Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income and abortion

[NorthernPesos]

This idea is not really my own...
I plagiarized this from Economist Milton Friedman....
Canadian Economist Harold Chorney....
Canadian Economist John Hotson and
Canadian Economist Mario Seccarrecia and student of Canadian economic history Ms. Betty Krawczyk but.......
it seems to me that the Neo-Malthusians have been using relative poverty to pressure women... especially Black Women toward choosing to abort their babies.

I believe that an Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income based on the 1938 to 1974 Bank of Canada policy would dramatically decrease the economic pressure on Canadian women to feel that they have no real choice except to abort their babies...... [and this will almost thwart what sure looks like a diabolical plot to set in motion Bear Market 2025 to 2035... [because this general idea can easily be adapted to the USA and essentially all other nations... because the evil Neo-Malthusians have pulled off a diabolical scheme to deceive essentially all of us].... unless of course we just happened to read stuff by those economists???

So... here in Canada I am advocating five hundred Canadian Dollars per month..... to all forty one million Canadians... for life to all citizens and legal residents...... but this is taxable so... this should result in PAYING down the Canadian federal deficit and soon the national debt of Canada by twenty BILLION dollars... [Northern Pesos] per month....... no kidding... this can actually be that simple but........ Neo-Malthusians control BigMedia.......

[Ms. Betty Krawczyk] ....

HOW PIERRE TRUDEAU TURNED US INTO DEBT SLAVES
Click on the link above to watch Part 3 of my video series on the Canadian Banking System. Please also read accompanying text below.
Trudeaumania was just gearing up when I immigrated to Canada in late 1966. I, too, was impressed with Trudeau. He was intelligent, articulate, with liberal ideas. And as Prime Minister, Trudeau repatriated the Canadian Constitution and told the morals’ police to stay out of people’s bedrooms. But then…but then. As Anthony’s famous speech in Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar reminds us… “the evil that men do live after them while the good is often interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar.”

But somehow this worked backward for Trudeau. Many Canadians still think highly of Pierre Trudeau, but in 1974 he did one terrible thing that changed the lives, for present and future, of all Canadians, for the worse. Trudeau gave the leading operations of the Bank of Canada over to the private banks operating in Canada.

The Bank of Canada was first established by Prime Minister Richard Bennet in 1935 as a private central bank, but was then nationalized by William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1938. By nationalizing the bank, Mackenzie King meant for it to belong to the people so the Canadian government could borrow funds with little or no interest for capital expenditures. The mandate of the newly nationalized Bank of Canada was to act as the banker to the government and to manage the public debt. As Mackenzie King famously said: “Once a nation parts with the control of their currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

So the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and the government could now borrow money with little or no interest. And it worked. The Canadian government built freeways, public transportation systems, subway line, airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway and funded a national health care system and the Canada Pension Plan. But then Trudeau, under the influence of the international financial group called Basel’s
Committee’s Recommendations (The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision) made the decision to halt the borrowing of money from the Bank of Canada, and instead, chose to borrow from the private banks who instead of lending to the government at no interest, or low interest, introduced higher interest rates along with compound interest.

All banks know very well the magic of compound interest. And Pierre Trudeau must have known that the mounting compounded national debt would lead to Canadians eventually owing a dollar fifty for every dollar of their disposable incomes. After all, he studied economics at the London School of Economics. Surely the professors there knew about compound interest.

So Pierre Trudeau, instead of feeling blessed that Canada, unlike the US, had a nationalized central bank, signed our bank away to the private banks. Couldn’t Trudeau, such an educated man, surmise that citizens in a few years would be struggling to make car payments and meet rent and mortgages and student loans and to buy healthy food while last year’s profits for the big five (that’s Royal Bank, TD Bank, Scotiabank, Bank of Montreal and CIBC amounted to $31.7 billion?) If he did, he didn’t care. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It really doesn’t. Our Bank of
Canada is still there. Next time." (Ms. Betty Krawczyk)

My impression is that Economist Milton Friedman felt that this was one of the only practical ways to break poor people out from under the Welfare.. Social Service BUREAUCRACY!!!! If that B. M. I. is Unconditional but still TAXABLE....... very little bureaucracy is needed!!!!

[Camtropia]

Erm... How would a taxable basic minimum income reduce government deficit? If I pay you $5 and then take $2 back as tax, I still have $3 less than when I started...

Not that I'm against UBI as a concept (I think Basic Minimum Income is the same thing as Universal Basic Income???), but it doesn't really make sense to pay it out then tax it - why not reduce the bureaucracy by just paying people a smaller amount and not taxing it?

[NorthernPesos]

Erm... How would a taxable basic minimum income reduce government deficit? If I pay you $5 and then take $2 back as tax, I still have $3 less than when I started...

Not that I'm against UBI as a concept (I think Basic Minimum Income is the same thing as Universal Basic Income???), but it doesn't really make sense to pay it out then tax it - why not reduce the bureaucracy by just paying people a smaller amount and not taxing it?

I have actually campaigned for public office up here in Canada four times and I am terrible at it... .I have merely forty one votes total in all of my campaigns put together but.....

I met some of the most amazing people by at least being willing to Teach English for Free... while addressing interesting questions in economics.

My understanding is that.. for example... a B. M. I. to a family of four would be two thousand dollar per month..... after about three to four months most of that would be spent on basic household expenses by most Canadians because we are mostly head over heels in debt......

After that money would turn over in the economy three to four times.... it is all taxed back into the treasury..... and it technically reduced the federal deficit of Canada......... by twenty billion dollars per month.

. Eventually twenty billion dollars per month would be paying down the national debt of Canada...... this is kind of like Compound Interest Over Time.... but in reverse... due to the fact that this twenty billion plus Canadian dollars monthly can be created in the same was as was done from 1938 to 1974 which.... created virtually net zero interest OWING by Canadian taxpayers...................

Forty one million Canadians receiving five hundred dollars Canadian monthly is a little over twenty billion dollars per month.

The people who tend to be Pro-Life tend to go against ideas like this but I have met a few who believes that this idea should be honestly and objectively discussed.

[Floofybit]

Erm... How would a taxable basic minimum income reduce government deficit? If I pay you $5 and then take $2 back as tax, I still have $3 less than when I started...

Not that I'm against UBI as a concept (I think Basic Minimum Income is the same thing as Universal Basic Income???), but it doesn't really make sense to pay it out then tax it - why not reduce the bureaucracy by just paying people a smaller amount and not taxing it?

I have actually campaigned for public office up here in Canada four times and I am terrible at it... .I have merely forty one votes total in all of my campaigns put together but.....

I met some of the most amazing people by at least being willing to Teach English for Free... while addressing interesting questions in economics.

My understanding is that.. for example... a B. M. I. to a family of four would be two thousand dollar per month..... after about three to four months most of that would be spent on basic household expenses by most Canadians because we are mostly head over heels in debt......

After that money would turn over in the economy three to four times.... it is all taxed back into the treasury..... and it technically reduced the federal deficit of Canada.......... Eventually twenty billion dollars per months would be paying down the national debt of Canada...... this is kind of like Compound Interest Over Time.... but in reverse... due to the fact that this twenty billion plus Canadian dollars monthly can be created in the same was as was done from 1938 to 1974 which.... created virtually net zero interest OWING by Canadian taxpayers...................

Put me in there and I could win for you. I have a way with words. *points finger* That way.

Wouldn't giving them the minimum income relieve debt four times as fast?

[NorthernPesos]

[.......
Put me in there and I could win for you. I have a way with words. *points finger* That way.

Wouldn't giving them the minimum income relieve debt four times as fast?

That is exactly what I am saying..... that the federal government of Canada should use The Bank of Canada that is technically owned by all forty one million Canadians to GIVE five hundred extra dollars to all citizens and legal residents of Canada....... five hundred dollars per month unconditionally but..... the taxable part is so that this concept can be sold to "Conservatives."

If an idea cannot be sold..... then it cannot be put into action.... and will not work!

I really don't know much about joining another nation just yet... I have only been here three days... but it seems to me that you could create a different nation..... join NorthernPesos... and then rival me for the office of Prime Minister.... and I would assist you to defeat me............ because I am more of a comedy writer than a politician anyway..... so you defeating me would be a win, win, win, win, win scenario for both you and I!

Obviously.... Canadians who already earn 150k Canadian Dollars per month would regard this extra five hundred per months as being less important than Canadians earning merely fifty k per months....... but..... if it was NOT taxable eighty percent of all forty one million Canadians would complain and complain and complain.... that the wealthiest Canadians were benefiting unfairly from my hairball stupid scheme!!!!

[Digital Planets]

Boy, these Canadians sure like to psychopost.

[NorthernPesos]

Boy, these Canadians sure like to psychopost.

On the other hand.....

we Canadians can tend to plead guilty to stealing good ideas from USA Presidents such as Lincoln.

Melvin Sickler, Lincoln, Kennedy : " Abraham Lincoln


Lincoln
During the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back.
Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote:

"... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had -- their own paper money to pay their own debts..."

Lincoln printed 400 million dollars worth of Greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created, a debt-free and interest-free money to finance the War. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for war.
...
....

.....In 1972, the United States Treasury Department was asked to compute the amount of interest that would have been paid if that 400 million dollars would have been borrowed at interest instead of being issued by Abraham Lincoln. They did some computations, and a few weeks later, the United States Treasury Department said the United States Government saved 4 billion dollars in interest because Lincoln had created his own money.

Since the President Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment took place basically in 1861 to 1865......

and since the British North America Act formed Canada in 1867..... it has been argued that the rather brilliant Bank of Canada Policy of 1938 to 1974 was given to the Father's of Canadian Confederation by President Lincoln?!

[Kreigsreich of Iron]

Objectively a terrible idea. No more hard workers.

[Untecna]

Objectively a terrible idea. No more hard workers.

Untrue.

[Kreigsreich of Iron]

Objectively a terrible idea. No more hard workers.

Untrue.

Why not?

[Bogmarsh in the mud]

No unconditional rights of any nature. Rights are contingent.

[Untecna]

Untrue.

Why not?

There isn't any evidence to suggest that something like a basic income policy, or any other worker-friendly policy, has or will reduce productivity. Productivity has always tended to go up, regardless of new policy.

[Kreigsreich of Iron]

Why not?

There isn't any evidence to suggest that something like a basic income policy, or any other worker-friendly policy, has or will reduce productivity. Productivity has always tended to go up, regardless of new policy.

But what will they work for if they what they need?

[Bogmarsh in the mud]

There isn't any evidence to suggest that something like a basic income policy, or any other worker-friendly policy, has or will reduce productivity. Productivity has always tended to go up, regardless of new policy.

But what will they work for if they what they need?

Have you ever heard about stone age industries? Genus Homo is a compulsive worker, who continue to make stone implements far far far beyond what is actually needed. The piles of useless implements we find in the archeological record are the industries.

The trouble, if trouble it is, is that our contemporary world extends the ''work'' bit beyond a more traditional 4 hours per day or so.

[Kernen]

There isn't any evidence to suggest that something like a basic income policy, or any other worker-friendly policy, has or will reduce productivity. Productivity has always tended to go up, regardless of new policy.

But what will they work for if they what they need?

Humans need labor to be satisfied. Whether that labor is paid or not makes little difference.

The labors that went into prehistorical megaliths were probably not compensated in a manner recognizable as wages, yet man did the labor. You are not compensated for your hobbies yet you pursue them.

Besides, having what you need isn't having what you want. I could take a govenrment agency attodnsg job at less than half my pay and meet my strict needs but none of my wants, which is why I'm in private practice.

[Untecna]

There isn't any evidence to suggest that something like a basic income policy, or any other worker-friendly policy, has or will reduce productivity. Productivity has always tended to go up, regardless of new policy.

But what will they work for if they what they need?

They will work for what they want. They will work because work fills a part of life and society. They will work to advance themselves and each other.

[Bogmarsh in the mud]

They will work for what they want. They will work because work fills a part of life and society. They will work to advance themselves and each other.

[proof required]

[Kreigsreich of Iron]

They will work for what they want. They will work because work fills a part of life and society. They will work to advance themselves and each other.

[proof required]

It’s actually [citation needed].
But, valid.

[Bogmarsh in the mud]

The best way to ensure truthfulness in the political process is to force participants to make all statements under oath, with the very clear understanding that failure to religiously stick to the factual truth, the whole factual truth and nothing but the factual truth will lead to a date with a rope.
A citation has no inherent truth function and it cannot suffice.

''“Because democracy is based on the idea that every citizen is rational and has the right to understand the basis of political decisions.”
“One of the great weaknesses of the system is that those who want to undermine these freedoms can abuse them, and the disputed question of political science is what can and should be done about it. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, allegedly said, ‘One of the best jokes of democracy is that it has given all the necessary tools to its mortal enemies for their destruction.’ However, in digital democracy, it is much more difficult to mitigate the damage that the enemies of democracy can cause by abusing civil liberties.”
“Those who are deceived are not free; those who deceive make them objects.”


Åsa Wikforss, Dobosi Beáta, Mårten Wikforss: That’s why it’s a democracy! ( The recent Hungarian edition. )

[Kostane]

Objectively a terrible idea. No more hard workers.

Arguably the people who were just doing it for money and whose ambitions stopped at achieving 500 Canadian dollars a month were not going to be the “hard workers” capitalism prioritizes. The the basic minimum income was higher you might have a fair point.

However, this would not reduce the deficit.
1. The point about quadruple spending is wrong. The money goes into the economy. Let’s say a piece of bacon is bought for $4 and a $1 tax. The government gets $1 and the store gets $4. Now, assuming the store spends every bit of their profit (an unlikely story) those $4 would be taxed away in later transactions, but still would max out at a total of $5. It is true that it would increase economic growth, as any economic stimulus does. But it would not lower the deficit.
2. It’s short-term spending while any gains from taxation would come in a longer-term. Basically, the government would go bankrupt before any of the taxes to pay it back would come in.
3. Even if it doesn’t cause a debt crisis, the perception of one alone is enough to ensure that banks won’t lend the government money. If they see the government recklessly spending, institutions aren’t going to trust that they’ll get their money back.
4. I’ll be clear here: the government cannot just print money. Borrowing from its own bank would be just printing money. What that does is cause high levels of inflation, collapsing the economy and make that basic income effectively negative money in terms of buying power.

[Untecna]

The best way to ensure truthfulness in the political process is to force participants to make all statements under oath, with the very clear understanding that failure to religiously stick to the factual truth, the whole factual truth and nothing but the factual truth will lead to a date with a rope.
A citation has no inherent truth function and it cannot suffice.

''“Because democracy is based on the idea that every citizen is rational and has the right to understand the basis of political decisions.”
“One of the great weaknesses of the system is that those who want to undermine these freedoms can abuse them, and the disputed question of political science is what can and should be done about it. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, allegedly said, ‘One of the best jokes of democracy is that it has given all the necessary tools to its mortal enemies for their destruction.’ However, in digital democracy, it is much more difficult to mitigate the damage that the enemies of democracy can cause by abusing civil liberties.”
“Those who are deceived are not free; those who deceive make them objects.”


Åsa Wikforss, Dobosi Beáta, Mårten Wikforss: That’s why it’s a democracy! ( The recent Hungarian edition. )

Not sure how a rant about how you need to police speech by talking about the Nazis relates to UBI.

[Kostane]

The best way to ensure truthfulness in the political process is to force participants to make all statements under oath, with the very clear understanding that failure to religiously stick to the factual truth, the whole factual truth and nothing but the factual truth will lead to a date with a rope.
A citation has no inherent truth function and it cannot suffice.

''“Because democracy is based on the idea that every citizen is rational and has the right to understand the basis of political decisions.”
“One of the great weaknesses of the system is that those who want to undermine these freedoms can abuse them, and the disputed question of political science is what can and should be done about it. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, allegedly said, ‘One of the best jokes of democracy is that it has given all the necessary tools to its mortal enemies for their destruction.’ However, in digital democracy, it is much more difficult to mitigate the damage that the enemies of democracy can cause by abusing civil liberties.”
“Those who are deceived are not free; those who deceive make them objects.”


Åsa Wikforss, Dobosi Beáta, Mårten Wikforss: That’s why it’s a democracy! ( The recent Hungarian edition. )

Not sure how a rant about how you need to police speech by talking about the Nazis relates to UBI.

Disputing the words of “citation required” vs “proof required.” I have no clue why one would do this.

[Bogmarsh in the mud]

The best way to ensure truthfulness in the political process is to force participants to make all statements under oath, with the very clear understanding that failure to religiously stick to the factual truth, the whole factual truth and nothing but the factual truth will lead to a date with a rope.
A citation has no inherent truth function and it cannot suffice.

''“Because democracy is based on the idea that every citizen is rational and has the right to understand the basis of political decisions.”
“One of the great weaknesses of the system is that those who want to undermine these freedoms can abuse them, and the disputed question of political science is what can and should be done about it. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, allegedly said, ‘One of the best jokes of democracy is that it has given all the necessary tools to its mortal enemies for their destruction.’ However, in digital democracy, it is much more difficult to mitigate the damage that the enemies of democracy can cause by abusing civil liberties.”
“Those who are deceived are not free; those who deceive make them objects.”


Åsa Wikforss, Dobosi Beáta, Mårten Wikforss: That’s why it’s a democracy! ( The recent Hungarian edition. )

Not sure how a rant about how you need to police speech by talking about the Nazis relates to UBI.

Were you speaking nothing but the truth, or were you being an Enemy of Democracy?

[Kostane]

Not sure how a rant about how you need to police speech by talking about the Nazis relates to UBI.

Were you speaking nothing but the truth, or were you being an Enemy of Democracy?

Yes. And was not the sun green and squarish?

What are you yapping about?

[Bogmarsh in the mud]

Were you speaking nothing but the truth, or were you being an Enemy of Democracy?

Yes. And was not the sun green and squarish?

What are you yapping about?

Thank you for embodying proof that legal minors must be excluded from public discourse. I think the same must go for social media in general - Straya is right. There is no need for minors to being anything other than perfectly obedient little ruletakers focused on doing their homework, eating their veggies, and keeping their rooms impeccably clean.

I believe these principles should be particularly apt in the case of the US. I have been given to understand that as many as 45% of american males reaching 23 already have a criminal record. It is the thing worth remember when interacting with a contemporary american male: there is a high chance that such a person is just another worthless rulebreaker.

Against my own argument: there is not a lot of evidence to suggest the older ones are much better.