|
Taxes to Fund Government Spending
|
John Gelles
|
Nov 01, 2009 02:36 PST
|
The following permalink is to this topic on the sister forum.
http://www.amazon.com/tag/politics/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdMsgNo=119&cdPage=5&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1JJ32IASEMR0H&displayType=tagsDetail&cdMsgID=Mx2AZNSOXP2RXMF#Mx2AZNSOXP2RXMF
At the post linked to above there is another link:
http://www.ustaxreform.us/ufm1.htm
The ufm1 link tells all about a friendly money to replace the kind we
use.
Page 2 of the site linked reads as follows (in case you cannot follow
links set out above):
$ USER FRIENDLY MONEY (UFM) $ Page 2
Now that you've read the goals of the UFM Network, and a rough idea of
its method of collaboration (by voluntary adoption of common words and
phrases aimed at change--from an unfriendly to a friendly monetary
system of production--) let us begin to write and remain as pointed and
brief as possible.
Our goals include full employment--so that no one looking for work is
very long without it. Government interest-free loans are used to get an
education and training, as well as, working capital enough to be
self-employed--if a suitable job is not available.
The funds for full employment are spent and lent into circulation by
congress under law.
The limit to such financial support will be found by its effect on
affordable prices.
There should be a favorable effect in the long run because free people
tend to outproduce their needs.
Monetary systems of production do not run out of money--they fail only
if they run out of stocks of saleable inventory for consumers or for
businesses (who themselves buy inventories.)
Monetary systems of production do not need debt to create money's
exchange value. They need only the prospect of affordable prices for
items produced for sale or use.
Monetary systems of production do need money enough for all who really
want to own it (because its purchasing power is as certain as all other
sound money.)
Such plentiful money can mainly be left on deposit in a licensed bank.
To be fair to depositors who have refrained from spending, such balances
on deposit must be protected from inflation.
Over time, all people will soon have no consumer debt and more money in
the bank than they owe (for any reason).
Negative net worth will be as uncommon as it ought to be where people
prefer work to poverty and work generally makes sense. Running a system
on cash instead of debt makes sense--when stability is our aim. The only
reason to prefer debt to cash is the hope of uncertain unearned reward.
It would be a goal of the reforms we propose to leave other desired
systems alone to use their own rules (perhaps opposite our own) to
illustrate, where possible, better reform than ours--or even no reform
at all.
|
|
 |
|
