On Wednesday 24 Sep 2003 8:02 pm, Bill wrote: > I object to the very term "means test" as being > exceptionally demeaning. ----------------
I regret I introduced the term inadvisedly, more in amazement at Douglas implying it, than in approval: I also hold no brief for such a thing as a Means Test, even for a Social Pension. However, we have to confront actual situations, as Keith has wisely said: >At some point, however, proponents for the mplementation of Social Credit via national policy changes will have to confront reality.> I caused some consternation by saying: > > PS. I like the idea of either not paying to those who have no need, or > > grabbing it back via the tax system. I am talking from a real situation. Here in South Africa there is strong advocacy for a Basic Income Grant payable to all citizens (from taxes, of course.) For a BIG of a mere R100 per month, projections say it will cost R44-billion per annum out of a total Fiscal Budget of just over R300-billion, which seems unaffordable. But R25-billion of the payments could be grabbed back from all tax payers by a simple addition to their assessment, which brings the BIG almost within reach without increasing taxes. R100 is only about 15% of a bread-line income, but many, many people in rural areas make do with less even than R100 per month. Now, I would be naive to believe that we are going to change South Africa over to a Social Credit system overnight: in the meantime families are at near-starvation levels. The one major thing coming out of Douglas´ proposals is that value (SC) is available to be moneterized and paid out as debt-free purchasing power to every citizen. That could fund the BIG without requiring any major changes to current ´wisdom´, and the advocates of the ´grab-back´ policy could also be happy. I have read enough about Social Credit to believe that it offers a solution to many problems arising from the money system and the selfish thinking of those who control it, but I will be long-gone from this earth before it comes into play. Why not take one step at a time and allow one victory to open the way for the next one? Even God has to handle things in that way, so why not we? Jessop. --------------------------- On Wednesday 24 Sep 2003 8:02 pm, you wrote: > Douglas never advocated a "means test." The draft > plan was an appendix to some editions of *Social > Credit* first published in 1924, and should be > interpreted in the context of the "first desideratum" > as social credit is being introduced. See: > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/money_and_the_price_system.txt > > "The distribution by way of dividends of a certain > amount of purchasing power, sufficient at any rate to > attain a certain standard of self-respect, of health > and of decency, is the first desideratum of the > situation." > > The first desideratum is already addressed in the > United States, if not in South Africa, which was most > definitely not the case in the 1920 and early 1930s. > > I object to the very term "means test" as being > exceptionally demeaning. It shouldn't be the > responsibility of the recipient to prove he is > qualified to receive it. His application should be > taken to be prima facie evidence that he is. The > burden should be on the bureaucrats to "prove" that > he isn't. The dividend from its most rudimentary > inception is a matter of right, not privilege. --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------
