***| I suppose it can be seen as a loan from a revolving fund, but should that make any difference? It is only people who fall into the tax-paying bracket who ´pay back´ the loan. To them it is a loan, to others it is debt-free. |***
I think you are merely playing with words and do not grasp the fundamental basis of social credit. Nothing has to be "grabbed back" from anybody. The social credit is cancelled when it clears back to the national credit account, which is limited only by realizable productive capacity. The way you phrase it, it is merely another taxation and redistribution scheme that "grabs back" from somebody to give "debt free" to somebody else. Social credit is not a "loan" that requires reflux.
***| Could do, but there is a drawback. The National Dividend could move some people into a higher tax- bracket |***
So?
***| do you think some of the ´higher-ups´ would make sure that their take from industry would increase to make up for the additional tax, so it would find its way into prices? |***
And here we are back to conspiracy theory. Presumably the "higher-ups" will have acquiesced to the concept of social credit in response to pressure placed upon them by the "lower downs" which presumably you will lead. At some point in time somebody will have to lead or we'll never get beyond talk. Because of increased business and trade more taxes will be collected to fund legitimate governmental services. That is to be expected and is welcomed. The problem addressed by social credit (beyond the first desideratum) is not absolute prices, but the divergence between the flow of prices and the flow of purchasing power consequent to the displacement of labor.
***| These are all problems which can be solved. The first part is to convince government that the money is available for the Dividend. |***
Not "money" but credit applied to the accounts of the consuming public. It is not "available" from any source but is in the nature of accounting adjustment. --
P. S. Did you have a chance to ring up those fellows regarding the availability of SA Reserve Bank Stock? Why was the stock delisted and now only traded "over the counter"? It seems to me that delisting removes the bank one step further from the public, which I think might be the intent.
In principle, the initial dividend could take the form of inalienable but non-tradable stock distribution in equal shares to citizens. It would thereby be differentiated from but eventually would supercede the existing "equity" stock. At birth or naturalization, every citizen would receive an equal share that would revert back to the bank upon death. Along with the shares would come checking accounts or debit cards that would integrate the population into the national economy.
The program would somewhat model the Alaska Permanent Fund except the funding would come from the national credit account that represents common property, rather than oil revenues or "investment."
The truly magnificent headquarters building would become the symbol of pride of ownership in the new South Africa.
----Original Message Follows---- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [snipped]
_________________________________________________________________
--^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
