| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: Swanwick Principles | | Date: | Saturday, December 11, 2004 09:48:53 (+0000) | | From: | Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
|
| In reply to: | Message 344 (written by Joe Thomson) |
Dear Joe,
Indeed, you hit a nail - but interestingly the response I got also indicates
that a "Guaranteed National Income" is implied by some who support A+B!
Indeed, I came across A+B when I was investigating such an income as a
possible alternative to social security which can be degrading, complex and
open to abuse. It makes a lot of sense initially but then in the UK we see
rules and funding applied with idealism only resulting in the wrong result
e.g. People now claim 'disability' instead of unemployment as it 'pays
better'! On the flip side things like 'sure start' aim to help people up the
ladder out of the poverty cycle and this is where money appears to do good
and boosts people's dignity because they are earning their way with honest
effort.
If it is a consumer discount it is interesting as I would think that a form
of sales tax refund could be arranged when people pay electronically. This
has the benefit that it moves people away from potentially untaxable cash. I
will raise this thought with another who I believe has thought a lot about
automatic price and inflation control.
It could also be used as a form of tax relief for the domiciled companies so
they can remain competitive in the world markets (why spend dividend to
encourage wealth to leave the country?) but then we get 'free trade'
opposition from such 'subsidy', right? A combination could be a partial
electronic sales tax refund for local companies only.
As to 'forcing people to work' I agree with your position. The real issue is
into the future by not encouraging such people to have children whom they in
general teach the same lifestyle - the cruellest child poverty of all -
poverty of ambition! (If anyone says a person who is willingly idle can
teach ambition and drive in their children then they have fooled themselves
first and now attempt to fool others). Any further down such a road then it
becomes social engineering with sinister overtones (e.g. Do you reward
graduate parents more, as in Singapore). Right now, a universal payment IS
social engineering in that it engineers the growth of an underclass - how
cruel! THAT is elitism...throwing bread to keep those below instead of
offering out a hand to pull them up!
Take care
Tim
On 10/12/04 4:10 pm, "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Hello Tim,
>
> You wrote:- "It is not 'elitist' and it is not callous in accepting human
> behaviour for
> what it is. Far from describing people as 'subhuman' I am just discussing
> human behaviour and trends and saying some will behave thus. Many people are
> lazy, period and many poor are incredibly hard-working. It does not speak of
> the poor remaining so and I fully support opportunity for people to rise and
> part of this desire is an opposition to social dividends which IMHO not only
> dissuades some people from striving but lures others not to. My feeling is
> many will escape poverty when receiving the social dividend but a (ever)
> larger group will flop down into it."
>
> Could it be you're confusing the nature of the Social Credit proposal for a
> ''National Dividend'' with the oft called for proposals from many diverse
> quarters for some form of ''Guaranteed Annual Income''? The former, as it
> should be seen, is in the nature of a necessary national 'accounting
> adjustment'. . And with the 'Consumer Discount' at point of retail, (both
> in the correct amount, and distributed as necessary'), assist in the full
> distribution of its production. Which, presently, its collective 'incomes'
> are insufficient in their distribution to buy.
>
> The latter, as far as I understand it, is simply a re-distribution of
> incomes through taxation. And indeed may have some of the deleterious
> effects on some people's initiative you imply.
>
> Further to this, though, when you write "some people are lazy", which is
> undoubtedly true, will 'forcing' these people to 'work', when it is clear
> that their production is not presently required, make them change? Why
> burden some poor employer with someone who doesn't 'want' to work? Is that
> a rationally efficient way to accomplish anything, other than perhaps the
> mutual misery of both employer and employee?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> http://www.eListas.com/
> The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message