Victor Bridger sees Social
Credit as a model
to enable buyers to buy what
sellers have for
sale and/or what producers
would like to sell
after they've made, grown
or mined it, etc.
This implies that if the top
20 % of earners
could receive a special
dividend to clear all
markets, and they bought
yachts and summer
mansions, and workers got a
dividend to clear
the shelves at the 99
Cent Store, SC would
have proved its point and value.
If he's right, it's a shame
the top 20% are so
stupid as to oppose
SC.
I am for voters to charge
government to spend
on national and private
individual priorities. When
government spends enough, so
that no voter is
left behind, my system will have
succeeded.
Where would government get the
money to
spend? It would spend it
as part of a plan that
subsidized production and
private savings so
that an ever-rising minimum
wage would mean
an ever-rising minimum standard of
living.
My system of DTIFM could
coexist with current
banknotes and taxes. But, over
time, the voters
might come to see that the
national debt and
most taxes were
unnecessary.
If ever a tax became necessary, it would be a
tax that the poorest (now comfortable) people
would not have to pay. More likely, it would not
be a tax at all -- but a change from voluntary
saving to compulsory saving.
Conceivably, saved money could
exceed a
ratio to current output that
suggested jaw-
boning by government for
people with super-
size savings to engage in
serious philanthropic
work -- not for the poor
(there would be none)
-- but for the arts -- which
can absorb an infinite
amount of money to be
spent.
