(Tim:-) It would be lovely if such payments could be made
without a negative effect on people. I think your examples of very northerly
climes might skew things a bit, though.
--------------------------------------------------------
What 'negative effect', Tim? And why? I don't see anything
particularly different from the 'northern climes' of Alaska and a small
part of Manitoba in regards to the 'climes' of anywhere else when it comes to
this issue.
Disregarding Manitoba, where the provision of an 'unearned income' was
very definitely a short-term experiment, there is no evidence of anything
other than an increased 'prosperity' in Alaska as a result of the 'oil
dividend'. There, the standard of living of the vast majority of
its citizens is equal to anywhere else in the USA, though the 'cost' of living
is undoubtedly higher. Something that was the case even before 'dividend'
payments started, and is still the case today.
Alaskans, through their other various 'economic
activities' have long been able to reconcile the two. (Most
Alaskans don't live in 'log cabins in the wilderness', or igloos.
Nor have they since the goldrush ''Days of '98.")
-------------------------------------------------------- (Tim:-)
Even if it does seem to work in the short term one cannot base the economic
model on it having to work by relying on something as fickle as the human
psyche which may take 3 generations to work out its long term response. I
believe we already have the beginnings in our social services, but not viewed
as a form of economic stimulant. DFM used to fund this?
--------------------------------------------------------
Suppose the UK Government had asked all British citizens if they would
prefer to receive the income from the invested royalties from North Sea
oil, distributed to each individual Briton as a annual or other periodic
'dividend', paid to them directly. To do with as they so
chose 'individually'. Or whether they'd prefer the present method
of allowing the Government to do with these royalties as it so chooses.
In the hopes that whatever that was it would somehow benefit them
'collectively'. Which do you think most Britons, had they been given
the choice, would prefer? Alaskans were given that
choice. And seem to be quite happy with it.
--------------------------------------------------------
(Tim:-)
As to rights. Everyone has a right to MAKE a living, but not a right to GET a
living IMHO.
--------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever 'MADE' money, Tim? (I take it you're not an employee
of the Royal Mint, nor a Banker. If not, the only other way for YOU
to MAKE money may get you an extended residence in one of H.M.'s
Prisons!) We ALL, save for those three exceptions, GET the 'money' we
now need to secure a living from elsewhere. If you had a sizeable garden
and grew a ton of potatoes in it, have you 'made' any money? You may
have produced an 'asset' that can be 'priced' in money, but your horticultural
activities haven't added one single penny or pound to the UK's supply of
money. Should they have?
--------------------------------------------------------
(Tim:-) If they do have such a right, then I have an equal or even
GREATER right to abdicate from paying taxes of any kind. If one person can
unilaterally decide to contribute nothing then so can I, and I have a greater
right to do that as I am only not paying as opposed to both not paying AND
receiving.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'll
have to come back to this later, Tim. Out of time right
now.
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
