basic human rights banking

By zulzie on Thu, Feb 21, 2013 - 10:35am

chris's basic tenet is that the credit system, the monetary system, no longer is reflecting the reality of the economy "on the ground".......wealth can no longer be created in sufficient volumes (real wealth, not more printed money) to service they print, so that interest can be serviced....something gonna give!  inflation, or outright monetary failure.....what to do?  gradually eliminate  simple!

set up a parallel banking system.....this system will fund basic human rights banking......housing, transport, is the twist.....all interest paid on these loans goes to fund government!  this interest stream no longer will be directed to the private bankers.....if 100 million typical american families refinance with this bank, and 80% of that interest goes to fund government, that would be close to 2 trillion dollars PER would fund government, and eliminate would be the biggest tax cut in history, all out of the pockets of the private bankers!  where it should come from.....the goal is NOT to keep debt slaves in the economy....the goal is to wean this society OFF DEBT.....the carrot?  if you have no debt, you will be taxed at a flat rate of 15% over poverty...say, 30k....and that is ALL....NO other taxes.....flat 15% on anything over 30k....if you are a trillionaire, well, get ready to shell  out 150 billion....if you make 50k, pay 3k per is yours....

tell me why this won't work

1 Comment

Grover's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 913
Not a good recipe


I read this yesterday, but wanted to think about it before responding. I see a couple of problems - first is that bankers will not relinquish their role of being masters of fiat money. If they were to drop out, they would have to work for a living (as their debtors currently do.) The second problem is with government making loans. The government does not have the profit incentive that private businesses do. Government will make loans to gather votes for those in power and make those not-in-power pay the cost. I don't think any of us really want that.

I like the idea of a simplified tax. A flat tax may be a bit too simplified, but a few progressive steps would be a huge improvement. I like your idea that exemptions are not included. If I choose to buy a big house and finance it to the gills, why should my taxes be reduced? If I choose to have more children, why should my taxes be reduced? If I choose to donate to a charity, why should my taxes be reduced? If everyone is doing this with me, are my taxes really reduced? It just appears that way in reality.

As long as government can continue to levy increasing taxes (overtly via IRS and covertly via borrowing,) we will be perpetual serfs. The key is to limit government. The endless fiscal stimulus packages may have artificially raised the GDP bar, but at a greater future cost than justified by the meager benefits. Of course, the benefits are credited to those in power and the price will be paid by someone else.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments