Would an Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement pay down Canada federal deficit by twenty billion dollars monthly?

[DennisPTate]

... IF this Basic Minimum Income was financed through the Bank of Canada in the manner that half of the money supply of Canada was created from 1938 to 1974?

So IF forty one million Canadians were all given five hundred dollars per month, from cradle to grave, that was financed by The Bank of Canada would this result in the federal deficit being paid down by roughly twenty billion Canadian Dollars per month?

Once money turns over in the economy three to four times it is taxed back into the coffers of the federal, provincial or municipal governments.

[Ms. Betty Krawczyk] :

HOW PIERRE TRUDEAU TURNED US INTO DEBT SLAVES
Click on the link above to watch Part 3 of my video series on the Canadian Banking System. Please also read accompanying text below.
Trudeaumania was just gearing up when I immigrated to Canada in late 1966. I, too, was impressed with Trudeau. He was intelligent, articulate, with liberal ideas. And as Prime Minister, Trudeau repatriated the Canadian Constitution and told the morals’ police to stay out of people’s bedrooms. But then…but then. As Anthony’s famous speech in Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar reminds us… “the evil that men do live after them while the good is often interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar.”

But somehow this worked backward for Trudeau. Many Canadians still think highly of Pierre Trudeau, but in 1974 he did one terrible thing that changed the lives, for present and future, of all Canadians, for the worse. Trudeau gave the leading operations of the Bank of Canada over to the private banks operating in Canada.

The Bank of Canada was first established by Prime Minister Richard Bennet in 1935 as a private central bank, but was then nationalized by William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1938. By nationalizing the bank, Mackenzie King meant for it to belong to the people so the Canadian government could borrow funds with little or no interest for capital expenditures. The mandate of the newly nationalized Bank of Canada was to act as the banker to the government and to manage the public debt. As Mackenzie King famously said: “Once a nation parts with the control of their currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

So the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and the government could now borrow money with little or no interest. And it worked. The Canadian government built freeways, public transportation systems, subway line, airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway and funded a national health care system and the Canada Pension Plan. But then Trudeau, under the influence of the international financial group called Basel’s
Committee’s Recommendations (The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision) made the decision to halt the borrowing of money from the Bank of Canada, and instead, chose to borrow from the private banks who instead of lending to the government at no interest, or low interest, introduced higher interest rates along with compound interest.

All banks know very well the magic of compound interest. And Pierre Trudeau must have known that the mounting compounded national debt would lead to Canadians eventually owing a dollar fifty for every dollar of their disposable incomes. After all, he studied economics at the London School of Economics. Surely the professors there knew about compound interest.

So Pierre Trudeau, instead of feeling blessed that Canada, unlike the US, had a nationalized central bank, signed our bank away to the private banks. Couldn’t Trudeau, such an educated man, surmise that citizens in a few years would be struggling to make car payments and meet rent and mortgages and student loans and to buy healthy food while last year’s profits for the big five (that’s Royal Bank, TD Bank, Scotiabank, Bank of Montreal and CIBC amounted to $31.7 billion?) If he did, he didn’t care. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It really doesn’t. Our Bank of
Canada is still there. Next time." (Ms. Betty Krawczyk)

HOW PIERRE TRUDEAU TURNED US INTO DEBT SLAVES

HOW PIERRE TRUDEAU TURNED US INTO DEBT SLAVES Click on the link above to watch Part 3 of my video series on the Canadian Banking Syste...

bettysearlyedition.blogspot.com

Here is what Economist Milton Friedman should be done in order to break citizens out from under the Welfare Bureaucracy that discourages people from working.

x. The Distribution of IncomeFriedman examines the progressive income tax, introduced in order to redistribute income to make things more fair, and finds that, in fact, the rich take advantage of numerous loopholes, nullifying the redistributive effects. It would be far more fair just to have a uniform flat tax with no deductions, which could meet the 1962 tax revenues with a rate only slightly greater than the lowest tax bracket at that time.

xi. Social Welfare MeasuresThough well-intentioned, many social welfare measures don't help the poor as much as some think. Friedman focuses on Social Security as a particularly large and unfair system.

xii. Alleviation of PovertyFriedman regarded welfare programs as misguided and inefficient. To replace them, he advocates a negative income tax, giving everyone a guaranteed minimum income.

Capitalism and Freedom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I believe that Dr. Milton Friedman was correct that UNCONDITIONAL but Taxable Income Supplements are the way to break Canadian and USA citizens out from under the Welfare Bureaucracy. An unconditional income supplement that does not depend on somebody income being low, is the only way to decrease the need for bureaucrats and bureaucracy.


Bureaucrats tend to support measure that Economist may describe as "LUDICROUS."

by Harold Chorney, John Hotson, and Mario Seccareccia​

“Governments these days find it easy to defend cuts in services and programs. All they have to do is point to their annual deficits and their total accumulated debts. (As of March, 1994, Canada's public debt was about $546 billion.) This public debt provides the politicians with a convenient excuse for cutting spending or raising taxes. Or both. «We're broke,» they tell us plaintively. «We can't afford to increase public services, or even keep them at their present level.»
...

“Those who dismiss such a proposal as «inflationary» should be required to explain why it would be more inflationary for the government's bank to create $11 billion and the private banks $11 billion, rather than the present practice of having the government's bank create $0.7 billion and the private banks $21.3 billion!

“Clearly the current problem of the Canadian government's deficit is not its absolute size, or its size relative to the GDP, but the insane way it is being financed. A return to the policies of the World War II era, when the Bank of Canada produced almost one-half of the new money at near-zero interest, would do wonders for the economy, while greatly shrinking the deficit... The first order of business for a post-Mulroney-era government must be to regain effective control of the Bank of Canada and make it the primary source of money creation.

“It is ludicrous for the government to put billions of dollars into circulation by borrowing from the private banks, when it can create the extra money it needs, virtually free.​

Banks create money​

“We have to keep in mind that our monetary economy only grows when the money supply grows. Under the present debt-driven system, the only way we can increase the money supply is by borrowing it into existence from the private banks, thereby increasing our indebtedness to them.

“It can't be stressed too much that the private banks, unlike non-bank lenders, create the money they lend. They do not — as is so widely imagined, even by the bankers themselves — lend their depositors' money. The amount of new money created by a bank loan, however, is only sufficient to pay back the principal. No money is created to pay the interest, except that which is paid to the holders of bank deposits. That's why debts must continually grow faster and faster in order for each layer of additional debt and interest to be paid.

“If that strikes you as a very dumb and dangerous way to operate a monetary system, you're right. Clearly it would be much safer and more sensible to have at least a large amount of the needed new money spent into circulation debt free by the federal government — or lent by it interest free to the junior levels of government which lack the power to create money. Reform of the monetary system is therefore the key to controlling the deficit and lowering the public debt.” (End of the three economists' pamphlet.)​

Appendix B — The Bank of Canada Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free, Say Three Economists

Here are excerpts from a pamphlet published in 1992 entitled The Deficit Made Me Do It!, edited by Ed Finn, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in which three economists (Harold Chorney, John Hotson, and Mario Seccareccia) debunk the myths about government debt, and repeat, in their...

famguardian.org

"We never should have privatized our debt and turned it over to the
private banks, we should have kept it in the hands of the Bank of Canada,
at least a major part of it, because then we would have been paying
interest back to ourselves." (NDP Leader Jack Layton)

Oh Canada Movie 6 - Banking - 5
Just after the 2:20 minute mark in this video interview: