The people like Murray who want the UBI to come with abolish other sfatey nets are predicating that on promising it won’t raise Taxes. My proposal is we pay for it with a Wallstreet Sales Tax.

Wow. Turns out you don’t have to be smart to create a weblog. Who knew?

Removing barriers that inhibit or prevent ordinary people from purchasing capital that pays for itself out of its own future earnings is paramount as an actionable policy. This can be done under the existing legal powers of each of the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, and will not add to the already unsustainable debt of the federal government or raise taxes on ordinary taxpayers. We need to free the system of dependency on Wall Street and the accumulated savings and money power of the rich and super-rich who control Wall Street. The Federal Reserve System has stifled the growth of America’s productive capacity through its monetary policy by monetizing public-sector growth and mounting federal deficits and “Wall Street” bailouts; by favoring speculation over investment; by shortchanging the capital credit needs of entrepreneurs, inventors, farmers, and workers; by increasing the dependency with usurious consumer credit; and by perpetuating unjust capital credit and ownership barriers between rich Americans and those without savings. The Federal Reserve Bank should be used to provide interest-free capital credit (including only transaction and risk premiums) and monetize each capital formation transaction, determined by the same expertise that determines it today — management and banks — that each transaction is viably feasible so that there is virtually no risk in the Federal Reserve. The first layer of risk would be taken by the commercial credit insurers, backed by a new government corporation –– the Capital Diffusion Reinsurance Corporation (CDRC) –– through which the loans could be guaranteed. The CDRC would reinsure any portion of any financing risk assessed as reasonable and insurable but not already insured by the commercial capital credit insurance underwriters. In establishing the CDRC, the federal government would not be undertaking a new responsibility but merely simplifying and rationalizing an existing one. This entity would fulfill the government’s responsibility for the health and prosperity of the American economy.

The Capital Diffusion Reinsurance Corporation would function similar to the Federal Housing Administration, generally known as “FHA”, which provides mortgage insurance on loans made by FHA-approved lenders throughout the United States and its territories. The FHA insures mortgages on single family and multifamily homes including manufactured homes. While pay-downs on home mortgages require a separate source of income, capital credit for productive capital formation is self-liquidating, with the earnings from the investment the source of the pay-down.

In fact it’s not even called a Nobel Prize. It’s the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. People really need to stop calling it a Nobel Prize, giving it a measure of respectability it doesn’t actually deserve.

See more: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-economics-nobel-isnt-really-a-nobel/

Lots of people “support” basic income. Much fewer have actually modelled it in detail.

I have been to several meetings of the Basic Income Earth Network and its national affiliates. I follow the Citizen’s Income Trust. I have seen no “magic monetary theory”.

Several Nobel Prize winning economists have supported basic income. Of course, several have not. But I really don’t think these supporters are failing to do the math or are guilty of magical reasoning. Nor do I think they are plotting against the poor.

This is really beneath us.

The recent report from UCL on Universal Basic Services (igpspn.org) also looks into this. For the same cost as a £20/week UBI many public services could be expanded with a transformational effect on society.

UBI proponents that have done the arithmetic come to the point where they start advocating magic monetary theory because they understand that no society can withstand the tax burden of decent public services + UBI, so they are left to conjure up extra funding from previously unknown sources to pay for their UBI. And that’s without considering the inflationary impact on basic resources as highlighted in this article.

The idea that you could, today, introduce a UBI so large to replace all disability benefits is a strawman. In actual fact you’d introduce a lower rate which could be either topped up with conditional extra allowances (e.g. for disability or for job seeking), or the person could supplement their income with work.

F. Must try harder.

There is no reason whatsoever to say that you must cut anything to fund a BI.

Left thinkers should include a basic income with their proposals. They can just say “Tax wealth and pollution and fund a BI. No cuts.”

Or don’t and expect the precariat to believe that all of your other provisions will include them. This time. as opposed to the past.

“Savings in health, justice, education and social welfare as well as the building of self-reliant, taxpaying citizen,” clearly means social cuts and privatization.

No it does not mean cuts. IT MEANS there will be savings that happen as a consequence of UBI, not that they are required in order to achieve UBI. In other words, there will be less need for health care, justice and social welfare. It is not quite clear to me where the savings in education would be however but none the less, your analysis of it is complete tripe.

Now grab your dunces cap and go and sit in the corner!

Could not be arsed to read any further as I lost interest in this tripe from that point on.

Now the more such resource access rights can be re-traded, the less the process is democratic. Yet the less re-tradeable they become, the more complex (and seemingly exponentially so) becomes the delegative democratic burden on the individuals.

Envisioning currency as a compromise of delegative democracy, and respectful granting of blanket access to additional resources (in some way temporary, depending on how we arrange the taxes surrounding money and property), seems most sensible. Market income not as a work income, but as a respectfully granted extra opportunity to command resources, to enjoy or to improve on one’s undertakings. A greater unconditional income could blanket compensate for any notion of labor value, so that’s not a point of concern anymore when it comes to taxes. Taxes (on one hand, and Unconditional Income height on the other) become purely a matter of how much or how little we want to compromise on economic democracy, delegative democracy applied to resource affairs, for efficiency reasons.

It is our money to give purpose to. No need to fall short of the goal of democratically taking control where it is owed to the people. We deserve a money that works for all, as long as we don’t have artifical super intelligence to manage the near infinitely complex questions of ideal resource allocation for the purpose of all of today’s and tomorrow’s people.

A democratically enabled customer is one, who commands access rights to resources with his spending, who regularly obtains such access rights to command, at a stable expression towards the aggregate of all resources, infrastructure, ideas and money (where it’s a resource as well), and temporarily parts with em, to obtain from fellow people what is desired. Sometimes tolling some respect, in the form of a temporary profit, temporary additional resource usage rights; Maybe that’s human nature, even.

Now the more such resource access rights can be re-traded, the less the process is democratic. Yet the less re-tradeable they become, the more complex (and seemingly exponentially so) becomes the delegative democratic burden on the individuals.

Envisioning currency as a compromise of delegative democracy, and respectful granting of blanket access to additional resources (in some way temporary, depending on how we arrange the taxes surrounding money and propert), seems most sensible. Market income not as a work income, but as a respectfully granted extra opportunity to command resources, to enjoy or to improve on one’s undertakings. A greater unconditional income could blanket compensate for any notion of labor value, so that’s not a point of concern anymore when it comes to taxes. Taxes (on one hand, and Unconditional Income height on the other) become purely a matter of how much or how little we want to compromise on economic democracy, delegative democracy applied to resource affairs, for efficiency reasons.

It is our money to give purpose to. No need to fall short of the goal of democratically taking control where it is owed to the people. We deserve a money that works for all, as long as we don’t have artifical super intelligence to manage the near infinitely complex questions of ideal resource allocation for the purpose of all of today’s and tomorrow’s people.