[HOME] - [NEWS] - [MY CARTOONS] - [MY COMIC BOOK] - [MY MOVIES] - [MY PAPERS] - [HISTORICAL ESSAYS]

THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND BASIC INCOME


Recently there has been a lot of talk about basic income (ie universal income). They just discontinued a basic income program in Finland and they're running one in Ontario right now. Mark Zuckerberg has brought it up as well.

The idea is that you give people a certain amount of money a year as a floor against poverty and starvation. Citizens can work to make more but they know they'll have a minimum income that they can live on each year.

The idea of a basic income is actually a very old one. Thomas Paine wrote Agrarian Justice to argue for basic income back in the days of the founding fathers. Agrarian Justice is the title of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and published in 1797, it proposed that those who possess cultivated land owe the community a ground rent, this justifies a fixed sum to be paid to all citizens upon reaching maturity. Thomas Paine's suggestion was for 35,000 a year (adjusted for inflation).



Thomas Paine's idea was that originally all the land was no one's possession. God created it and freely gave it to all of humanity. At some point in history certain people were able to take posession of the land and claim it as their property but this only happened through the use of force and ran counter to God's intent for all us to share in the bounty of creation. Paine argues that we now need to acknowledge this basic robbery of the landed and wealth capital owners by creating a system of reparations were every citizen is compensated for the historical creation of property itself.

A PDF of the entire Agrarian Justice pamphlet (22 pgs) can be found here.

Thomas Paine begins his analysis by looking at the Native Americans who he notes have no poverty in their tribes. All are taken care of and the bounty of the tribe is shared. He writes, "To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive state of man; such as it is at this day among the Indians of North America. There is not, in that state, any of those spectacles of human misery which poverty and want present to our eyes in all the towns and streets in Europe. Poverty therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state."

He continues, "The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be abject when compared to the rich. Civilization therefore, or that which is so called, has operated two ways to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state."

Paine writes that this natural state changed when we moved from hunters and gatherers to agricultural dependent civilizations. In order to have agriculture, we had to create the idea of land ownership. This lead to inequities in wealth as some people had land and capital and others did not.

Paine writes - In its natural uncultivated state the land would have been and continued to be the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property.But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that inseparable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated land, owes to the community a rent for the land which he holds; and it is from this rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue (for basic income).

The idea of landed property commenced with cultivation, and that there was no such thing as landed property before that time. It could not exist in the first state of man, that of hunters. It did not exist in the second state, that of shepherds: neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor Job, so far as the history of the Bible may be credited in probable things, were owners of land. Their property consisted, as is always enumerated, in flocks and herds, and they travelled with them from place to place. The frequent contentions at that time, about the use of a well in the dry country of Arabia, where those people lived, also shew that there was no landed property. It was not admitted that land could be claimed as property.

(note that Paine is knowledgeable of Arabia here. The founding fathers were very knowledgeable about Islam and the middle East. Thomas Jefferson owned a Quran - a Muslim Bible - in his library. Jefferson was specifically thinking of Islam when he wrote about freedom of religion.)

There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the creator of the earth open a landoffice, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Paine continues, "the system of landed property, by its inseparable connection with cultivation, and with what is called civilized life, has absorbed the property of all those whom it dispossessed, without providing, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss.

Paine's proposal to redress this "historical taking" is to create a system of national basic income. He proposes, "to create a National Fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling (equivalent to $35,000 USD today), as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

Paine's fund would pay out to every American citizen regardless of income. It is proposed that the payments, as already stated, be made to every person, rich or poor. It is best to make it so, to prevent invidious distinctions. It is also right it should be so, because it is in lieu of the natural inheritance, which, as a right, belongs to every man, over and above the property he may have created, or inherited from those who did. Such persons as do not choose to receive it can throw it into the common fund.

Paine proposes an estate tax to pay for this National Fund. Reasoning that at death a citizen has relinquished his (or her) property rights and the government should tax that property so as to redistribute the money for those who've been disenfranchized by the historical taking of property.

Note, Paine's pamphlet is not mere philosophical theorizing. He was trying very hard to convince America to rally behind his approach. The Illuminati Masons ended up making sure that they shut down the idea of basic income in the days of the founding fathers. Today we find ourselves in conditions that are even more unequal than the days of the Founding Fathers. I think we very much need to create a system of basic income in the United States. We won't fund it like Paine suggests - instead I will pay for it myself with the money coming to me as the Messiah. I propose the name Citizen's Income. I've already written about my plan in my outline for the Golden Age.

The money needed to first start this system will come back as greater tax revenues for the Government. Paying a basic income is a stimulus program that will result in economic growth that will in turn increase our GDP overall and lead to greater tax revenues. Ultimately, the program will pay for itself. This is the inverse of trickle down voodoo economics that the Republics have been pushing since Reagan. In voodoo economics - which has been proven to be historically flawed - you give corporations and wealthy people tax cuts and they invest in the economy resulting in the creation of jobs. This has been proven to not happen. What happens is that wealthy people and corporations just take any money they get in tax cuts and save it or use it to pay off their investors. Rich people don't need extra money. They don't spend extra money. Giving them a stimulus is pointless.

In contrast, if we paid every American 35,000 a year, all of that money would immediately go back into the economy. Poor people spend their money right away. Rich people put it into stocks or sit on it. They hardly ever use their money to buy anything. Giving money to rich people and corporations has very little stimulus value. Giving money to poor people, on the other hand, immediatley stimulates the economy and drives up GDP.

People will still work, even if they're paid 35,000 a year. Work is not just about a paycheck. People like to work for many reasons - they enjoy their jobs, they enjoy the status of their jobs, they enjoy working with their co-workers. If there is no disincentive to work (like in the stupid Ontario system), people will work, if only to get extra money for things they want to buy.

One example of how work is not about money is the open source programming movement. Open source software is all made by people who don't officially get paid for their work. They create the software because they enjoy coding and they want the recognition from their peer group - other programmers. Open Source Software is responsible for some of the most important inventions of the internet - like the Apache Server and Linux which are both used extensively to power the internet.

Nationwide basic income would also allow small towns in America where local industry has moved out to still be viable. There are many great towns in America with great architecture, history and communities who have hit hard times as the illuminati has destroyed the industries their communities depedended on Towns in coal and steal country who have been hit hard economically won't have to move away from their neighborhoods and families in order to find work. Basic income would strengthen the financial situation of small and rural towns all throughout America.

Basic Income also alllows people to be able to afford and attend educational institutes where they can train for a better job. In this way it greases the wheels of capitalism by allowing workers enough economic security that they can find the best jobs for them, which is also the best solution for the larger economy.

Additionally, basic income doesn't have the oversight and dependency problems of traditional welfare systems. If everyone gets a basic income in America, no one can claim there's a stigma associated with it. In contrast, Welfare programs create a lot of stigma which leads to low self esteem and difficulty in getting job opportunties - Welfare systms create dependency. Welfare systems require constant questioning of the state about what your income is, whether you've been looking for work, how many children you have, etc. Basic Income programs are not invasive like that - you get a specific amount per month and the Government just sends you a check.

Ontaria is doing a pilot program but their plan is designed to fail. They offer 13,000 $ US a year but for each dollar you earn, the government takes 50%. This provides a disincentive to work. Why work when the governmente is going to take half your money?

In 2009 with TARP we bailed out the banks that were TOO BIG TO FAIL to the tune of 700 Billion dollars. The true cost of the bailout in terms of all the free money the US government gave the banks over all the years is estimated to be close to 13 TRILLION DOLLARS.

A much better solution would have been to pay off people's mortages for them. The reason we bailed out the banks is because the banks are illuminati and our government is controlled by the illuminati.

There are officially 323 million Americans. If you calculate the entire 13 TRILLION the US government really spent on the bank bailout, we could have given every American a 40,000 dollar payout. Instead we gave it all to the banks who pocketed everything and gave America nothing back in return. And now the banks are much much bigger than they used to be when we started calling them TOO BIG TO FAIL.

Thomas Paine's logic behind Basic Income and Agrarian Justice can also be applied to reparations in America for those descended from Slaves and Native Americans who had their land directly stolen by the Europeans. For the same reason that it was wrong to take the land, it was even wronger to take a person and make them property. Those who were made property suffered in ways that no human should. Those who had their bloodlines murdered off have even greater cause to seek reparations. If Thomas Paine and other founding fathers were alive, they would both advocate reparations for African Americans and Native Americans. The illuminati Jews were able to get the Germans to pay Israel reparations, why has it been so hard for white Americans to accept that reparations are fair. The real reason, Americans haven't been comfortable with reparatinos is because the Illuminati keeps us all poor. When everyone is poor, giving reparations seems like giving away money that could be used for something else. In the Golden Age this will not be a problem. We will have so much money in America that reparations will be easy. I personally offer to pay for them from the money the illuminati owes me.