Just like the single payer insurance system, save money by allowing people to have a Federal Reserve Bank Account and receive loans, if qualified, from the Fed as a rate a rate equal to 2% above the 30 year treasury note on the day of the loan. That would make 2% of the monies otherwise loaned to banks at a lower rate. Make the loans for schooling and home purchase at the same rate as the 30 year note. Do away with the bank middle man and the excessive profits made by banks. In other words treat normal biological persons just like corporate bank persons are treated with nice low interest rate on Federal Reserve Money. This would be consistent with the equal treatment of persons under the constitution at least with respect to loan provisions.
Also make the natural resources of the country that are sold for development purposes, for example oil properties, the property of the people to be shared as it is in Alaska. Provide incentives for the use of the natural resources within the country and with a value added tax to supplement the basic income. Lastly negotiate the the absolutely unreasonable royalty rate of 12.5 % to a fare rate reflecting a 10% margin on costs to create a product that makes use of the particular natural resource. Return taxes to where they were in the 1950’s on corporate income from manufacturing outside the country. Tax the use of robots to add to the employment tax base—Medicare and SS funds. I can think of many other things to improve the income to support the BI government cost. One would be to provide a single national provider of electrical energy at a single national rate. This would put high cost energy sources out of business and encourage efficiency and environmental goodness in accordance with government policies. It would allow the negotiation power of the government on obtaining the best rates for the nation and cause the rapid phasing out of the expensive grid system. It would take the place of the various state-by-state commissions that negotiate rates and who know what else. Any given state system of providing electricity would be allowed, if it were cheaper than the Fed. Govt. rate. There’s some progressive if not socialist ideas for consideration. Bob Cook From: H LV Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 9:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:57 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: Many prominent European social scientists have now come out in favor of basic income - among them two Nobel laureates in economics. Alaska has a modest UBI instituted by a Republican governor, based on the profits from oil from Prudhoe Bay. This amounts to $300 - $2000 a year for every resident of more than six months. Switzerland will have a referendum on whether to have a $2,400/month UBI in 2015 that looks unlikely to pass. Perhaps a full UBI could be tried experimentally in a State or even a city, substituting for all welfare payments, to find out the problems. If you haven't heard already, the Netherlands and Finland are going to conduct basic income trials in the near future. The main objection to UBI is how to pay for it. Savings could come from replacing the present 80 government welfare departments, that has the advantage of requiring little administration. Legalizing drugs to drop the prison population. A one payer medical system and of course, getting out of the habit of wars. That alone will not provide enough money, so perhaps changing the sales tax to manufacturers, rather than sellers, would capture some of the profits from advanced technology instead of it being winner takes all. Covering the cost of a BI program will likely require a variety of methods, but they can be divided into two main approaches. The funding approach is usually considered first. This involves various cost saving measures and taxation schemes for the redistribution of wealth. However there is also a finance approach which would involve the reform of the central banks. See _Economic Sustainability of Basic Income Under a Citizen-centered Monetary Regime_ http://www.basicincome.org/bien/pdf/munich2012/Inoue.pdf Abstract: This paper outlines the historical transformation from “administration-centered monetary regimes” to “bank-centered monetary regimes.” It reveals three defects in the latter: (1) difficulty overcoming recessions, (2) a tendency to create bubbles, and (3) opaque distribution of seigniorage. This study proposes a “citizen-centered monetary regime” and confirms that providing citizens a basic income financed by seigniorage is sustainable under the citizen-centered regime. Harry
