So this is why I got sectioned for thinking I could change the world

Please note, this sits within a wider body of work, predominantly fiction, poetry and philosophy, where you see the journey of the two main characters as they formulate their work, interact with the world, and eventually turn to lead the revolution.

I am not aware of the following model being in existence. I've certainly not read it before, aside from where the Debt Jubilee links in. On this though, I must say I did find out about it after claiming it as original thought, so I am open to criticism or failure to footnote. This chapter is not based on deliberate reading, rather - just deliberate thought over time on top of my education. I should also point out that there are concepts used that certainly pre-date "my model". I hope it can be seen that much of my work here is tying together and standing on top of the work, the shoulders of others. It is the jumps between, the fit of the pieces and the model as a whole, which I am claiming as my own, original - and is just one reason why negligent is the diagnoses of drug-induced psychotic delusion and my consequent treatment. For one simple reason: nobody involved in my sectioning took the time to engage with my work. So, here is the economic theory part - with nods to other constitutional frameworks (to be elaborated on elsewhere):

Before going into my proposal, I must first give some basic context for those unsure of economics.

Economics is an umbrella term attached to all the activity surrounding the interaction of the people of the world as they try to collectively satisfy their needs - and therefore often economics is heavily associated with money and how we use it.

How do we use money? First, what is money? Well, it's not really anything. A debt for a debt. It's a promise to pay, while in the process of paying. It's a blackhole. A construct. Perhaps then, it's a wormhole. What it is does, is attach a value to tangible things: actions or objects or a combination.

How then do we use it? Well, we seem to add this other elusive intangible thing to it, opaquely named "interest". Ignore tax - that's just the value of money determined by the people through the government required to pay for common things. So what else is there as far as other conceptual attachments to "money", interest aside.

Well, there isn't really anything. That's it. There's money, there's how we use it (economics and politics etc), and there's "interest" added in to the mix for some reason. I suppose there are all the idiotically complex constructs bankers attach to the process so they can slyly make themselves more money, but let's not waste energy on that now.

So now then, to understand modern economics and why we are here, we must look back to how we first started using money.

As far as I know, money and its association with the idea of "interest" pre-dates the Romans and has been closely linked with an ancient, intelligent, disciplined people, the Jewish Community and the religion of Judaism.

Religious figures since have been skeptical of the use of interest when dealing with money, notably the Prophet Mohammed.

Now, here are my two criticisms:

1. It's a wasteful unsustainable system

2. It's a selfish system that favours those with money and property

How does the system work in simple terms?

You ask:

Can I have some money for this reason?

They reply:

Do you have money and assets and a track record?

[insert response]

Ok, it'll cost you ("interest") - and we cover our losses with this "interest".

Under the banker's breath:

[In the long run we will make lots of money for ourselves across each time we do this - and if your "thing" doesn't work - it's a whole load of waste- and you lose - you carry the can - and we sweep it under the carpet and play the same trick again because it'll work sometimes, particularly if enough of us back it. And when we win, oh we win.]

.....

Ok, so here's "my idea":

The People's Bank

£

The Axes

X Axis:

The currency is fixed to the most basic cost - the heating of water - in a unit and metric. The unit of measurement I propose is a cup of water equivalent to a cup of tea. I understand much energy is produced by burning things, heating water and turning turbines - but that this is not the case for renewable energies - so, the output of that energy could be measured or conceptualised in terms of the aggregate boiling of kettles.

From there, you can work out the Total "Heat" of an economy. This is the total activity, and encompasses all consumption and production. With this and free market data the total cost for all goods and services are then quantifiable. You should be able to find the theoretical price of everything, like a cup of tea or pint of lager, with the Y Axis as to be explained.

Y Axis:

What "Heat" is each individual contributing to the economy? What is their contribution, by brain or brawn (brain/brawn = spirit/action), to the workings of society?

This is where democracy comes in: The People decide how much a nurse, a banker, a footballer, a politician etc - "should" earn, in theory.

From there - you have a fixed pot of money (The Pot), though fluid at every point (to a degree) with mechanisms of democratic adjustment, anchored by these two Axis, the Axes.

Outside of this, dealing out of The Pot for individuals, businesses and other collectives is done on an interest free basis and is managed by a "body", as yet unnamed - a centrally associated, independently controlled - by elected officials - and with a whole body of appropriately paid bankers sitting beneath.

In the future then, if you want money, you prove you're worth it, you carry the can for the loss, nobody makes any money out of the process - and there's a whole lot less waste. There are also no bars to inclusion if there is a lack of money or property tied to your proposal in the first place. Immediately, this is a more egalitarian system.

N.B. This is in a State where the people view property ownership differently. This I will elaborate on at a later date.

Sooo, what else is there. Hmmmm, well not much. The Free market? Fits within this for sure....totally compatible, though a necessarily agreed pillar is that once monopolies are formed - they become owned and run by the people and that those involved in the creation of such a Good should be celebrated appropriately.

The traditional Right will shout - "Where's the incentive?!"

My answer: Legacy and reputation do not have to be financial to appeal to the ego. Being seen to be able to help others does just this and it appeals to our altruistic nature, rather than our animalistic selfish nature, as with a simple cash reward. I can talk more on this. Let's just say, the ego can be massaged in other ways aside from windfall moneybags and all you can spend, cuz, Planet Earth is pretty f-up right now.

A further agreed pillar would be a cap on earning. But it'd be cool to hit it.

"Oh shit, she's capped out already!"

"6 years running now - get you!"

In addition, my model proposes a system where tax is dealt with in a feel-less or not-felt way, it's dealt with blind. This is done ut sequitur:

As an individual, your tax burden exists

(i) hidden by:

a) unannounced but commonly accepted: tax disincentives on demerit Goods such as tobacco, and a 20% fixed VAT; and

(ii) absorbed at a distance by:

Your employer (the Heater), who pays tax on each of their employees, their employees tax being what it costs to keep them educated, healthy, mobile, happy. This is paid on each employed factor of production of Labour (so with each employee taken on, the burden is paid according to their "Heatee Band"), in the same way it is paid on other factors of production i.e. the council tax the employee pays to keep their premises (Land). For the individual then, their tax disappears through to their employer.;

And it exists

(ii) soothed out by a construct that resembles tax, but is not tax per se in that there is freedom of choice associated with it:

From an employee/worker (Heatee) point of view, if you earn beyond what is expected as determined by the democratically agreed "Heatee Bands", say you make loads of money, by a side-hustle or whatever - then you basically get to pick where the democratically agreed taxable difference goes, with guidance/ego incentives.

I would argue that with this the individual's tax burden is hidden, absorbed, and redefined such that my model incorporates what could be called a taxless system.

This then is my proposal to come with my fictional revolution: an egalitarian interestless use of money with a taxless system of association with government income and expenditure.

.

. .

The Bedrock of The New World Order:

is Taxless and Interestless

So, how do we flick the switch on it?

For that, we turn to The Debt Jubilee.

As for retribution for the sectioning - well the proof is in the pudding (my fiction) and the puff is winking at the bar.

Yours faithfully

Samson