^^ I think you missed the point that it is a dual currency system of stamps and money, with an exchange system to buy and sell extra stamps for cash if you are so inclined.
Printable View
^^ I think you missed the point that it is a dual currency system of stamps and money, with an exchange system to buy and sell extra stamps for cash if you are so inclined.
lol ill read it again and see what i can reject from the idea that Rota has.
1) This would not be additional, every household would get the same allowance based on the number of people. There would probably be some adjustment based on how many of those people are children or adults. But, every home would get stamps based on the same equation, regardless of income.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodri
2) No, prices do not freeze. The prices you see in the store will fluctuate, as they do now. They will simply be stamp prices instead of dollar prices. If The Fed does a good job at the regular buyback, then eventually the stamp prices should stagnate, while the dollar value of the stamps go up with inflation. But the stamp price is not forcibly locked in this plan.
3) The allowable foods list is gone. EVERY food item now must be paid for with stamps. I would say, anything that requires a nutrition label qualifies. So candy and soda are now bought with stamps just like fruit and cereal.
4) Farming is another grey area I'm unsure about. Maybe they should sell the corn to biofuel refineries for stamps. Maybe they sell to grocery stores for cash, since the store is buying the corn for resale, not for actual consumption. The farm-store transaction is one of the details I have not worked out. Should it be a cash or stamp transaction.
My first thought is that it could be cash, since it's like a distributer selling to a retailer, rather than a sale for consumption. I think, however, just like the restaurant, the sales from farms will eventually become either/or. I have no expertise in agricultural economics, so I think I can leave this decision to people who know more about that part of the economy. There are valid arguments for farmers selling their goods for stamps or cash. I honestly don't know which would be better.
This is not a transition TO stamps. It's a dual currency economy. Stamps are given to the public to remove a basic necessity from the cash budget. Dollars still must be earned to pay for housing and furniture and cable TV and computers and all those fun things that determine quality of life. Just because you no longer have to worry about paying to feed yourself, does not mean you no longer need dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by WN1 Hit
The free exchange of stamps allows the poor to eat stingier than average and sell the excess to the rich who want to buy the more expensive foods. Basically, earned dollars determine your lifestyle.
But giving dollars away would never stop poverty.... point is that If you give stamps to everyone, they might "mistreat" it and use it to by more and more food.
Noone is giving away dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by WN1 Hit
Everyone is going to use stamps to buy food. It's the only way they can buy food.
But what if families run out of stamps and they cant afford to feed their kids because of that?
Then they can buy more stamps with dollars.
The equation to dole out stamps will be more than adequate to feed each household for the month. If you decide to buy lobster and steak for every meal instead of a few chicken and rice dishes, then you will not have enough food to last the month.
That is why the exchange exists. People who want to live the higher, more expensive, lifestyle can do so. They simply have to supplement their food budget by getting more stamps to buy the more expensive food. This is exactly how we get money from the rich to the poor. The poor have the option to be a bit stingier with their food budget, and SELL the excess stamps for some extra cash to improve lifestyle. It allows them to get the cable TV and that new video game box for their kids.
What happens today when a family runs out of food and can't afford to feed their kids?
EDIT: Rota is fast....dang.
This is actually a very good and well thought out plan, But I disagree with one part.
Taxing the rich and giving to the poor would not work out in my opinion.
There would have to be some system set up to make sure the taxes get to poorer people. Taxes rarely ever go to the direct aid of people who need them as tax payer money goes to running different things like tax money partly pays toward prisons and keeping inmates in good health.
So taxing richer people would not help the poor as this money would be used for other causes. All the tax would do is make the richer a little less rich. Although it would be good as a enviornment plan, It would not help the economy.
The only way that part would work out is if someone monitered this collected tax and made sure it went towards helping struggling families....
That plan was put under the "A bad solution" section :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Brooke ♥♥
I mention that traditional plan only to discount it. Directly adding taxes to the rich is not part of the actual plan I present.