Jermey Rifkin wrote: An adequate social wage would allow millions of unemployed Americans, working through thousands of neighborhood organizations, the opportunity to help themselves. Providing a social wage in return for community service work would also benefit both business and government. Reduced unemployment means more people could afford to buy goods and services, which would spur more businesses to open up in poor neighborhoods, creating additional jobs. Greater employment would also generate more taxes for the local, state and federal governments. What's more, a rise in employment would cut the crime rate and lower the cost of maintaining law and order. Thomas: While walking in the woods recently, a thought occurred. If the government (in Canada) gives an unemployed person $1000 and the combined taxes of the Province and GST (VAT tax) is 14%, and the individual spends his thousand dollars, the immediate return to the government is $140. If the places where that money is spent uses the money to restock, employee or cover overhead expenses, then that $1000 will bring another $140 to the government. If this cycle goes on 5 times, the end result is that from the governments perspective, that $1000 is revenue neutral in that it receives the $1000 back through the activities of the marketplace. Now I know I am missing some essential logic here but I can't find it. Could someone please explain to this dumb Canuck how a tax system that takes back money through sales and VAT taxes can call welfare and social services spending an expense instead of a revenue neutral device to provide meaningful services? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
