Tag: monetary non-sovereignty

How to destroy your excess dollars

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

If you wish to rid yourself of those pesky excess dollars filling your bank accounts, but you can’t find a Nigerian Internet scam to meet your needs, you might wish to go to PayGov.

There, you will find an official U.S. government form that looks like this:

Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt

Use this form for contributions to reduce the public debt.

Paying online with Pay.gov is safe, secure, and the preferred method to make a payment.
To make a payment using one of the below accepted payment methods, please click the Continue to the Form button.

Accepted Payment Methods:

  • Bank account (ACH)
  • PayPal account
  • Debit or credit card
This is a secure service provided by United States Department of the Treasury. The information you will enter will remain private.

Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt

Contact:
Customer Service Phone: 844-284-2676

This form requires you to have a Pay.gov account.

Rather than going through the bother of setting your dollar bills on fire, or shredding them beyond redemption, you are given a handy way to destroy your dollars uselessly, courtesy of the United States government.

When you send money to the federal government, here is what will happen: They will cease to be part of the money supply.  They no longer will be part of “M1,” “M2,” “M3,” or even of “L.”

They will cease to exist. Your dollars will be destroyed.

To “lend” to the federal government, you buy a T-security.  You instruct your bank to move dollars from your checking account to your T-security account at the Federal Reserve Bank.

(When you buy a T-security, you automatically open a T-security account.)

So, the so-called “federal debt” is nothing more than the total of those deposits in T-security accounts. The worrisome “federal debt” is simply interest-paying bank accounts, similar to ordinary savings accounts.

Every day, the federal government pays off some of its so-called “debt” by sending the existing dollars in those T-security accounts back to the checking accounts of the T-security holders.

It’s a simple money transfer, similar to moving dollars from your savings account to your checking account. This does not burden the federal government, which easily could pay off the entire debt tomorrow, simply by transferring all those balances back to the holders’ checking accounts.

So, you might ask, if the federal “debt” is not a burden, what is the purpose of this government website?

Answer: To help make you believe that federal financing is like personal financing.

Our honest federal government wants you to believe that, like you, it can run short of dollars. It wants you to believe that, like you, it needs some form of income, in order to pay its bills.

But the federal government is what is known as “Monetarily Sovereign,” while you are monetarily non-sovereign. It creates its sovereign currency at will and so doesn’t need income.  The U.S. federal government needs neither to borrow nor to tax, in order to spend.

Many dishonest writers talk about “spending taxpayer dollars.” But it is impossible to spend taxpayer dollars; these dollars are destroyed upon receipt.  The federal government spends new dollars, created ad hoc, each time a federal agency pays a bill.

For instance, Social Security benefits are not paid with FICA taxes. When the government sends you your Social Security payment, it actually sends instructions (not dollars) to your bank, instructing your bank to increase the numbers in your checking account.

When your bank obeys these instructions (by pushing a few computer keys) new dollars are created and added to the M1 money supply.
Even if FICA collections were zero, the government could continue sending instructions, i.e. paying benefits, forever.

Similarly, even if the so-called debt (i.e. T-security deposits) rose to a trillion, trillion dollars, it still would not be a burden on the federal government. There is absolutely no need to pay down the (misnamed) “debt.”

Why does the government want you to believe federal finances are like personal finances?

Answer: The government is bribed by the rich to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

The Gap makes them rich. Without the Gap we all would be the same, and the bigger the Gap, the richer they are.

The rich want you to believe Social Security and Medicare are running short of dollars. They want you to believe the FICA tax must be increased. They want you to believe the government can’t afford to pay for housing, food and educational benefits for the poor and middle-income people.

(You will hear that because the Social Security “trust fund” — which does not exist – is running out of money, benefits must be cut.  And because Medicare supposedly is running short of dollars, we must go to some sort of privatized system, to save the government money. And schools must go on a voucher system, also to save money for a government that has no need to save money.)

And the rich want you to believe that even if the government could afford these things, paying for them would cause hyper-inflation (Zimbabwe, Argentina, or the Weimar Republic are favorite — but false — examples).

In short, the rich want you to believe the Big Lie that austerity benefits the economy and that federal taxes pay for federal spending.

That lie is how they justify widening the Gap between the rich and you.

If you feel you have too much money, and your bank account is overburdened with dollars, you would be wiser to send some to that Nigerian prince who is about to inherit a billion or so.

At least the dollars would continue to exist somewhere, rather than being destroyed by the U.S. government.

Or better yet, send your money to me.  I promise to do more good with it than the federal government would.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

……………………………………………………………………………….
The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: Part II, Medicare

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

In the previous post, we disclosed how the rich tell the Big Lie, in their efforts to ruin Social Security and thus to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest. (Widening the Gap is the #1 priority of the rich.)

Now, see how the rich use the Big Lie in their efforts to ruin Medicare.

Just to review: The Big Lie briefly is this: Federal taxes fund federal spending. You can read a more complete analysis, here.

The Big Lie is composed of several “sub-Lies”:

  1. Federal finances are like private finances
  2. The federal government can run short of its own sovereign currency
  3. FICA pays for Social Security and Medicare benefits
  4. Social Security and Medicare are “broke,” “going broke,” or will be “broke” at some future time.
  5. The Social Security and Medicare trust funds are insolvent or will be insolvent.
  6. Federal debt and deficts are “unsustainable.”
  7. Federal deficits cause hyper-inflation, like Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic.
  8. Your children owe the federal debt.
  9. The government should run a balanced budget.
  10. The federal tax code should be “reformed” to “broaden the base.”

All ten of the above are absolutely false, their only purpose being to fool you, the public, into believing the federal government cannot afford [insert benefit here] without tax increases.

HEALTH NEWS FROM NPR

Paul Ryan’s Plan to Change Medicare Looks A Lot Like Obamacare November 26, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan agree that repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with some other health insurance system is a top priority.

The ACA (“Obamacare”) should be replaced, not because it is President Obama’s signature achievement, and not because it first was implemented by Mitt Romney, but because it is based on the Big Lie.

It requires the young people of the middle- and lower-income groups (the “99%”) to do what the federal government easily could, and absolutely should do: Fund healthcare coverage for all people.

But they disagree on whether overhauling Medicare should be part of that plan. Trump said little about Medicare during his campaign, other than to promise that he wouldn’t cut it.

Ryan, on the other hand, has Medicare in his sights.

“Because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke,” Ryan said.

Ryan told the Big Lie.  Obamacare cannot cause Medicare to “go broke.” The federal government cannot “go broke,” nor can any federal agency  “go broke.”

Our Monetarily Sovereign federal government, unlike state and local governments, never will run short of dollars.

Even during wars, recessions, and depressions, and natural disasters, the United States government never has run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar. And it never will.

In fact, the opposite appears to be true — Obamacare may actually have extended the life of Medicare.

This year’s Medicare trustees report says the program would now be able to pay all its bills through 2028, an improvement Medicare’s trustees attribute, in part, to changes in Medicare called for in the Affordable Care Act and other economic factors.

” . . . trustees report says the program would now be able to pay all its bills through 2028 . . . “

The trustees told the Big Lie. Medicare can pay all its bills forever, and this has nothing to do with Obamacare.  It has to do with the fact that the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, and therefore creates dollars by paying its bills.

So rest easy, President Obama, Rep. Ryan and you Medicare trustees.  The federal government will not and cannot run short of dollars to pay your salaries, pay your expenses, pay your retirement benefits — and of course, pay Medicare benefits.

And the irony of the Ryan Medicare plan, say some health policy analysts, is that it would turn the government program into something that looks very much like the structure created for insurance plans sold under the ACA.

Ryan’s plan would set up “Medicare exchanges” where private insurance companies would compete with traditional government-run Medicare for customers.

People would get “premium support” from the government to pay for their insurance under the Ryan Medicare plan.

The subsidy would be tied to the price of a specific plan offered by an insurer on the exchange, much like the Affordable Care Act subsidy is tied to the second-cheapest “silver” plans.

The above demonstrates the rich running like hungry swine to slurp from the money-trough, with Ryan leading the herd.

Medicare benefits currently are paid directly to hospitals and doctors, by our not-for-profit, federal government. The Ryan plan would insert private insurance companies as middlemen, to pay health care providers.

Billions of dollars, rather than going directly to health care providers, would flow through the for-profit insurance companies, who would siphon off some for themselves.

So, if insurance companies act as middlemen, taking some of the government’s money for themselves, rather than all of the money going to healthcare providers, how does that save the government money?

Answer: You, the public will have to pay the difference.

It would be a bonanza for the rich insurance companies, their highly-paid officers, and their wealthy shareholders. And importantly, it would be an additional tax on you –exactly the Gap-widening effects the rich want.

(The rich are made richer if they receive more and/or if the not-rich receive less.  Ryan’s plan accomplishes both.)

The federal government doesn’t need to save money; it has infinite money. Nevertheless, Ryan has invented a convenient excuse to funnel billions of dollars into insurance companies coffers. His excuse is the Big Lie.

One can be sure he will be well-rewarded by the insurance companies for his efforts on their behalf.

As for the public: You, the public, be damned.

 Like in Obamacare, people who choose plans that cost more than the government subsidy would have to pay the balance.

The changes would start in 2024, when people who are now about 57 become Medicare eligible.

Avik Roy, founder of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, agrees with Ryan that Medicare is going broke and that a program structured in this way would save money through “the magic of competition.”

“If you have 10 insurers competing for that business, you’re going to negotiate a better deal,” he said.

Ah, yes, that old black “magic of competition” will get you a “better deal.”

How about the “greater magic” of having no middlemen to suck dollars from consumers, while they contribute nothing to the process?

How about the even greater magic of having our Monetarily Sovereign government pay for the whole thing, saving you tons of money?

Most seniors today are enrolled in what’s known as traditional Medicare, where the government pays for medical appointments, tests and hospital stays on a fee-for-service basis.

Alongside that program is Medicare Advantage, an insurance plan provided by a private insurer which may offer seniors additional services like dental care at the same price.

The government pays a fixed monthly fee to the insurer for each Medicare Advantage patient, rather than paying for every service separately, as it does in traditional Medicare.

Henry Aaron, a health care economist at the Brookings Institution, says Ryan’s proposal aims to move almost all seniors into Medicare Advantage-style insurance by making traditional Medicare too expensive for the consumer.

There it is — “making traditional Medicare too expensive for the consumer.” That is the way Ryan plans to protect you from Medicare.

Feel better, now?

The health care and health insurance systems are very complex. Doctors move in and out of networks, copayments can vary and plans can change.

Millions of people on Medicare are also eligible for Medicaid, meaning they are poor and vulnerable, Aaron says. And at least 8 million Social Security beneficiaries have been declared financially incompetent and are assigned a representative to manage their money.

“What you’ve got here is a group of people who are very sick, poor, and often cognitively impaired one way or the other,” Aaron says. “Tossing people like that into a health care marketplace and saying, ‘Here, go buy some insurance,’ is a recipe for problems.”

Not only is it a recipe for problems; it’s completely unnecessary. The federal government simply should fund comprehensive Medicare for every man, woman and child in America.

Why insert middlemen insurance companies between the government and the doctors?

Seniors may feel the same way. Researchers at Brown University last year found that as people get older and sicker, they tend to drop Medicare Advantage and opt for traditional Medicare.

Ryan has been working on his plan to change Medicare for many years. A version of his “premium support” plan was included in several budget proposals he put forth when he was chairman of the House Budget Committee.

The Congressional Budget Office says the proposals would reduce federal spending on Medicare.

Yes, it’s a plan to reduce federal spending and increase consumer spending. Is that what we want?

And, why stop at a convoluted “Ryancare” plan to (unnecessarily) reduce federal spending. How about eliminating all federal support, and making the people pay for everything? Isn’t that the next, logical step?

At this point it’s unclear whether Trump shares Ryan’s ambitions to upend the current Medicare system.

Trump didn’t include Medicare reform on his campaign web site. But since his election, “modernize Medicare” has been included on the list of health care priorities on his transition web site.

We have moved to a new euphemism. The politicians usually have talked about “reforming” Medicare and Social Security. The word “reforming” always has meant, “Take from the poor and give to the rich.”

Now they use an even more mealy-mouthed term: “Modernizing.”

Whatever term is used, the method and the result always seem to be the same: First, tell the Big Lie. Then use the Big Lie to steal benefits from the 99% and give benefits to the 1%.

So long as the 99% fall for the Big Lie, the process will continue. It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

THE TRUTH:

HUNGER IN AMERICA: 2016 UNITED STATES HUNGER AND POVERTY FACTS

People 65 and older had a supplemental poverty rate of 13.7 percent, equating to 6.5 million people in poverty. Excluding Social Security from income would more than triple the poverty rate for this group, resulting in a poverty rate of 49.7 percent.

THE BIG LIE:

U.S. News & World Report, Nov 18, 2015: “Our system of taxing the young to pay for the old needs reform to reflect 21st century realities.

“America’s principal health and retirement programs for the elderly, Social Security and Medicare, are placing a massive fiscal burden on its youngest generations and crippling the country with debts that cannot be paid.”

THE TRUTH:

First, Social Security places no fiscal burden on anyone. Contrary to popular myth, FICA does not pay for Social Security benefits.  Even if FICA collections were zero, the federal government could continue paying SS benefits, forever.

Second, the country cannot be “crippled by debts that cannot be paid.” Federal financing is not like personal financing.  The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, cannot ever run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar.  It can pay any size debt instantly.

THE BIG LIE:

While the official national debt sits at a staggering $18 trillion, taking future entitlement spending obligations into account pushes the number beyond the conceivable: $200 trillion.

THE TRUTH:

That $18 trillion is a phony number, designed to impress you. It includes internal debt; the left pocket owes the right pocket.

But more importantly, the so-called “federal debt” actually is nothing more than the total of deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank.

When you “lend” to the government — i.e. purchase a T-security — you actually open a T-security account at the FRB.  You then transfer dollars from your checking account to that  T-security account.

To pay off its “debt” to you, the government simply transfers your dollars from your T-security account back to your checking account, similar to transferring dollars from your savings account to your checking account. No new dollars needed.

The “debt,” no matter how large, never is a burden on the federal government, and it’s a safe investment for you.

THE BIG LIE:

The Social Security trust fund is projected to reach insolvency in 19 years, and Medicare will be unable to meet its projected obligations in 15 years.

THE TRUTH:

The federal government, being Monetarily sovereign, and therefore unlike state and local governments, cannot be insolvent, nor can any agency of the federal government.

Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Army, Social Security,  Medicare and all other thousand agencies of the federal government cannot become insolvent unless Congress and the President wish it.

For that reason, there is no Social Security “trust fund.” It is a bookkeeping fiction. The federal government does not keep funds in trust;  it pays its bills by creating brand new dollars, ad hoc, which it can do endlessly by clicking computer keys.

The purpose of the fictional trust fund is not to save for Social Security benefits. The sole purpose of the fictional trust fund is to make the populace believe (falsely) that benefits must be limited.

Notice there is no trust fund for Congress or the White House.  The politicians don’t want limits on themselves. 

THE BIG LIE:

Young Americans are stuck paying into programs that, absent reform, will only partially be there for their retirements – if they’re around at all.

THE TRUTH:

This is a scare tactic by the politicians and the media who are bribed by the rich. The purpose is to frighten you into unnecessarily accepting lower benefits and higher taxes.

THE BIG LIE:

To cover the ballooning costs of these programs, workers in 2050 would have to pay nearly a third of their hard-earned income just to cover payroll tax obligations – over twice the rate paid today.

This and other taxes would make it impossible for many workers to save for their own retirements.

THE TRUTH:

Contrary to popular belief, FICA actually pays for nothing. Your tax payments to the federal government are destroyed upon receipt. They instantly cease to be part of the money supply.

The article is correct, however, when it says, “This and other taxes would make it impossible for many workers to save for their own retirements.” That is happening now.

THE BIG LIE:

Some seniors believe that they are entitled to their Social Security and Medicare benefits since they paid into these programs throughout their working careers.

THE TRUTH:

FICA does not fund Social Security. All it does is take dollars from your salary.

The federal government pays for Social Security benefits the same way it pays for the President’s salary, an Army tank, or a Supreme Court justice’s robe: The government creates brand new dollars, ad hoc. Tax collections have nothing to do with the bill-paying process.

Seniors, indeed all Americans, have been lied to for 80 years.

THE BIG LIE:

Due to a series of unfunded promises, current Social Security payments do not have the chance to accrue interest, as they are immediately paid out to retirees – our payments are simply too generous.

THE TRUTH:

This is one of the most nonsensical statements among a litany of nonsensical statements.

Social Security payments (FICA) cannot accrue interest  Not only are they destroyed upon receipt, but even it they weren’t, who would pay the government interest on its receipts?

And, only the rich think Social Security payments are “too generous.” The elderly, who have no other source of income, and are forced to live on Social Security, will tell you otherwise.

The statement reveals the true goal of the Big Lie: To widen the Gap by starving the “99%.”

THE BIG LIE:

These entitlement programs function not only as wealth transfers from the young to the old, but from the poor to the wealthy.

It is true that Social Security accounts for the majority of cash income for 65 percent of seniors, but this claim ignores the reality that today’s seniors have an average of 47 times the wealth of households headed by adults under the age of 35.

THE TRUTH:

This was a tacit admission that FICA should be eliminated. It serves no purpose. One might as well tell workers to set 6.2% of their wages on fire.

Wealth is not being transferred. It is being destroyed by FICA.

Your leaders want you to believe that the elderly are rich, are taking money from the young, and don’t really need Social Security. In this way, they hope to trick the young into voting for reduced benefits — sort of a “divide and conquer” scheme.

THE BIG LIE:

It should be celebrated that seniors are living longer and accruing more wealth, but a country cannot sustain such a system when only three workers support each retiree, a support that will fail if nothing is done.

THE TRUTH:

The federal government can “sustain” any amount of spending. Workers do not support retirees; the government does.

And this support cannot “fail” unless Congress and the President make it fail (which they might do, if the rich bribe them enough).

THE BIG LIE:

Our entitlement programs, due to demographic changes, have morphed into massive, unfunded promises. It is time for politicians and retirees to stop placing massive fiscal obligations on young Americans.

Old-age health and retirement benefit reform is no longer an option – it is a necessity.

THE TRUTH:

Anytime a politician talks about “reform,” hang on to your wallet, unless you are rich. “Reform” always seems to mean: Take from the poor and give to the rich.

All federal spending is “massively unfunded,” in that the payment dollars do not exist in advance.  This is how the federal government runs deficits (which actually benefit the economy by adding dollars).

The federal government creates dollars by the very process of paying bills.

To pay Social Security benefits, the federal government sends to your bank instructions (not dollars), in the form of a check or a wire, instructing your bank to click a few computer keys to increase the balance in your checking account.

Only when your bank does as instructed are the dollars created to pay your benefits.

Why do the media, the politicians, and economists like Laurence Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University, continually tell the BIG LIE?

They all are paid by the rich to lie.  The primary goal of the rich is to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest. It is the Gap that makes them rich.  Without the Gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are.

(Is a person having $1,000 rich? Yes, if everyone else has only $1.)

So the rich bribe the media (via advertising and ownership), the politicians (via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment), and the university economists (via contributions to the universities), to tell you THE BIG LIE, which briefly is this: Federal taxes fund federal spending.)

To quote Professor Kotlikoff: “Social Security is a big insurance company which has been engaged in fraudulent accounting. They have problems paying people.”

That is 100% false. The federal government is nothing like an insurance company. An insurance company is a monetarily NON-sovereign, private, FOR-profit entity,  which does not have the unlimited ability to create dollars.

Contrary to Kotlikoff, the federal government has no “problems paying people,” none at all. Never has. Never will (unless Congress wills it).

THE BIG LIE:

Here is Kotlikoff’s Social Security plan:

Freeze the system in place. Pay off everything the system owes over time to the people who are in it. It would pay off all their accrued benefits, but no one would accrue any [new] benefits under the old system.

Under (my) proposal, everyone would put 8 percent of their pay into a personal account.

The government would match contributions of low earners, to make things progressive.

And then all these contributions would be invested in a global market weighted index of stocks and bonds and real estate.

So it’s going to be done by a computer, so Wall Street doesn’t touch the money or get a penny out of this system.

THE TRUTH

“No one would accrue any [new] benefits.” Instead, you will give the government a gigantic 8% of your paycheck. Then the government will invest all those trillions into some “weighted index.”

Which one? Who knows? Sounds great?

Currently, you unnecessarily pay 6.2%, and you receive a guaranteed, recession-proof payout when you retire.

With the Kitlikoff, “make-the-rich-richer-and-everyone-else-poorer” plan, you pay more into a fund that is guaranteed by nothing and relies on the vagaries of the stock and bond market, so it could tank at any time — just the kind of thing you don’t want for your retirement.

Not so good for you, but it’s  a great plan for the rich, who already hold tons of securities. Imagine what will  happen to those securities on the day the bill is passed and trillions of dollars flood into the markets.

Then, when the rich sell, and the market drops, you’ll be stuck with the losses.

One only can wonder how much the rich pay Kotlikoff for that bit of advice.

AND NOW A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU INTELLIGENT READERS:

Have you ever wondered why:

  1. FICA is collected only on salaries, not on other forms of income?
  2. FICA is collected only on the first hundred thousand dollars of those salaries?
  3. The tax rate for salaries is at the highest level, while long term capital gains are taxed much lower?
  4. There are so many tax loopholes available to the rich that are unavailable to the rest?
  5. Social Security benefits are taxed at all?
  6. For tax purposes, borrowing is not considered income, but interest is tax deductible?
  7. Travel to a job is not tax deductible, but travel for a job is?

Those are just a few examples of the rich bribing the politicians to widen the Gap by benefitting the rich while punishing the rest. The tax code was written by the rich.

And, why would anyone choose to believe the lie that Social Security (and Medicare) are running short of dollars — a lie that is harmful to the non-rich who accept it — when the facts show the beneficial truth that the federal government can pay for these programs, forever?

Why would any intelligent person prefer to believe those stories promulgated by the rich, that the sky is falling, the government is collapsing, and horrible things are about to happen to Social Security, when the evidence proves the opposite?

Not only could the government pay for Social Security without FICA, but it could pay higher benefits that begin at a younger age.

Are there people so pessimistic about life, they prefer to believe bad news rather than accepting the truth of good news?

Remember this: It takes only two things to keep people in chains:  The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

ra

The Gerrymandering of America

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Gerrymander: U.S. Politics. The dividing of a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible.

Visualize a mythical city having exactly ten thousand voting residents, 9,000 of whom consistently vote DRY and only 1,000 consistently vote WET.

The city is divided into ten voting districts, with each district having one vote in the city’s legislature.

The WET politicians have a great idea. Gerrymander the district boundaries so that all 9,000 consistently DRY-voting residents live in just four of the districts, while the other six districts hold all 1,000 consistently WET-voting residents.

Given that version of gerrymandering,  the six consistently WET districts vote to allow four taverns on every corner of the city, even in the DRY districts.

Despite the fact that the massive majority of voters in the mythical city do not want any taverns at all, the tiny minority forces taverns on them.

Sounds unfair, doesn’t it — 1,000 people forcing taverns on 9,000 disenfranchised people.

Any form of  gerrymandering is counter to America’s most fundamental belief in fairness as expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”.

If all men are created equal, each of us should have an equal vote, not just in our district, or in our city, or in our county, or in our state, or in our nation.

The problem with that is  what has been called the “tyranny of the majority.” Much of the law is based on protecting the minority from the majority. The question then becomes, “When should the majority rule and when should the minority rule?”  

As we indicated previously, fairness is the soul of the law.  But fairness depends on perspective.

If you live in a small residential neighborhood, is it fair for a city to allow businesses to build factories in your midst? Is it fair for a county to tell a city what to do? A state to tell a county? The nation to tell a state?

We have federal laws, state laws, county laws and city laws (We even have neighborhood laws in the form of Home Owners Associations) Is it fair for federal laws to prevail over state laws, state laws to prevail over county laws, county laws to prevail over city laws? City laws to prevail over HOA laws? Where does fairness begin and end?

The question comes up all the time. The federal government outlaws marijuana, while the residents of some states want it to be legal.  What is fairest to the residents of the state?

States may punish undocumented immigrants, while the residents of some cities wish to protect those immigrants, and have made themselves “sanctuary” cities. What is fairest to residents of the cities?

Some counties and even villages voted to be “dry” (alcohol-free), while all their neighbors voted “wet.” Would it be fair to force the “dry’s” to be “wet”?

Some states mandate that all villages provide “affordable” housing to a certain percentage of residents. But what about villages in which every dwelling is a home valued at $10 million or more? Should they be forced to provide “affordable” housing? How would that work?

Chicago has a horrible gang problem, with gun killings on almost a daily basis. The mayor and city council would like to institute stronger gun control laws, as they were years ago. But federal law has been interpreted to allow almost anyone to own a gun. Is this fair to the citizens of Chicago, who must “duck and cover” every time they leave the house, and who desperately want more control over guns?

Or would gun control laws be unfair to the gun-owners who themselves “duck and cover” when they leave the house, so they feel they need guns to protect themselves?

And now we come to the United States as a nation, the ultimate example of gerrymandering. Donald Trump lost the popular vote, but won the election in more states.  Particularly, he won in “battleground” states.  Was this fair to the citizens of other states?

Is it fair to the millions of voters in California, Illinois, Texas, New York and the other consistently “red” and “blue” states?

If you are a resident of a bright red or bright blue state, your Presidential vote functionally means nothing. Candidates hardly pay attention to you.

If you are among the millions of voters living in Texas or California, your vote has zero influence on who your President will be. Is this fair, no matter which side you’re on?

In fact, the vast majority of American voters had no impact on the Presidency. They were gerrymandered.  If you are among the small minority of Americans who live in Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and to a lesser extent, Pennsylvania and Virginia, it was you who decided who would be the President of the entire United States.

The majority had no say at all. Is this fair?

Is it fair that small states are granted more electors per capita, than are large states.

The average electoral vote represents 436,000 people, but that number rises and falls per state depending on that state’s population over 18 years of age.

The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota.

In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote.

In other words, one Wyoming voter has roughly the same vote power as four New York voters.

Is that fair?

It gets worse.  Each state choses how to allocate its electors.

If a state wished, it could allocate according to votes. That is, if  2/3 of a state’s voters selected Candidate “A,” the state could opt to allocate 2/3 of its electoral votes to Candidate “A” and 1/3 to Candidate “B.”

But, to give themselves greater importance in the election process, each state (except Nebraska and Maine) arbitrarily has opted to give all their electoral votes to the winning candidate — “winner-take-all.”

Donald Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, because he won several populous states by tiny margins, while losing other populous states by large margins. The margins meant nothing.

The U.S. uniquely has an electoral college, that is designed for gerrymandering. It was invented by people who did not trust the wisdom (or ignorance) of the common people, so “wiser” people were granted the right to select the President.

In practice, it has not evolved that way.

The political parties select the electoral college electors, not on wisdom, but on loyalty or length of service, and it is quite rare for an elector to deviate from what the party wants.

In fact, 26 states mandate by law, that the electoral college elector cast his vote for a specific candidate. So the electors’ supposed “wisdom” is a mirage.

As we said, fairness depends on perspective. The electoral college intentionally was designed to be unfair to national majorities, while being unfair to local minorities.

Can anything be done about this? Should anything be done?

“Can”? Of course. We could do away with the electoral college and merely have national popular voting. This would require  a Constitutional amendment, which would require the majority of states to vote against their own best interests. Unlikely.

There is a way to narrow the clearly unfair voting power that small state residents have over large state residents: Legislate elimination of the “winner-take-all” state selection of electors and require every state to select in proportion to votes, thus not disenfranchising the minority. 

In the 2016 Presidential election, not only were the majority of American voters disenfranchised, but the minorities in each state also were disenfranchised by gerrymandering.

This brings us to Congress, which is gerrymandered in different ways. The United States was created out of an agreement among 13 sovereign nations, each of which wanted influence in the resultant central government.

But they also understood that fairness required some approximation of population representation.

Thus became the Senate, which dramatically was gerrymandered in favor of the least populous states (two Senators per state), and the House, which also was gerrymandered in favor of smaller states, but less so.

The purpose of favoring less-populated states was to prevent the larger populations of urban areas to dominate the tiny towns and rural areas, i.e “fairness” to farmers but “unfairness” to city dwellers.

The Senate is outrageously gerrymandered, with two people representing the 39 million Democratic majority in California having equal voices with the two people representing the 590 thousand Republican majority in Wyoming — 66 to 1.

Add that unfairness to each Senator’s ability to filibuster, and you have the U.S. Senate as the “home of unfairness” to the nth degree, a harmful anachronism of the original 13 colonies.

Even our courts are gerrymandered, with judges selected by the dominant political parties and with grossly unfair money bail favoring the wealthy over the rest.

In summary, though Americans like to believe that we live in a democracy, or at least something resembling a democracy, we don’t.

We also don’t live in a republic, which, at minimum, requires that we choose our representatives. The vast majority of us don’t even choose our President.

Finally, the U.S. Supeme Court determined money is free speech, so the rich are entitled to more free speech than the rest. That, and by trashing voting equality laws, the Supreme Court  helped elect a billionaire to be President.

The most accurate description of America is “plutocracy,” a government run by the rich. Enjoy your servitude.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY