First Look at Unifying Theory, page 2

reply to post by nenothtu

Thanks to you sir. Like I said, this 'tax' is to be set by either the federal government or state government or whichever government where it will be adopted.If it is implemented federally then obviously it becomes national policy. If state, then state policy. It would be great to have it as state policy, that way this education system adds to the attractiveness to the state that chose to implement it, increasing the rate of immigration to that state, and helping its general economy. You'll get interstate competition as well as institutional, and the greatest part is that the student will always benefit, and that is the only goal. Other than determining the tax, the state/fed government is responsible for the R&D grants, no more, no less. There will be no issue with student debt, or even state/fed debt in context of education, because no one has to borrow money anymore.

On 'tax' per income bracket, just look at Austin, Texas model. A lot of stores have this same system, where you pay accordingly to how much you can easily afford. The higher the income, the higher the amount. We have the same system, well, not so much anymore, where the richer demographic pays a higher tax than the poorer. THat's why I added that a change in values is necessary. The rich have to be able to see the importance of equal education for the poor.

Still, you are right, values won't change, and it does look unfair to 'tax' the rich with higher rates. I'd say a 3% is perfect. For a family making 20k, the education costs 600$, and that is education in the ranks of ivy league colleges, except for your 1st grader! at least in theory, if the system did work. For a family making 100k, the tuition is 3000$. Thats not bad at all. That 100k family would be paying thrice as much for the same education that i believe would a result of my system if they chose to stick with the current private institution system. But now look at this, say the average family made 40k and were 'txed' 3%, and say there were 500 students attending one of these schools, that is 600k to the institution. Now take a healthy classroom with 1 teacher for about every 20 kids, that means you need 25 teachers. That means out of that 600k, you have to pay those teachers, and the maximum you could pay each is 24k, and with that, the institution has no more money. Now of course if the education proves extraordinary, you may get more students, but the ratio remains the same of students to teachers, meaning that the salary never increases. THat is the purpose of a higher rate for the rich.

ALso to AbAdsurdum,

Are you suggesting that states/communities can have their own individual currency, but all backed by a national commodity? That could potentially be a very devisive program, in fact, that is one reason why the articles of confederation were abolished. Originally this type of system was in place in the US, until they realized how the state could abuse this system and create imbalances in interstate trade. And to think that it would not happen this time around like it did then, well, it might be a bit too optimistic, and the only way you would be able to control it, would be create more federal regulation, which is what you don't want. Even when backing a currency with gold there is a high probability of corruption in manipulating the gold rates and the availability of gold, no different from what is happening with our silver now, and of course the international market for diamonds.

How would the gold be distributed between each state? because if there wasn't an equal amount of gold distributed initially, that would be putting some states at a large imbalance, some currencies would be worth more than others. That goes for food as a commodity as well. The state that produces the most would have a stronger currency, another trade imbalance. That is not something you want inside a single nation. Also, the value of the currency would be at the mercy of the weather, and the weather has never been too reliable an ally, so a state's currency would constantly increase and decrease in value, and that is not good for the residents of that state who will not be able to make any more money than what they already make. Should they have to work harder to purchase chocolate imported from NY just because grain harvests struggled that year? What if milk production in NY fell? That would make chocolate even more expensive. If you are going to have state currencies backed by one central currency which is backed by a commodity, you might as well stick to that single currency, but still allow, just as we do now, for states or communities to base their trade off of a local currency. If you mean promoting that right, then sure. But if it grew to be the system, you will see a lot of problems. Rather than having rich and poor communities, you will have rich and poor states. That's not a society you want to foster.

But what to do with the central currency? That is the real question. Yes we give the power back to congress, and back it with gold or something. But what happens in the time of war? Every other country on the planet, just as every kingdom throughout time, always placed themselves in debt in order to win a war, expecting that by winning they would gain capital. If we limit our war budget based off of how much gold we have, we are guaranteed to be invaded and conquered one day, because other countries won't share the same 'fiscal responsibility' as us. Unless there is something else with which we can have either an equally or even more valuable reserve of other than gold, or have some strong leverage in international trade, then our country will be weak. Once again if you choose to back your money off of degradable food, you are setting yourself and your state up for huge problems in the event of a natural disaster, or a hot summer, or a broken fridge.

How do you build up a state's reserve? How would a state ever have a surplus of money to be distributed? The state never produces anything. How does it purchase from the producers within the state, so that it has something to back the state currency or to purchase/trade their state currency for federal commodity backed currency?

I am assuming that there will be some type of federal tax on the states as well, and that the federal government will be able to invest in things with state legislature approval? Otherwise if not, the country won't survive in the international forum, and we will just have the USSR again. Or we can just break up the United States and allow each state to be its own country, and we can have the North American Union of North American Countries, like we already have the EU. Both of these models have failed.

edit on 11-12-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)