or of greater value. It could also see benefits in exceeding the $12,000 a year limit, dependent on how many people keep working to facilitate needed / desired supply and demand. Of course, if things don’t work out for the better, then we can easily go back to our current system with little damage done. At the end of the ten years, a worker who now only works for that $5.77 per hour (based on a 40-hour week) will be making $9.62 per hour, which will be basic needs met, plus $3.85 per hour incentive to come to work for “more.” I think all your lowest paid people today would say “Yeah!” So much so that the incentive to work and maybe even more hours will definitely be there initially, to greatly help during the adjustment period. If you work today for like $10.00 per hour, then you’d be making $13.85 per hour on the new plan; so your incentive to still come into work would be for $8.08 an hour (over your government basis-needs allotment). That also means your employer will only be paying you $8.08 an hour instead of $10.00 an hour. So everyone would be “motivated.” $20.00 per hour would be $23.85 per hour with a working incentive of $18.08 dollars an hour ($23.85 - $5.77). And don’t forget about it all being tax free. If you now make $50.00 an hour, you’re not going to see a large benefit (but still some), but your very large incentive to work will be there.
Of course, tweaking the numbers and finding the happy mediums will be key to all this. And, determining everyone’s monthly allotment incremental increase can fluctuate up and down as people work more or less. So don’t just drop the entire program just because you have to decrease everyone’s monthly allotment to encourage more people to work. The entire program is designed so as technology increases, everyone can make more money, and/or less people will have to work, or work less hours. Again, this is as the rich and lucky get to keep their higher possessions.
Today’s variable tax brackets are set up with hopes of giving more to the poor; but today, if you’re poor, you’re still poor. But my new system would work the same kind of ideals, but assuring that the poor are taken care of first. Again, all current and future wealthy people will be able to continue to keep (and make) all their money, and tax free.
Today’s continuous / never ending tax and tax bracket political complaints just tells that there’s a better way. Mine is it.
Politicians have never believed that people will still work if they can all live on basic needs. That’s why every political scheme implemented to motivate people to work has everything to do with the “threat” of work or be homeless and/or starve techniques. One has to “consider” that as error, before my plan can make sense. You see, when one can’t “see” that free food and unrestricted free building materials once existed, then “one step” thinking tells that it’s unfair for people to eat and live anywhere unless they work all their life for someone else (even the self-employed are working for someone else).
It like the waitress standard: Restaurant waitresses wouldn’t come to work if they didn’t get tips. And tips are something no one “has to” do, but most people leave tips anyway, allowing the system to work. Of course, if all of a sudden no one left any more tips, the system would fail. In my system, if everyone just decided they didn’t want to work for “more” and live just on basis needs, which is what we are all sort of taught, then my system would fail. But, like waitress tips, a desire to work for “more” would still predominately exist as it really does today, contrary to what everyone has sort of been taught to believe / assume.
Nixon and other Presidents would give like additional $100 tax refunds, so people would have more spending money to stimulate the economy. My idea is just doing this at a greater extent. (One mistake with the tax refund idea is it doesn’t pay those who don’t work, as $100 to a poor person would just cause a bit more incentive to work. You see, the more money one makes the more they “want” to work, not the other way around. And $100 every once in a great while isn’t going to really show its potential. But, the $100 incident would make a poor, non-working person at least “think” for a few seconds how nice it’d be to work. And the workers who got the $100 refund surely got enthused about how nice it’d be to have “more,” before reality set in, telling them they can’t really continually have “more.”)
If it gets to temporary points where demand exceeds supply, then everyone should still be “happy” just having the money to go into their savings. Basic-needs jobs would have to be a priority, as these jobs could simply pay more to get’r done. Possibly even more government assistance for people who work those basic needs jobs. “Possibly” video games and other fluff “may” have to wait before things come back up. But hopefully not, as these things cause “more” incentives to work.
Halting all taxes all-of-a-sudden might also cause the same “demand” problem, and should also probably be done in yearly increments. Or, just figure it all in an increase each month, or every two weeks, or something. That would better show everyone what’s really going on, and that working more and technology is the things that will keep it going up. Again, if the new system fails, then we can just increase taxes back up to where they are today, with little damage done. No… we won’t even want to thing about that!
This whole scheme will pay the actual workers and dirty (needed) jobs better (mainly) and also the wealthy employers by not having to pay taxes anymore. It will include the best of both worlds: more for the poor and the workers, and more for Reaganomics to work better. No one will have a complaint because anyone can not work if they so desire. (Not giving this same basis needs allocations to everyone would cause problems. Enough that the system would not work, as unfairness protests would cause its demise; which is what makes the rich today complain. So I say give the $5.77 per hour allotment to the super rich also! Then they can’t complain about anything!) Employers can continue to only pay people just enough to make them come in to work; while no one can ever be in too much of a rut again.
Today, if John Deere makes a better tractor, only John Deere benefits. (Well, farmers temporarily benefit, until the system bounces back pressuring more demand.) In my system, if John Deere makes a better tractor, everyone benefits, mostly John Deere, then secondarily the poor / the workers (percentage wise), then thirdly everyone else. All leading a “fair” / incentive method to where eventually everyone will just have fun all day, because machines will more and more do all the work.
During war, there’s a lot of work being done for negative assets. If we could all pretend it’s World War II, but instead work making positive assets, things we can all use inside this country, then I think we’d end up making more assets than we need. Initially with my plan, if the same number of people worked, likely “basic needs” production would increase, as demand for this will increase (e.g., better homes for the poor), allowing “fluff” to catch up later. The inner cities wouldn’t look like ghettos any more. But, for “fluff” purposes, I think motivation and enthusiasm of poorer workers would increase so much that we’d get all the stuff we want pretty quickly. Crime should decrease significantly, because fairness for the poor and unlucky is now something that cannot be put down any longer. Then all we will be hoping for is better technology, which will reap extra incentive rewards for those who think up the better ideas, instead of today’s high gamble in getting new and better ideas implemented.
If we took all the money it cost for all the wars we’ve had in the last 100 years, we could have easily renovated all the houses in the ghetto and more. Plus, we’d have had many more workers to do it. So, the potential to do all this is there.
“Communism” seemed to think the solution was by just getting rid the rich, then hoping it helps the poor; but, it just made everyone basically poor. Mine doesn’t take from the rich at all, it just starts by helping the poor and unlucky, and letting the rich stay rich. Mine is a solution for everyone. It’s like flying a plane too close to the ground. If something goes wrong, you’re dead. If you’re flying an airplane higher up and something goes wrong, there’s a lot more time you have to correct it, than if you fly close to the ground. Today, the rich think that they can only be rich by making all the poor workers fly close to the ground. But, my plan just makes all the poor workers fly much higher. And the rich people can still stay flying six miles up, which is the safest place one can be during a flight.
All my plan will do is raise everyone to at least a higher stability level, fueled by our present over-producing, excessive-waste bounce-back free enterprise system. If most people had to work 40 hour weeks just to have air to breath, then all of a sudden all the air was free, you think no one would continue to work for “more”? But, yes they would, because they do today with free air. My plan targets and guarantees help where it’s needed the “most,” instead of via income tax which just redistributes wealth from the top to the middle.
The ultimate goal is to get where no one “works” anymore, where there are so many other things to do for fun, interest and pleasure, where technology has gotten to the place where maybe only one or two guys do all the work. Of course, those two guys would be making more money than everyone else on the same government allotment, but allotment would be very high. There’s no way to reach or advance to this goal with our present system, because once technology starts advancing lessening the need for workers, we always have to mess up something else so “everyone” can work. If things don’t change soon, the entire world will be both technologically advanced and in shambles. It’s like today, all the tons of land available, but homeless people are on the streets. An abundance of houses with no one living in them, is the latest blunder.
The only brainstorm we’ve done for the poor in the last 20 years is to allow casinos and lotteries to take even more from the poor, to help the rich get richer.
Plus, in communism, the government owned all property. In my system, you own all your own property. So, if you go to the casino and blow your government allocation, then you’re in trouble. But, if you have a legitimate need for additional assistance, like from fire, flood, etc. the government could certainly pay for that – just as we generally do today. It’d definitely be helpful if we closed all the casinos and ended all the lotteries.
The gold standard is / was supposed to be the legitimate backing for the country’s money. But, a bunch of gold in Fort Knox is not being utilized for the good of the people by just sitting there. It should be consumed for electronics, jewelry, etc. – more things to motivate people to want to work for more. The fact that we haven’t used anything like the gold standard for years, and the economy hasn’t dived, shows that government money without any backing must work. We just have to tweak it in the correct fashion, starting from the ground up. Obama should really like this plan. Anything else is just continuing to dance about the problem. You can take more from the rich and give to the poor, but with the current standard, the employers are just going to see employees willing to come to work for less pay, retracting back to the same exact problem. That’s what I call “bouncing back.” When you give everyone a base allotment, then the employer has to give them an incentive to come in that’s overall greater then they’d ever get today, as there desperate need would instead be an advantageous desire – the same kind of thing that motivates the upper middle class continue to work, and with much more positive happiness. Plus, it’s actually less for the employers of the poor.
In a bounce back society, when women slowly became more and more active in the work place, poor people, those struggling to make ends meet, and high taxes against the rich still continued basically without interruption. If right now, we added to the work force all children instead of them going to school (I’m not recommending), productivity would go up, but in ten years, there’d still be the same poor people, those struggling to make ends meet, and high taxes against the rich. Conversely, if half of today’s work force all-of-a-sudden quit working (I’m not recommending), things would suffer, but in ten years, we’d be back to where we are today …. – And possibly with less fraudulent and faulty products and services, because all workers would be too busy trying to get honest products out the door and in making things that work right.
The newly famous Joe the Plumber says it just doesn’t seem right that when he makes money he has to give part of it away. Well, he’s right. With my idea he could keep it all.
You ask: What if someone just asks the government for even more money since it’s free to them? Well, they could just give individuals free extra money right now on the same premise, but they don’t (normally). So they won’t “have to” after the program is implemented either.
You say: Lots of people will just use that free money for alcohol, drugs and/or gambling, instead of food and rent. Then you give it in food stamps that also work in restaurants, and housing stamps that only work for rent, mortgage payments, utilities, repairs, those exceedingly high plumbing costs, etc.
“He came to town on an old freight train; He jumped off in the pourin’ rain. Everybody said He’s insane: ‘Just a low-down no-account hobo.’ He made his bed ‘neath the county bridge. The city folks said: ‘Hey, that’s not His!’ They signed a petition they’re gonna get rid of that low-down no-account white trash. What if Jesus comes back like that – on an old freight train in a hobo hat? Will we let Him in, or turn our back? What if Jesus comes back like that? Oh! What if Jesus comes back like that?” –Collin Raye, 1996.
To paraphrase:
If you want things to work better, you have to think first for the poor. –Jesus Christ. Not by dancing around fairness in tax brackets through eternity.
Mr. Critical – Thinkin’ it could work.
TO SEE PRIOR SUPERIOR WRITINGS (and more):
http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/