Citizen’s Dividends To Capture Parliamentary Governments

Posted by Tanstaafl on July 30, 2009, 09:07 AM | #

They will become keenly interested in the real externalities of immigration

Before The Economy seized up I had regularly countered “these people help The Economy” arguments with a very simple retort: “where’s my check?” It was always highly effective. Most opponents immediately abandoned what they could then see was obviously a mendacious argument. For those who didn’t it was a pleasure to rub their nose in the externalities of immigration - the prison “industry” and other facets of the Broken Windows Fallacy (‘La Loi’ de Frédéric Bastiat).

Your proposal would effectively push this point front and center full time.

Nowadays of course with The Economy shedding jobs the genocidal immigrationists have simply shifted to other arguments, mainly “it would be all raysis n sheet” to stop/eject our immigrants. This has made it clearer than ever that the purpose of immigration has never been about benefiting the indigenous populace.

the populous would be very motivated

That should, by the way, be either “populace” or the latin equivalent “populus”.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 30, 2009, 09:10 AM | #

I referred to a recent entry by GW as “foundational.”  This one by Bowery joins it.

Posted by James Bowery on July 30, 2009, 12:37 PM | #

Tanstaafl, thanks for the spelling correction.

Fred, thanks for the vote of confidence.

Posted by L_Tirelli on July 30, 2009, 01:10 PM | #

I don’t buy the idea of a “citizen’s dividend”. However, I do think the idea of asset based taxation instead of taxation of economic activity has merit. The current system of taxing economic activity motivates rich people to invest in fixed, finite assets such as real estate. This, of course, makes it difficult for everyone else because it increases the cost of housing and what not for everyone else such that it is simply impossible to live in places like the Bay Area while working “normal” jobs.

I believe a tax system should motivate the wealthy (and everyone else) to invest their money into productive enterprise instead of finite assets. Productive enterprise, such as technology, biotech, and space, represents for all practical purposes an infinite resource and is therefor positive sum. We want the wealthy to invest in the “infinite resource” of productive enterprise because it creates opportunities for everyone else. The rich become richer, but the rest of us become richer as well. This is positive sum.

Finite assets, such as real estate, should be taxed such as to discourage the ownership of such beyond, say, 1 or 2 personal residences. This would reduce the mania for real estate ownership which hopefully would keep real estate prices at a reasonable level so that even the poorest of us could afford a comfortable place to live. This help reduce the trend of finite resource ownership becoming concentrated in the hands of a few, to the detriment of everyone else. Also, continual investment in finite assets does not result in continual wealth creation because they are, well, finite.

My 2 bits here.

Posted by James Bowery on July 30, 2009, 03:29 PM | #

J Tirelli writes: I don’t buy the idea of a “citizen’s dividend”.

Do you have a better way of reducing public sector rent seeking behavior?:

The expenditure of resources in order to bring about an uncompensated transfer of goods or services from another person or persons to one’s self as the result of a “favorable” decision on some public policy. The term seems to have been coined (or at least popularized in contemporary political economy) by the economist Gordon Tullock. Examples of rent-seeking behavior would include all of the various ways by which individuals or groups lobby government for taxing, spending and regulatory policies that confer financial benefits or other special advantages upon them at the expense of the taxpayers or of consumers or of other groups or individuals with which the beneficiaries may be in economic competition.

Posted by Thunder on July 30, 2009, 08:16 PM | #

L_Tirelli said:

This, of course, makes it difficult for everyone else because it increases the cost of housing and what not for everyone else such that it is simply impossible to live in places like the Bay Area while working “normal” jobs.

We have a serious problem with this in Australian capital cities.  It is very difficult for emergency personnel like nurses, paramedics, police, firemen to find affordable accommodation within a reasonable commute of work.  Buying a home is a pipe dream for many of these people.  Brisbane and environs, Sunshine and Gold Coast have the world’s least affordable housing.  See www.demographia.com

Posted by Thunder on July 30, 2009, 08:29 PM | #

James:

Thanks for explaining this.  Do you mind if I paste the following in a query to the www.financialsense.com Q lines?  I would be interested in their discussion of it.

The current economic crisis is caused by centralization of wealth to the point that the populace isn’t simply impoverished, but is so deep in debt that the consumer base has collapsed.  This was caused not by “easy money policies of the central banks” but by the subsidy of wealth built into any society that protects property rights by taxing economic activity.  The would-be upwardly mobile pay the bills—not the recipients of the primary government service:  protection of unnatural concentrations of wealth.  Although it is true that this means the proper source of revenue for the citizen’s dividend would be a net asset tax on in place liquidation value—a tax that eliminates taxes on economic activity—it is not essential to political success that such a tax reform be another plank in the platform of the citizen’s dividend party.

and:

Citizen’s dividends—the replacement of all government transfer programs with a simple cash dividend paid equally to all citizens—is the single-plank political platform that can, in the present climate, be used by a minor party to capture control of virtually any parliamentary government in the West.

Posted by James Bowery on July 30, 2009, 09:28 PM | #

Any discussion of the idea is welcome in this environment.

Posted by Dan Dare on July 30, 2009, 09:57 PM | #

James, could you please expand on the concept of ‘public benefits’, what public expenditures would this include? Some would be obvious, direct transfer payments such as welfare, AFDC, controlled access services such as publicly-financed healthcare, libraries etc. But what about other public services such as law enforcement, whose aggregate cost is obviously higher because of the presence of immigrants. How would they be accounted for?

There are also the charges to the capital account required to provide additional infrastructure (eg schools, hospitals, jails) that would be unnecessary but for the presence of immigrants.

Posted by James Bowery on July 30, 2009, 10:48 PM | #

Dan Dare:  It would include any tax credits or “corporate welfare” programs and subsidies as well as “entitlement programs”.  You basically have to get the government out of the business of doling out money more to some than other citizens.  Of course, it will continue to take more from some than other citizens, which is why the tax base needs to shift to a use-fee paradigm as it does with a net asset tax on in place liquidation value of property rights it upholds.

Law enforcement gets into the monopoly on force enjoyed by government.  While I think one can define a system, such as the Actuarial Militia in which a self-armed citizenry, being paid a citizen’s dividend, is primarily responsible for law enforcement—including border enforcement—there will be a long transition time for that in most* societies. 

*The Swiss could do it virtually overnight.

Posted by Frank on July 31, 2009, 02:10 PM | #

The FairTax that’s so popular among conservatives in the US includes a prebate sent out to American citizens.

Posted by James Bowery on July 31, 2009, 06:15 PM | #

We can ignore, for the moment, that FairTax places an adult’s “necessities” at $208/month and go right for the jugular:

There are so many bad things about the current tax system that it is fairly trivial to come up with a “reform” that gets rid of a lot of those bad things while leaving the 800lb gorilla.  This gorilla eats the bananas that others produce and keeps slapping on weight, crowding out everyone else in the room and his name is “subsidized unnatural property rights”.

Posted by Frank on August 01, 2009, 12:44 AM | #

I’m not a proponent of the FairTax - I was just reminded it gives out prebates to citizens.

Posted by GenoType on August 11, 2009, 12:00 AM | #

Money for nothing and a Citizenist “nation” for (almost) free…

Easy, Easy money - Dire Straits

From the perspective of the esoterically-inclined, bribing “citizens” is better simply because physicality goes against the grain.

Do you have a better way of reducing public sector rent seeking behavior?:

Yes, but it eliminates remote investment and requires physical work.

Physical work - a “non-starter” in any conservative venue.

Posted by James Bowery on August 11, 2009, 12:36 AM | #

Very strange that you would read what I said as being “better than” anything other than the other options available at the level of national and, in the case of the EU, international politics.  Your hostility really is enigmatic, GT.

PS: I don’t think Sailer would support a citizen’s dividend because it would tend to drive a wedge between he and the “cognitive elite” whose status would be brought into question by a populace that didn’t quite agree that the contributions of subcons to their dividends was worth the risks of turning over critical parts of society to ethnic networks of questionable compatibility with “the posterity of the founders”.

Posted by BGD on August 28, 2009, 01:39 PM | #

Sounds a bit like Social Credit, ALOR, The Money Bomb, Comer and all. If so I assumed all this would die with the ‘Douglas generation’, if that’s not so great, though maybe with the discussion of funding through asset taxes that’s not the aim..