Damien Broderick <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> At 05:23 PM 29/06/00 -0700, James wrote:
>
> >you need to start with an
> >enormous positive cash balance to make the system economically viable; a
> >Ponzi scheme would quickly collapse and the taxation required would
> >destroy the economy.
>
> I find this hard to belive. After all, you already pointed out that
> providing the net direct to the poor would halve the current costs.
But you're providing it to far more people.
US population= 2.5e8
Say minimum income = $6e3
Annual expenditure: $1.5e12
Capitalization needed (assuming 5% return) = $3e13 = $30 trillion
Current US Federal revenues ~= $1.72e12
Current US Federal expenditures ~= $1.65e12
Current US GDP ~= $8.5e12
I don't know what the capital held by the US or the world are.
> >very bad economically about "taxation-for-welfare" systems. The government
> >has not figured out a way to support the non-productive without causing
> >adverse economic impacts on the individuals they are taxing.
Is supporting the non-productive through welfare more or less adverse than
supporting them through the prison system?
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:50 MDT