How To Change Valve On Prestige

Goetz Werner income for all?

criticism of the model by Goetz Werner "Income for All

(Unconditional Basic income, BGE)

What makes the Werner model, the proposal to increase the share of income from the consumption tax is to be financed, while doing away with all the earnings and income taxes.

What happens to an economy where the income or the income from the production

(thanks to the much talked of Werner generated by investment rationalization) to

less and less shoulders will be distributed?

Werner misunderstands how our monetary system:

money is fed in principle on debt for companies and the state in the economic system. Ultimately, the entrepreneur to pay wages and capital costs to the involved in the production process. On the consumption (purchase of goods = withdrawal of benefits), the money ends up back the company that can service the debt and that debt costs. Which is the business cycle: money flows in one direction and services to the other.

But if the dwindling number of buyers in this cycle, more and more drop out of the production process, who then takes the goods, so that the contractor pay its costs and its can realize profit in money?

is Werner's solution is that all receive a basic income, with the overhang of these services by the market is cleared. But where does the money for the basic income of those who dropped out of the production process? From the taxation of their own consumption? This is so, would undergo a Munchausen by his own bootstraps. It can not come from the consumption tax in the production process involved, since they would then remove a few articles (see Supplement, calculation)

1. Realistically, muss jemand für dieses Grundeinkommen als Vorschuss Schulden aufnehmen, z.B. der Staat. Durch den Konsum werden dann zwar die ursprünglichen Schulden zurückgeführt, aber es bleibt ein Teil stehen, der durch die fälligen Zinsen erwachsen ist. Das Geldvermögen der Geldbesitzer steigt. Die Volkswirtschaft geht in die Schuldenfalle. ( Schon jetzt existieren in Deutschland 6 Billionen € Schulden, denen die gleich große Summe von Geldvermögen gegenüber stehen. Etwa 70 % dieser Schulden fallen auf die Unternehmen und 25 % auf den Staat ).
2. Oder die Geldbesitzer werden zur Kasse gebeten, bzw. besteuert, auch alle jene, die aufgrund von Besitz leistungsloses Income-related, and those with incomes size beyond a reasonable performance ratio is (the Ackermann). remain
3. Or the goods are that the companies go bankrupt, the economy shrinks. There is the familiar economic valleys to the collapse of the economic system (Argentina).

Ultimately, you will not be able to avoid asking the question of distribution in order to use the basic income to the mass of customers - the working-age population - to participate in the productivity growth of the economy (case 2). It is the models for an unconditional basic income (BGE) will be judged.

additions

argument for a consumption tax (Werner-model)

The main argument for a consumption tax sounds in the book by Götz Werner "income for all "as follows (the numbers the passages quoted refer to pages of this book ):

money is a kind of depot for future consideration. Someone has done something, it still awaits the return - this is by maintaining of money, income / revenue, notes. The social value of service and return is completed only when the power drawn by a purchase with this money. If now the income or taxable income, so we loaded the performance review, it paralyzes the willingness for such services. Taxing power consumption - the consumption tax - would be accepted more readily. Compared to the income tax they would be less bureaucratic, more environmentally friendly, to differentiate more easily and more equitable, with the rich loaded with luxury goods and the mass of the population could be relieved by low taxation of the daily requirement.

(> " The" strong shoulders <<>> up <<> below <<> ", 212) Despite the correct approaches to the character of the financial system, on the necessity of social equality), he misunderstands the dynamics of our money and capital system. He's an entrepreneur is essentially a business perspective. He sees that the economic values \u200b\u200bof human performance and ultimately work arise ("D he probably most effective form of clustered, socially organized human power, is the entrepreneurial capital" 178, or " Real values \u200b\u200boccur only in production or services useful " 156 or understand " one economy so as a permanent process of Füreinanderleistens .. . 177) but he treats capital income and earned income equivalent (" The basic income, we let the people work ..... With the consumption tax, we have the capital to work in peace. " 178). As an entrepreneur, he can not break away from the business perspective. In operation, investment income, capital and labor income are equivalent cost factors so far cost of production (capital said some preferred as is preferred to operate in bankruptcy ). Therefore, the common idea that capital and labor, production factors.

The Werner model - social background of his analysis

In his book "Income for All" provides very Werner insightful arguments for the need for a basic income. First, he debunks the myth that economic growth creates jobs necessarily. Unfortunately, he does not address the fact that the common definition of economic growth as the percentage growth of the existing volume, so can not work because it leads to an exponential growth. Exponential growth can not afford a real economic system of this world. In nature it occurs as a parasitic growth that regularly destroys his own existence.

He is committed to the social function of individual performance (177). He turns therefore to the unilateral appropriation of these common values \u200b\u200bgenerated and is consequently the distribution issues. An extreme imbalance in the distribution of economic power leads to economic crisis. However, he is the vision of participation of all the productivity gain and the liberation from the bondage of serfdom.

Very well, he also describes the function of money << as a lubricant for the production and exchange of products and services >> (55), the store is very easy to give and to transfer, and interest is. There was an error << that money had a value in itself. Basically, in pure monetary transaction created so actually nothing at all. Real values \u200b\u200boccur only in production or services useful >> (156). Very true, the function of enterprises in a bid to counter and goods circulation described: Company << people with money .... we trace the value of any business .. backward, then dissolves its entire investment in income ... (176) << the responsibility of companies to the people with goods and services and also to provide them with income is>> Central to its disposition of real income, << what is actually consumed >> (53) and thus refers to as other consumer goods, and nominal income (money), which is obtained by applying for other benefits. The << Desire for real income has limitations, because the natural human needs are limited. In contrast, the urge seems to nominal income, the greed, limitless .>> (153) << The capital thus seems to be only for their own hunger to care. Sustainability is alien to him >> (159) He sees in our economic system, with four so-called cardinal sins: << The first is that we regard money as a commodity, the second ... the land ...., third .... Companies ... and the fourth ... work >> (163). The combination of money - capital - and describes production he said:

<< The accumulation of money, so the accumulation of capital, expands the possibilities of producing something for others or to afford. And if only because the entrepreneur while his investment - the so mostly everything is strange, as equity - interest has, he needs the "profit" >> (154)

calculation of the unconditional. Basic income (BGE) to Werner

assumptions

• I take a macroeconomic Trade (GDP) of 100 units of goods (WE) on.
• for producing this WE to the advanced cost of 2000 monetary unit (GE) due to be recorded in the production process involved (LE) and revenue (income).
• The 100 flats are approximately 29% value-added tax (consumption tax rate for BGE) to GE in 2817 available for sale. GDP is then in 2817 GE.

consumption tax model

• The LE may decrease their revenue from 2000 GE a stake of 71 WE (100x2000/2817 ~ 71). GE 580 of them are CONSUMPTION TAX: The remaining 1420 GE may pay the contractor a portion of the advanced costs. For the total advance, he must pay interest.
• The remaining 29 WE are now the following removed:
• need to purchase these 29 are approximately 817 GE WE removed by the BGE, which is the total amount of VAT, 29% of 2812th For this BGE, the state has 580 GE from the LE consumption has taken.
• He still has 237 GE advance, for paying the state at a rate of 5% per annum, a sum of about 12 a year, GE has .
• GE 817 (580 + 237) are now distributed to the entire population as BGE, which enable the WE remove remaining 29. GE 237 of them are consumption taxes, that the state can pay off the advance. The remaining 580 GE, the contractor may pay the final portion of his pre-shot costs.

Example 2004:

• GDP amounts to € 2,200 billion. The BGE is to be distributed 638 billion € (2200 x 0.29). The BGE be advanced by the State is 185 billion € (638 x 0.29). The state must bear interest at € 9 billion (5% interest rate) . With 80 million inhabitants each receive € 7,975 a year, ie € 665 a month. A family of 4 then receives € 2,658 a month.

income tax model

• The production of goods for the advanced costs over 2000 are the LE for GE as income and income available.
• VAT is not charged, but an income - or income tax of 29%.
• The LE have to file an income tax of only 29% left GE in 1420, which they use to purchase their goods component (71 units).
• by the state collected € 580 income tax are distributed to all as BGE and thus the remaining goods (29 units) from the market cleared.
• The employer can meet its pre-imposed costs. For the advance he had to pay interest.

income tax versus consumption tax

· The state pays no interest.

· The purchasing power of the income-tax-is stronger than in the consumption tax-BGE, as the LE will get GE in 1420 the income tax- Modell dieselben Leistungen wie mit 2000 GE bei dem Konsumsteuermodell. Dieselben Überlegungen gelten für die BGE-Ausgaben.

· Letztlich profitieren nur die Geldbesitzer bei dem Konsumsteuermodell à la Werner, weil sie Zinsen erhalten.