Here's something I was dreaming about today while playing with my calculator.

[Cleita]

If 300 trillion dollars were invested in safe interest bearing bonds, this government could hold the money in trust for every man, woman and child in America both citizens and residents. At an average rate of 4% that would amount to forty thousand a year for each person that could be distributed for health care, education, emergencies, unemployment and the many things that come up in one's life time.

Each new baby born would get their million dollars in trust as a lifetime stipend. This would guarantee that they got the health care they need, an education and the ability to follow their dreams. It would cover their retirement too after working a lifetime in a field of their choosing. When a person dies the principal would revert back into the fund to be distributed to new babies. Also, there should be periodical adjustments in the principal amount to allow for inflation. I have come to the conclusion that everyone should be able to share the wealth of this nation not just a few elitists. If every American had this to fall back on we could wipe out poverty. Those who are marginal in either physical or mental health can get the care that they need when they need it.

I believe we would see a flowering of arts, a renaissance of sorts because those talented and artistic people would not have to worry about supporting themselves while they pursue their muse. The only condition I would place on access to the money if not being used to pursue an education would be that they spend two years in one of the military branches and after that work at something twenty hours a week if they are capable of work even if it’s sweeping floors until they settle into the career of their choice. It could allow for one parent to stay at home with small children during their formative years, if desired.

Of course I know in this age we are not ready to let someone inherit an income unless it’s Paris Hilton. The rest of us must enter the grind and rat race to get ahead, if we can get ahead. I believe we need to change how we think about this. But in order to wrap our minds around this we have to stop thinking in terms of unearned money being sinful somehow. Let’s face it, it is your money and you will pay taxes over a lifetime that will more than pay back the principal. It’s just really giving everyone a start in life before they can earn money and to insure that they will be able to during their lifetimes.

On edit: corrected my math mistake thanks to Dick Diver.

[Eric J in MN]

1. Would people get access at age 18....

...to their government fund?

[Cleita]

3. Okay, I'm not a lawyer, but it would be set up as a trust

for each individual, with the government as trustor, with the stipulation that only interest can be drawn by the trustee. I would allow guardians/parents to petition the trustor for money for the child until he is eighteen for his needs. This would provide oversight that the money is being used for the child's welfare. Of course each parent would also have his/hers own trust fund as well.

When the child turns eighteen, access to the interest money would revert to him in my vision for his education, health and other needs until he is able to go to work. The fund's interest distributions would be there through his working life and and retirement years until he dies, when the principal will be used for a new baby born.

[jollyreaper2112]

2. I can't believe this crap

Don't you know there are wars to fight, people to kill, empires to build? And you want peace! FEH!

*this post has been sarcasm-enhanced*

[Cleita]

5. LOL! Point taken.

Welcome to DU!

[Dick Diver]

4. What kind of calculator are you using?

If $300,000,000.00 (a drop in the bucket of the billions being spent on the bloody Iraqi war) were invested in safe interest bearing bonds, this government could hold the money in trust for every man, woman and child in America both citizens and residents. At an average rate of 4% that would amount to $40,0000 a year for each person that could be distributed for health care, education, emergencies, unemployment and the many things that come up in one's life time.

There are 300,000,000 people in the US. Your plan gives them a dollar invested each at an average (non-compounded) rate of 4% per year, you could give them 4 cents each year. To give them a million you will need:

300,000,000 (300 million people) x 1,000,000 (dollars) = $300,000,000,000,000.00 or 300 trillion? You don't do your own taxes do you?

[Cleita]

6. Thanks for weighing in. I am terrible at large numbers.

Isn't three hundred trillion where we are going with this war?

My point is that you could give each person an emergency income without touching the principal, which would always be in the treasury if we could get the corporations greedy paws off of it.

btw. Although I tried to verify this, I knew if I was wrong someone would weigh in.

[Dick Diver]

8. The federal budget for 2006 was around 2.4 trillion (n/t)

[Cleita]

10. So you would prefer that it disappear down the black hole

of Halliburton et al instead of invested in our children? You know that taxes will still be collected to pay for other things. I think it would be worthwhile to invest our money in this.

[Dick Diver]

11. I don't know how to begin to respond to your comment...

1. I simply pointed out that you are a bit "math challenged." For example, I suspect (and can verify if you need) that the combined annual budgets for the US, the UK, France, the USSR, and China for the ENTIRE 20th century total less than $300 trillion. Your plan might as well say, "I really wish the tooth fairy would come down and give us all a million each."

2. As an observation, you seem a bit irritated that someone pointed out that your numbers were not simply incorrect, they were several order of magnitudes wrong.

3. As far as sending money to Haliburton, I never indicated in any way my preference as to how government should spend MY money. In point of fact, I'm both an economic and social libertarian. I would like the government out of my bedroom, out of my preferences for toxins, and OUT OF MY WALLET.

4. As far as "our children" go, I would like to deny any paternity here and now.

[Cleita]

13. You said:

4. As far as "our children" go, I would like to deny any paternity here and now.

I think it's terrible that you feel that way. It's whats wrong with our society. We are responsible for all children. I too have never had any of my own, but I don't feel it abrogates me from the responsibility to help bring up the next generation. Even primitive tribesmen know that they are responsible for feeding all the children, elderly and disabled in the village, not just their's.

And why not put the money collected in taxes in trusts, using the interest instead? Since I'm math challenged crunch some figures for me. How many decades would it take to accumulate that sum so that every person born in our country gets an even and fair chance in life. Also, wouldn't it be possible to decrease taxes once that goal is acheived as the money would be there in perpetuity?

On the math problem. In my generation it wasn't considered important to teach math to girls beyond arithmetic and simple algebra. There was no effort to drill us in math either. Imagine if someone back then would have thought that we were worthwhile the effort even though we didn't have penises?

[Speck Tater]

7. If everyone were rich, nobody would have to work.

And if nobody had to work your trash wouldn't get picked up, your cavities wouldn't get filled, your grocery store shelves wouldn't get stocked.

It would be great if automation were so advanced that robots could do everything for us, but in reality, economic coercion is just a proxy for natural coercion, and coercion in some form can never be avoided if we are to survive as a species. If you are a hunter-gatherer hunger coerces you into hunting and gathering lest you starve to death. In a more complex society you exchange your services for the services of another. Someone else does the hunting and gathering and in exchange you put shingles on their roof for them. Hunger coerces you into trading your skills and talents for another's. But if this element of coercion is removed then the whole society collapses. We all end up dependant on people who have no motivation to supply the goods and services we need. In that context monetary wealth becomes meaningless. What good is money if it can't buy food. So everyone is once again coerced into working for food and shelter and medical care because those have become so precious that they cannot be purchased with money.

We will experience coercion no matter what. Either Mother Nature will coerce us, or the government will coerce us, or our society, or our parents or peers or spouses, or children, but in one form or another coercion is what keeps our society, and by extension, our bodies, alive.

[Cleita]

9. I was waiting for this argument. The stipulation would be

in order to access this fund is that you must do two years military service once you complete your education and work at least twenty hours a week. That means the service jobs would get done.

Also, most people like to work if it's something that engages them. What it does do is give the worker flexibility to tell an unreasonable employer to take his job and stuff it. This makes the employer try harder to provide a safe and happy work environment to woo workers. You would be surprised how many people like doing menial jobs instead of the higher pressure managerial work if they can enjoy a quality of life.

[bobbolink]

16. Of course most people *WANT* to work! You're so right.

The other argument is a very tired Raygun piece of crap that has waaaay outlived it's era.

Time for liberals to put it to rest. It simply doesn't hold water.

Did you ever read B.F. Skinner, the behaviorist? While I don't care for behaviorism at all, he had an idea that I thought was particularly valid for today's world.... that *everyone* would have to contribute to those necessary tasks of society.

In other words, drs and lawyers would also have to put in time collecting garbage, etc.

When you really think about it... it's silly to depend on a permanent underclass to do that necessaries, like garbage pickup and toilet cleaning, then castigate them and vilify them for doing those tasks. Pray tell, where's the logic in that?

If everyone had a high level of education, and got professional jobs, then who *would* do the necessary tasks?

Rotating these things makes the only sense... but, it's *too* sensible...

I'm tired. :)

[sandnsea]

12. Take another look

Sit back one week-end and just watch television. Flip from program to program, think about the people you know. So many people working who have plenty of money to never work another day in their lives.

Why?

They like to create, help, heal, build, grow, teach - a whole host of things. In their hearts, people like to make other people happy. A little bit of basic security might allow people to follow their hearts and be more joyful people who don't use drugs and alcohol to drown the reality of their miserable lives or end up killing somebody in a complete mental meltdown.

It doesn't have to be dog eat dog.

[Cleita]

14. Thank you. My feelings exactly.n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Yes, I know a couple of independently wealthy people who

have devoted their time, free of charge, to struggling non-profit agencies.

Not all rich people are pigs. A lot depends on how they were brought up.

[SlipperySlope]

15. May as well wish for flying monkeys...

No offense, but your numbers (and economics) are so unrealistic that we may as well just wish for ponies and rainbows.

$300 Trillion dollars is a ridiculously huge amount of money. That is over 30 times the US national debt. That is over 25 times the total US GDP. In other words, that isn't chicken feed.

Also, what is a "safe interest bearing bond". Do you mean US government bonds? If so, where would the government get the money to pay this interest (since you want to leave the principle alone)? That is $12 trillion dollars per year in interest! The government would have to tax nearly 100% of the GDP to get that money.

I suppose we could just print that money and give it away, but then it would become worthless, and nobody would really end up better off than they are now.

[Cleita]

19. This is where wiser heads than mine need to work out the details

or even the plausibility. It just struck me that we throw our federal income down a black hole most of the time and then go looking for more revenue in more creative ways to tax people. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to build up a nest egg in investments with at least some of that money. It seems to me that over the years it could accumulate to a nice sum to be invested in something that generates income to be distributed among the citizens of the USA.

[scrinmaster]

22. Wiser heads would realize that this is just a pipe dream.

It makes as much sense as someone saying that the mint should start printing more money, so no one would be poor.

[rollopollo]

17. 300 trillion

>If 300 trillion dollars were invested in safe interest bearing bonds, this government could

This is a good idea; one of my concerns is that the government would have to assure it won't tap into those funds for other programs like they do today with the social security fund, by declaring basic expenses as "emergencies".

My only other question would be how would you get 300 trillion? The US economy produces about 14T every year. The US government collects about $2T a year, and much of that already goes to much-needed programs. But its certainly a good notion; I like the idea of an endowment fund for poverty.

[Cleita]

18. You would probably have to accumulate it gradually over the years.

It would mean that it would only start with one generation first probably children under eighteen. I was reading about one of the more capitalistic countries in Asia some time ago and they floated a bond issue to fund health care and housing for all their citizens. From then on only the interest would be used to pay for those programs and the principle kept intact. They paid for the bonds over the period of the bonds with a progressive income tax that was as high as 40% in the higher income ranges. The idea was to still have your cake and eat it too.

It is bad money management to use principle for expenses, when you should be investing it and using the interest for income and still keeping your principle or so the economists tell you. It seems that this country that still has a hefty income tax revenue and that could get more if the tax cuts for the rich under Bush were repealed, would want to invest their revenue and use the interest instead for expenditures.

[seriousstan]

20. I cannot believe this thread still is getting people to agree after it has been shown

to be impossible. The math don't fit, you must acquit.

[Cleita]

21. People keep saying that but they don't put their proof down as

to why it don't fit.

[MiserableFailure]

27. lol

proof?

you're the one who edited your OP because you realized your math was wrong. as someone already pointed out 300 trillion dollars is impossible. i don't know if you realize it, but the combined liabilities of SS and Medicare total under 100 trillion i do believe. so you're talking about 3 times that much in this new program. where is the money going to come from? you wouldn't get anywhere near this much even if you doubled tax rates.

[TAZller]

29. I will simplify (I hope)...

This has all been posted by others and subsequently ignored...but they may have complicated their posts away from the main point so here goes: Ignore for a moment actually accumulating 300 Trillion dollars. Where does the money for the PAYOUT come from?

Having to pay out 40K to each and every person each and every year costs 12 trillion dollars EVERY year. (40,000/yr * 300,000,000 people) = 12 Trillion. This cost of payout must come from somewhere. Where does the government get their money to pay their obligations? Taxes.

Our country has a Gross Domestic Product (all goods AND services produced) of 14 trillion. That means our government would have to take > 85% of goods and services produced to just fund the payout. (12T / 14T) = 85.714...%.

That means every GDP earning entity must be taxed at greater than 85% to provide the income for this endowment. Point is worth repeating: Every person, bank, business... 85% taxation of all goods and services produced just to make the proposed payout. That does not even include what is necessary to actually run the government.

You are correct that given enough time or high enough taxes we could eventually save 300 trillion dollars. But even then we could not afford the interest payment because our nation simply does not produce enough.

Asked and proven.

[Fresh_Start]

23. Someone the other day asked about flat tax

and I was thinking I could agree to flat tax if the rate was high enough and their were no deductions AND it guaranteed every man,woman and child adequate shelter, food, medical care including mental health and education. Eliminate sales tax and real estate tax and school tax and just take it out of flat income tax.

But I'm sure the person who wanted it was to reduce their tax burden rather than to care for the unfortunate. I wonder what tax rate it would take to provide a true safety net to every American.

[rman]

24. well intended, no doubt -

but making money out of thin air (interest instead of labor) is not a good idea. It's one of the things that's wrong with the current system.

[IanBean]

25. a slight improvement

Just double the initial principal and you would find that now everybody gets 80 grand a year. Now everybody could not only afford to pay for insurance, education, housing etc. but also have enough left over for maybe a little vacation or enough to save up for a car. Why settle for "just enough to live on"?

[brothernature]

26. Property does not belong to people

All things are from the Earth. All things should go back to the Earth when the person returns to the Earth. I am in favor of a policy where everything someone "owns" is collected by the government to be distributed to those in need. At least until people learn to live without governments again and live in harmony with Her.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

28. I don't think your plan would ever work

Too much incentive not to work, thereby driving up prices up on goods and services because those goods and services would be scarce.

France has a very family friendly work ethic, and they still work 35 hours a week.

I agree that we need a more progressive tax system, but sharing the wealth as you believe would drive our economy into the ground. Even if you could magically find the money to do this, we'd be broke in a couple of generations, so there wouldn't be any return on the money invested.

[flashl]

30. Why when it comes to solving poverty

there always seems to be a need for 'proven' and genuine accounting first?

As if no one notices:

. a non-producer like the Pentagon who budget is submitted as a percentage of the GDP. Exactly which accounting or economical model adopts this?

. The Pentagon loses trillions, hey, no prob

. The Pentagon can not pass an audit, hey no prob

. The Federal government's REAL accounting principles is anybody's guess

. The subprime mess is about being able to re-structure mortgage "products"

. We have a $300 Trillion Derivatives Time Bomb, but no one can explain what's a dervivative

. We have a ARM mechanism going that is going to "reset" into $50B a month

. CEOs can earn $10,000 per hour or 500 times the salary of an employee, but there's a prob raising min. wages

IF, SOUND public policies, financial and or accounting principles were employed none of the above could exist. Poverty is not about individual responsibility, its about the failure of a society to respect another human being.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Yeah, what you said

I once heard Jesse Jackson say, "Republicans think that poor people have too much money--and rich people don't have enough."

That pretty much sums up conventional wisdom. The public concern about "cheating" and "malingering" is directed not at the corporation that massively overcharges the government for common items nor at the Bushboy type who spends his days drinking pitchers of mixed drinks next to the country club pool, but against the single mother who cleaned someone's house for $25 to supplement her food stamps or the veteran whose PTSD is so bad that he can't leave his house.

If you have money and power, you can get away with a lot. If you are poor and powerless, you can't get away with anything.