{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (8)]}[21st March 1990]

[Redbook7:95][19900321:1016h]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (8)]}[21st March 1990]

19900321.1016

[continued]

- - - -

*Some increase in tax rates would be likely – at least back to the pre-1980 rates, but with possibly a reduction in N[ational] I[nsurance] contributions.

*[See last 7 previous entries, [Redbook7:92-97][19900321:1016]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1)}[21st March 1990]ff]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26for28022021]

{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (7)]}[21st March 1990]

[Redbook7:95][19900321:1016g]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (7)]}[21st March 1990]

19900321.1016

[continued]

I no longer have up-to-date figures for current G[ross] N[ational] P[roduct] and spending,* but whatever the health and education budgets are, I would expect them to be increased by a significant but not huge proportion (eg 10-20%) – the figures for these can be ignored in the estimates above.**

The real point is to find housing, food, energy and clothing (£75bn) out of current budgets for housing (now rather small I believe), social security,*** (most of) defence,**** perhaps farm subsidies etc (one way or another), and perhaps a future reduction in the necessity for social services and police spending (and of course old persons’ homes and other similar institutions’ building costs would be included under housing costs).

There should also be a considerable reduction in the costs of administering those disbursements which are at present means-tested, or circumstance-dependent, such as the majority of state benefits – as everyone will get them.#

*{See [[Redbook7:98-101][19900323:1500]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (2]}[21st March 1990],] p99 for correct figures}

[Fn repeated in ts only, from last previous journal entry]

**[(– see last previous entry) – presumably because they are already payable out of central revenues]

***including old age pensions, presumably – although O[ld] A[ge] P[ensioners] might be expected to receive a premium in recognition of a lifetime’s work, etc..

****[Presumably, dependent on a new World order rendering major defence expenditure unnecessary; & see [Redbook7:99][19900323:2330]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (2) [continued]}[23rd March 1990], fn=****]

#[ie in a different form, within the proposed system as outlined above. The writer’s views on such matters have changed significantly more than once during the time- span covered by this journal. In an earlier volume [ref []] he observed that his political stance tended to reflect his personal circumstances. He is, at the time of writing this note, still a believer in a universal basic income, as has been the case since the 1970s, not least because of the likely effect of the increase in artificial-intelligence-powered robotics on employment, and the perceived impossibility of continuing to find new employment for the working-age population while at the same time reducing Humankind’s impact on the biosphere and the climate.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26for27022021]

{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (6)]}[21st March 1990]

[Redbook7:95][19900321:1016f]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (6)]}[21st March 1990]

19900321.1016

[continued]

Running expenditure:*

Shelter (housing) maintenance – including replacement of basic equipment and furniture (say) every 70 years –

Basic furniture per person ie

	cooker	\
	sink	\
kitchen - - - - - - - -	fridge	> £500?	over 10 years = £50 p.a.
[illegible]	in bedsit	/
	etc.	/

Maintenance?

(Low maintenance units) (simple work is occupier’s responsibility)

= £100 p.a.?

-------------

£150[pa]?

£20bn		**
£7½bn	\	£150 [above] x 50m[illion] = £7½ billion p.a.
£5bn	\	Energy (heat & light) should be low – ie c£100 p.a. per unit max \(this figure to be paid by Government to suppliers)***
	>£50bn	\(on basis of natural gas costs for modern housing)
£25bn	/	(in cash) Food – costs me c£30 pw min[imum] for family of 4, ie say £10 per person pw =£500 pa!
£12½bn	/	(in cash or tokens) Clothing – costs us c?£10 pw for family of 4, ie say £5? per person pw =£250pa
- - - - - -
£70bn
£25bn?		Health – arbitrary figure
£25bn?		Education and Communication
- - - - - -		\(incl[uding] provision of phone & some local calls (eg up to £50 [ pa]) for families? & ‘free’ TV)
£120bn
£10bn+		Public transport – properly integrated,
- - - - - -		\with subsidised or free local transport &/or a cash transport allowance
£130bn

****

This is not such a huge amount.

*[See last previous entry]

**[Capital housing costs brought forward from previous journal entry]

***[But see fn *** to last previous entry]

****{See [[Redbook7:98-101][19900323:1500]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (2]}[21st March 1990],] p99 for correct figures}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26022021]

{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (5)]}[21st March 1990]

[Redbook7:95][19900321:1016e]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (5)]}[21st March 1990]

19900321.1016

[continued]

Similarly,* basic maintenance and warmth-energy would be provided by the State free of charge for these units.** At this stage we have to consider costs! – eg[:]

capital provision of housing units

£10,000 x c50,000,000 persons = £500,000,000,000

(£500 billion)

– over a period of 25 years = £20 billion p[er] a[nnum]

£20bn***

– not an impossible sum, especially as the actual requirement would probably be a great deal less.****

Housing should be designed to last indefinitely; but technology may render it obsolete after 20+ years.

*[See last 2 previous entries]

**[Better surely to include an allowance for energy, water & other wasteable consumption in a basic income]

***↓[carried forward to next journal entry]

****[Presumably because no account was taken of existing housing stock (see [Redbook7:98-101][19900323:1500]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (2)}[23rd March 1990]), much of which should be capable of upgrading at considerably lower cost (some of which would by incurred by private home-owners)]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger25022021]

{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (4)]}[21st March 1990]

[Redbook7:94][19900321:1016d]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (4)]}[21st March 1990]

19900321.1016

[continued]

The basic idea* is that every person on reaching majority (18; or older?) will be entitled to a one-person living unit free of capital cost, and including basic equipment and furniture etc.. This can be traded in for another unit; or[,] with another person’s unit, for a 2-person unit. Birth of 1^st and 2^nd child entitles a move up to 3- and 4-person units.

Adult children leaving home would not require [the remaining family to] move back to smaller accommodation; but cash incentives could be offered after a number of years. (Although this requires surplus building, it may be set against the continuing trade in private dwellings for those not satisfied with the state-provided housing units).

I would hope that the occupiers would have a kind of freehold saleable only to the Government (or its local [housing authority] agents).

*[See last previous entry]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger25for24022021]

{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (3)]}[21st March 1990]

[Redbook7:93-94][19900321:1016c]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued (3)]}[21st March 1990]

19900321.1016

[continued]

Very approximately, one could work out the basic provision of shelter* (fully energy-saving etc) as (for example only) one room per person, + 1+ utility sub-rooms, eg:

(1)	Single person:	– Bedsit including kitchenette, wc and shower/bath** (communal bath[room] if shower)[.]
(2)	Couple:	– Bedroom and living-diner-kitchen; separate bath-wc[.]
(3)	Family of 3:	– 2 bedrooms + living-diner-kitchen + bathroom + wc.
(4)	Family of 4+:	– 3 bedrooms + (good sized) living-diner-kitchen + bathroom + wc (+? utility room).

I take the present construction cost of a modern 3-bedroom house built to proper environmental standards, and basically equipped and furnished (initially), [as] around £40,000, and assume that the smaller units scale down proportionately, ie around £10,000 per person.

I allow no land value as this is a result in most rural areas of planning restrictions. Governments will have to decide whether to override the restrictions or encourage people to move elsewhere by not building these units in these areas.***

*[See last previous entry]

**[ms has ‘shower & WC/bath’]

***[sic]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger22for23022021]

{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued]}[21st March 1990]

[Redbook7:93][19900321:1016b]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1) [continued]}[21st March 1990]

19900321.1016

[continued]

If we consider what is the most basic material provision required to sustain a man who is pre-occupied by his own inner-motivated tasks (eg artistic, or religious, or charitable), these might be analysed as follows:

	Shelter	– a home, clothing
	Energy	– food & warmth (& light &c)
	Health
Some	Communication	(including Education)
Some	Transport	–
	+?

*

*(Much of this goes back to my recollections of work done by me about 15-20 years ago.)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger22022021]

{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1)}[21st March 1990]

[Redbook7:92-97][19900321:1016]{Financing a C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] Utopia (1)}[21st March 1990]

19900321.1016

Thinking about the ideal society, in which every man is free to follow where the Spirit leads him (assuming that it is Man, not the Spirit, which leads him into evil)....

The idea behind such a Society [sic] is that a large number of people are naturally keen to take on those organisational (and similar) jobs which people are paid a premium for doing now – and indeed, in any voluntary society, * among those who do not need to work (eg the older [...]** married women), we see competition to do these sorts of tasks, quite unremunerated....***

Similarly, it is considered (from experience) that almost everyone wants to work, ie wants to use up surplus physical and mental energy in some way.

Finally that [sic]**** there will always be those who want something more than the basic provision, for themselves or for their families, and who will be available to carry out those tasks which Men naturally do not wish to do, and which machines unsupervised cannot do.

The balancing of demand and supply for this kind of labour might depend on controlled use of advertising (ie arousing expectations just sufficiently to provide the extra manpower for the task to be done as well as # the product advertised).

*[There may be an ‘&’ here in the ms – unclear]

**[The ms has ‘the older wives of married women’ here, which seems somewhat ahead of its time and must represent a hiatus in train of thought]

***{(The implication of which may be that the [salary] premium is due not to the scarcity of such types, but their avarice....)}

****[ie, Finally, it is considered that...]

#[Presumably, demand for]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger21022021]