Wake up Bahamians - Take Back Your Country!

Wake up Bahamians - Take Back Your Country!:

"Sometime before Christmas a map showing the proposed new boundaries was published which showed drastic changes in the Constituency boundaries. I called it gerrymandering at its worst, a blow to the democratic system.

I maintained, among other things, that gerrymandering made it impossible for people to get to know the candidates, or candidates to know the people. Furthermore, it leant itself to enabling votes to be "packed" into areas in order to sway an election."

Democracy has not been very good. Citizens get a vote, but they cannot even decide where they can vote. In some countries, candidates have to jump many hoops and loops to appear on the voting slip.

For a long time, other political systems have been tried. The most important part is how to distribute wealth. Alaska is currently the best model, with national wealth going directly and equally to all residents.

Singapore: Rich babies get more welfare than poor babies

How much child benefit does a Singaporean baby get?

The baby gets a "cash gift" of $4,000 (divided into 4 payments). Although a baby, as a citizen owner of Singapore, should rightfully be getting a citizen income of $9,000 annually, he only gets a one-time "gift". This amount is regardless of the parents' income or wealth.

If the parent is rich enough to put $6000 into a special fund, the government will add $6000 into that fund. The maximum amounts that the government will match are:
 1st child $6,000
 2nd child $6,000
 3rd child $12,000
 4th child $12,000
 5th child $18,000

If a parent of 5 kids is rich and can put $54,000 into this fund, the government will put $54,000 more for him.
If a parent cannot afford to save any money, the government will match that with $0.

Is Singapore the only country where rich babies get more welfare than poor babies? Uniquely Singapore.

Basic Income Worldwide: Horizons of Reform

Basic Income Worldwide: Horizons of Reform

This is a new (September 2012) book about Basic Income, edited by Matthew C. Murray and Carole Pateman.

Some people consider citizen-ownership income as a form of Basic Income. Citizen-ownership income is income based on the country's wealth that is co-owned by citizens. As citizens are owners of their country, any wealth that is not privately owned is co-owned by all citizens.

A comparison of Basic Income and Citizen-ownership Income:

	Basic Income	Citizen-ownership Income
Who gets it?	Every citizen/resident	Every citizen
Motivation	Welfare	Citizen ownership right
How much?	Survival rate	Depends on common wealth
Where does the money come from?	Not specific. People tend to think of extra taxation to fund a Basic Income.	From the monies generated from common wealth, e.g. . sovereign fund returns . oil revenues . land sales . permit auctions
Typical amounts	A wide range. A few hundred a year or a few thousand a month.	$1000 - $2000 every year (Alaska Permanent Fund) $9000 every year (Estimated for Singapore)

Have you ever wondered why as a citizen-owner of your country, you have not received regular income from your vast ownership? 

We should get a direct dividend from boom - The West Australian

We should get a direct dividend from boom - The West Australian

Larry Graham, a former ALP and independent State MP, wants citizen income for Western Australians.

He has sharp words for sovereign funds that have no clear purposes, other than making money.

"We know little about the Barnett proposal but he is said to favour an Act of Parliament to protect a fund that will provide money for major infrastructure. As infrastructure funding is already a Federal and State budget responsibility, this is where the trap lies. The experiences of funds established on similar grounds around the world demonstrate clearly that the model proposed by Mr Barnett can only lead to jurisdictional cost-shifting, political manipulation and budget balancing acts. It is the model most likely to produce the worst outcomes for the State and Mr Barnett needs to revisit and revise his aims in establishing a fund on this basis."

He advocates a sovereign fund that pay dividends as citizen income to citizens.

"WA could do no better than to imitate the successful Alaskan Permanent Fund. Established 35 years ago by constitutional amendment, it came about when Alaskans expressed displeasure at how their politicians had frittered away the proceeds of their 1970s oil boom.

Since establishing the fund, Alaska ...is returning annual cash benefits to its citizens."

He advocates "ownership" means a direct share of the wealth. Citizen ownership should not be an empty election slogan.

"West Australians are led to believe that they are the owners of the resources and many wonder, if this is so, why they are not sharing directly in the proceeds of the boom. A distinctive feature of the Alaskan fund is that it — independent of any political processes — assesses its performance and pays an annual dividend to its citizens."
"Unlike us, Alaskans do get a share of the wealth generated by their resources."

. 

Rights of all Citizens - from Ubuntu Party, South Africa

What does the Ubuntu Party of South Africa say about citizen ownership?

This is what they have:

"Rights of all Citizens

LET US RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE
TO THE PEOPLE

· The country belongs to its people
· The land and the water belongs to its people
· The forests belongs to the people
· The rivers and lakes and oceans belong to the people
· The gold, the platinum and all other minerals in the ground belong to the people
· The coal and diamonds belong to the people
· Everything that grows on the land belongs to the people
· The beaches, the mountains and the skies above belong to the people
· The wild animals belong to the planet and we are their protectors

These things DO NOT belong to the politicians, the government, or any corporation who has unlawfully claimed exclusive rights over it. The government was appointed by the people to do the best for the people – They have failed the people dramatically on every level.

The government has stolen the country from its people.
We, the people need to take it back."

These statements resonate with the ideals of a citizen-ownership democracy. A citizen-ownership democracy does not exclude private ownership. See the comparison current democracy and citizen-ownership democracy here.

What is more important is that the rights proclamation should not remain a slogan. It should be translated into regular income for every citizen, as seen in Alaska, which has a partial citizen-ownership democracy.

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Citizen-ownership Democracy

Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote in his book in 1967, Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?

"I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective -- the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: The Guaranteed Income."

He also wrote about the moral responsibility of eradicating poverty:

"The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity.

If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent.

We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age.

It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them.

The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty."

Alaska took about a decade to implement this idea, partially. Martin advocates a guaranteed income close to the median income level.

Countries that are resource rich have a moral and ethical responsibility to eradicate poverty among their citizens. The resources need not be natural resources.

For example, while Singapore is famous for its lack of natural resources such as oil or diamond, it is nevertheless a very resource rich country. It has enough resources to distribute a citizen income of $9,000 to every citizen annually. The Singapore governing party has a moral and ethical responsibility to eradicate poverty, doing it the simplest and most effective way advocated by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Return to citizens their rightful citizen income.

Jay Hammond - first leader of a citizen-ownership democracy.

Jay Hammond
From www.sitnews.us

Jay Hammond has a place in history.

Jay Hammond was the governor of Alaska from 1974 to 1982. During his time in office, Alaska started the Alaska Permanent Fund and started paying annual dividends to Alaskans. Part of Alaska's oil revenue is placed in the Alaska Permanent Fund. Investment returns are annually distributed to all Alaskans.

Alaskans have been getting their citizen incomes for each of the last 31 years.

Jay Hammond was the founder of the first citizen-ownership democracy where citizens get an annual citizen income from the state's wealth.

The New York Times called him the Governor of Alaska who paid Dividends.

Jay Hammond was also called the Father of the Alaska Basic Income. Before he died in 2005, he tried to get the Alaska model adopted by other countries. He also fought to put more of Alaska's oil revenue into the Alaska Fund.

"If half of oil tax revenues went into the fund, as Hammond envisioned, every Alaska family of four could expect to receive more than $16,000 this year."

His policy benefits Alaskans long after his governorship, and even after his death. 

Did he give out charity to Alaskans through this Fund? No. He instituted a system that gives out what the Alaskans rightfully deserve as owners of Alaska. He is a great man. Other politicians deprive citizens of their rightful citizen income.

(Note: The concept of the Permanent Fund is originally championed in 1969 by then-governor Keith Miller and Anchorage Times publisher and editor Robert Atwood.)

Follow-up (24 April 2014)
Many other names come up in various records about the Alaska Permanent Fund and dividend.
For example,
Hugh Malone (Hugh Malone's life taught Alaska true meaning of statesmanship)

"Hugh's primary goal in public service was to make sure the people of Alaska got a fair share out of the enormous bounty of oil wealth created by the discovery of the supergiant Prudhoe Bay oil field on state-owned land.

Hugh would soldier on against apparently impossible odds to win victory after victory. At the beginning of the 1982 session, all the smart money said that the Legislature would never pass a bill that would provide permanent fund dividends equally to all Alaskans -- but with the help of Hugh (then in the minority), Gov. Jay Hammond, and a tiny band of activists, that is the program we have today."

Will Lee Kuan Yew save Singaporeans?

Lee Kuan Yew complains about the low fertility rate:

"If we go on like that, this place will fold up, because there'll be no original citizens left to form the majority, and we cannot have new citizens, new PRs to settle our social ethos, our social spirit, our social norms. So my message is a simple one. The answer is very difficult but the problems, if we don't find the answers, are enormous."

This is one BIG reason. Money.

Compare fertility rate and basic income (child bonus/benefit/allowance) for children between Canada and Singapore.

Canada
Basic Income for each kid: C$80,000. Yes, believe your eyes, eighty thousand Canada dollars.
Children born per woman: 1.59 (CIA estimates for 2012)

Singapore
Basic Income for each kid: S$4,000.
Children born per woman:: 0.78 (CIA estimates for 2012)

Singapore is a resource rich country, but Singaporean kids are not getting much cash from their country.

The solution is very clear, but the government is unwilling to part with the money that rightfully belongs to every citizen. If Singaporean babies get their rightful citizen-ownership income of $9,000 annually, there will be a super baby boom in Singapore.

The options are clear:
(A) Keep growing the reserve and let original Singaporeans disappear from this land called Singapore.
(B) Keep the reserve principal amount, distribute the investment returns and really grow the original Singaporeans.

With Lee Kuan Yew's huge political stature, only he can implement a citizen-ownership democracy to increase fertility rate and save Singaporeans. In this urgent and dire time, when original Singaporeans are fast disappearing, only Lee Kuan Yew can save Singaporeans.

How to Procreate? � icomeiseeisighi

How to Procreate? � icomeiseeisighi

"The population kept dropping to a point of non-replacement, but no one bother? We need to import foreign people to replace us? �This is not a joke to a country that economy seems to be the most important thing. Politicians panic but not the people. What we should do is to find out why. We also knew that the government kept pointing finger at every other things, except the way the issue is managed."


This is one BIG reason. Money.

Compare fertility rate and basic income (child bonus/benefit/allowance) for children between Canada and Singapore.

Canada

Basic Income for each kid: C$80,000. Yes, believe your eyes, eighty thousand Canada dollars.
Children born per woman: 1.59  (CIA estimates for 2012)

Singapore

Basic Income for each kid: S$4,000.
Children born per woman:: 0.78 (CIA estimates for 2012)

Singapore is a resource rich country, but Singaporean kids are not getting much cash from their country.

Canada is a citizen-ownership democracy. Almost.

Canada has Basic Income for children, almost unconditionally.

A child in Canada can get a basic income of more than $82,500 over 18 years. (see calculation below)

Some proposers for a basic capital, e.g. Professor Bruce Ackerman  and Professor Ann Alsott from Yale Law School in their book The Stakeholder Society,  ask for a lump sum payment of $80,000 when a citizen becomes an adult.

"Our basic proposal is straightforward. As young Americans rise to maturity, they should claim a stake of $80,000 as part of their birthright as citizens." (The Stakeholder Society. Professor Bruce Ackerman, Professor Anne Alstott. Yale University Press)

Using this standard, Canada already provides a basic capital, spread over 18 years. To be considered a full citizen-ownership democracy, there is a need to equate citizen-income to money derived from the common wealth of the country, and the citizen income should be unconditional.


Calculation

Child Benefits

(The following is extracted from Canada government website)
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/goc/universal_child_care.shtml

Income 1: The Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) program issues a taxable $100 monthly payment to families for each child under the age of six to help cover the cost of child.

Income 2: The Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) is a tax-free monthly payment made to eligible families to help them with the cost of raising children under age 18. Basic benefit: The basic benefit is $1,405 ($117.08 a month) for each child under age 18 (the basic benefit is different for residents of Alberta, see the note below).There is a supplement of $98 ($8.16 a month) for your third and each additional child.
We subtract a benefit reduction from this amount if your family net income is more than $42,707. For a one-child family, the reduction is 2% of the amount of your family net income that is more than $42,707. For families with two or more children, the reduction is 4%.

Income 3: National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS):

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/cctb/fq_pymnts-eng.html#q7

One-child family: $2,177 a year ($181.41 a month).
Two-child family: $1,926 a year ($160.50 a month).
Three-or-more-child family: $1,832 a year ($152.66 a month).
We subtract a benefit reduction from these amounts if your family net income is more than$24,683. For a one-child family, the reduction is 12.2% of the amount of your family net income that is more than $24,683. For a two-child family, the reduction is 23% of the amount of your family net income that is more than $24,683. For a three-or-more-child family, the reduction is 33.3% of the amount of your family net income that is more than $24,683.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4114/t4114-12e.pdf

Sample Calculation: (assuming family net income is less than $24,683)
Basic monthly amount $107.66
National Child Benefit Supplement monthly amount $181.41
* Alberta Family Employment Tax Credit monthly amount $59.58

UCCB $100 (up to age 6)
Total monthly amount: 448.65
Summary
A child will get a basic income of $448.65 per month up to age 6, and $348.65 per month up to age 18.
In total, a child will get a basic income of more than $82,500 over 18 years.

The 1% welfare state

According to this report,

The Improbable Resilience of Singapore | Solutions: (By John Richardson, Elizabeth Ong)

"Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, ... in 2001 expended more than 13 percent of GDP on welfare, while Singapore expended less than 1 percent."

Current democracies practise extreme taxation, where 100% of every citizen's rightful citizen-ownership income is taxed away. In many democracies, a large part of this taxation gets back to citizens as welfare.

Singapore is a rare case where the "welfare" comes from the citizens' own private money, as described:

"Singapore’s alternative was the Central Provident Fund (CPF), a program of government-mandated savings over which workers had control and which was intended for retirement and home ownership. Like Singapore’s health care system, the CPF system places maximum emphasis on individual discretion, individual responsibility, and the operation of market mechanisms to influence user choices."

The CPF is money contributed by employees and employers, with accounts kept individually for each employee. The money belongs to employees. The CPF also encourages people to use their money in their CPF accounts to buy medical insurance for their relatives.

The use of citizens' private money for government planned "welfare" is also seen in the government's healthcare solution in 2012.

In response to rising healthcare cost, the prime minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, has this solution: increase Medisave. "We've increased the Medisave contributions and I think, when next we have a chance, we should push the Medisave contribution up a little bit more." Medisave is a healthcare insurance paid by employees. In short, in response to rising healthcare cost, more of the employees' private money will be used.

The improbable resilience of Singaporeans.

SINGAPORE SHORT STORIES: Man charged with stealing tins of baby milk powder...

SINGAPORE SHORT STORIES: Man charged with stealing tins of baby milk powder...:
"I read with a tinge of sadness that a 31-year old man has been charged over stealing few tins of baby milk powder at a “Shop-N-Save” outle..."


Not too long ago, it used to be that everyone must pay tax, even if they are penniless. So a poor man would have to sell his wife and children just to pay tax. Since the king or emperor owned the country, the idea of a citizen-ownership income never existed in those times.

Societies have evolved to be just a little bit better. The state taxes away your citizen-ownership income totally, just the same as those kings and emperors. If you don't have other income, you are dead, almost.

Why does a person who has a right to $9,000 annually, need to steal baby milk powder for his baby, who also has a right to $9000 annually? 

If only Singapore has a citizen-ownership democracy. No Singaporean needs to steal milk powder for babies.

Singaporeans should not have to face such a need, given the amount of money that is rightfully theirs.  In other countries, the baby allowance can be a few hundred dollars every month for many years. And Singapore is a resource rich country.

Income inequality. Canadians are worried. What do Singaporeans say?

The Gini coefficient is a common method of telling whether we're all better off. A high Gini coefficient means the richer are much better off and the poor are much poorer.

A common interpretation is that a high Gini coefficient says that we are not all better off. Not just the poor. The rich are also not better off.
A basic income or a citizen-ownership income will go a long way to reduce the Gini coefficient for most countries.

According to the BBC, "A Gini-coefficient of 0.4 is generally regarded as the international warning level for dangerous levels of inequality."

Canada's Gini coefficient is only 0.3+, and the Canadians are worried.

Canadians can challenge income inequality: new Broadbent Institute paper October 2012

"The Environics poll conducted earlier this year shows that Canadians are ready to challenge income inequality: 77% believe that income inequality is a major problem for Canada, and a clear majority – including a majority of Conservative voters – are willing to protect our social programs, even if it means paying higher taxes. 9 out of 10 respondents agreed that reducing income inequality should be a priority for the federal government."

Ed Broadbent on ways to bridge Canada’s growing income gap, and why the [top] one per cent should care

"The evidence from countries all over the world shows that widening gaps in income threaten all of the things that make for a good community. In contrast, societies with greater income equality are generally less violent, healthier, have higher levels of voting, greater social mobility and more prosperity.

That’s the kind of Canada we want. And one that Canadians are willing to pay for. Let’s do it."

In an opinion piece,
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1267780%E2%80%93what-kind-of-canada-do-we-want
Ed Broadbent wrote, "We should seriously debate the concept of a Guaranteed Basic Income that ensures a minimum level of economic security for all, just as we now do for seniors through the Guaranteed Income Supplement."

In comparison, Singapore has a much higher Gini coefficient. Singapore's Gini coefficient has been going up over the years, and has reached 0.473 in 2011. According to Lim Chong Yah, "A Gini coefficient of 0.5 is normally considered a danger to breach." According to the BBC report above, 0.4 is the danger level, and Singapore is already way above the danger level.

In contrast to Canadians, Singaporeans are not worried. Lee Hsien Loong says a higher Gini coefficient could be even better, "'Supposing the world's richest man, Carlos Slim, comes to live in Singapore. The Gini coefficient will get worse. But I think Singapore will be better off. Even for the lower-income Singaporeans, it will be better."

Canada already has a basic income for their elderlies.  In sharp contrast, Singapore elderlies have to eke out a living toiling for monthly wages way below Canada's basic income for their elderlies.

You own the farm � Rethinking the Rice Bowl

You own the farm � Rethinking the Rice Bowl: "In fact this year the government could afford to give a tax rebate or extra spending of $10,000 per Singaporean while not dipping into reserves."

"I have previously proposed privatizing Temasek and GIC and listing them on our stock exchange whereupon they would be required to be open and transparent about their performance. Shares would be distributed to all Singaporeans which you would be encouraged to hold for the long-term. After all their assets ultimately belong to you!"

This is from Kenneth Jeyaretnam's blog last year. He is absolutely correct on the $10,000 estimate. And he is absolutely right about ownership. This is citizen ownership income that rightfully belongs to every citizen. There is the Alaska Permanent Fund example to follow.

Even Animal Farm rightfully belongs to every animal there, not just a few pigs like Napolean or Squealer.

Monkeys are unhappy with inequality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8mynrRd7Ak

Monkeys reject unequal pay
Even monkeys are not happy with unfair treatment. A further point is that the feeling of unhappiness shows only in the monkey being unfairly treated. The better treated monkey happily enjoys his income.

Humans also abhor inequality.

The citizen-ownership democracy aims to address part of the inequality. If rich people enjoy income purely from their ownership rights, why are citizens not enjoying income from their ownership rights? Rich people may own houses and shares, and they get rentals and dividends. Citizens own even more. Citizens own their country (every physical and non-physical part of their country that is not privately owned) and yet receive zero income from their ownership  Alaskans are the only exception.

Humans are more advance than the monkey. Many better treated humans are working to have more for the poorly treated humans. There is a world-wide movement BIEN for basic income - an unconditional regular payment to all citizens. Citizen-ownership provides a foundation to justify and to calculate the amount.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam and Citizen-ownership Democracy

This is from Singapore's Reform Party's manifesto:

"The Reform Party believes that Singapore belongs to its people and that government should serve the people and not the other way around."

Many democratic leaders are saying similar things. The Prime Minister of Singapore says the same also. The actions could be diametrically opposed. The Reform Party has a list of top 19 items that they will do when they form a majority in Parliament. One of the top items is:

"Privatization of Temasek and GIC and distribution of equity to Singaporean citizens of more than five years standing."

The Reform Party clearly is proposing a citizen-ownership democracy, or at least a partial citizen-ownership democracy. The People's Action Party, the governing political party in Singapore, is not in favor of a citizen-ownership democracy,. Its leader says that Singaporeans are not entitled to the country's wealth.

The Reform Party and Kenneth Jeyaretnam should put a dollar value to this item, so that voters can know what to expect. If it is $100 once every five years, then voters can simply ignore it. However, if the number is very much larger, then the Reform Party should make this a top priority election issue.

Just the annual equity return is already very substantial. As estimated here,  if Singapore adopts a citizen-ownership democracy, the potential citizen income is more than $9,000 annually per citizen from babies to elderlies. 

If the Reform Party gets to implement this, poverty will be eradicated in Singapore. The fertility rate problem will also be solved. With $9,000 annually for every baby (every citizen), Singaporeans will be able to raise families without material worries.

Better Off Ted: First Hand Acccount : Population Dialogue Session ...

Better Off Ted: First Hand Acccount : Population Dialogue Session ...: POPULATION DIALOGUE SESSION WITH MINISTERS I was there at the dialogue session, it was so well orchestrated that it felt like a multi-le...

"Where Singapore wants to be in the future?"

I want Singapore to be a citizen-ownership democracy.

Citizens should get citizen income because citizens are owners of Singapore. That is their rightful entitlement. The amount (estimated to be more than $9,000 per citizen per year) is sufficient to really eradicate poverty from Singapore. 

Singapore. Sovereign Wealth Returns. Revised estimate of citizen income.

The citizen-ownership income from sovereign wealth fund investment returns was an underestimate.

The "Net Investment Returns Contribution" is $7.35 billion for FY2010 and $7.78 billion for FY2011.

The Singapore government has given more clarification:

"The Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) comprises up to 50% of the Net Investment Returns on the net assets managed by the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), and up to 50% of the investment income from the remaining assets (which includes Temasek Holdings). For more information on the rules governing how investment returns from Past Reserves can be taken into each year’s Budget for spending, please refer to Section II of “Our Nation’s Reserves” "

So $7 billion is at most 50% of the net investment returns from GIC, MAS and Temasek Holdings. It could be less, even 10%, of the net investment returns. As stated by MOF, Temasek Holdings has $198 billion, MAS has $304 billion, and GIC has well over $100 billion. Let's take the minimum of $600 billion. A 3% return will mean $18 billion in investment returns. But Temasek Holdings has been reporting 15% returns. So TH alone will have $30 billion investment return. It is likely that the declared $7 billion is a small fraction of the net investment returns.

Assuming NIRC is 50% of the net investment returns, the net investment return from sovereign wealth funds would be $14.7 billion in 2010 and $15.56 billion in 2011

If Singapore were a citizen-ownership democracy, its citizens (3.2 million) would have received $4594 in 2010 and $4862 in 2011 per citizen. For a small family of 4, this amount would had been $18375 in 2011 and $19450 in 2011.

If NIRC is a quarter of the net investment returns, the potential citizen-ownership dividend would have been double the estimates above.

Remember that citizens own all the country's common wealth that has not been sold to private entities. There are many common properties that have not been counted in the above estimate.

The estimated citizen income from land sales is $3750 for every citizen. The estimate citizen income from vehicle quota premium is $625 per citizen.

From just 3 sources, the estimated citizen income for 2011 is at least $4862 + $3750 + $625 = $9262 for every citizen from babies to elderlies.

IF Singapore truly recognizes citizen-ownership, there will really be no poverty in Singapore.  $9262 per year per citizen is above poverty line. 

Since Singapore is not a citizen-ownership democracy, the rightful income that every citizen is entitled to as a co-owner of Singapore has been appropriated into the state treasury. If a young child is suffering from lack of food, that is because his $9,000 has been appropriated into the state treasury. If an old woman is eking out a living as a cleaner earning a wage of $400 per month, that is because her $9,000 has been appropriated into the state treasury.

Americans' chance for a citizen-ownership democracy. The Green Party's offer.

Alaska has partial citizen-ownership democracy for a few decades. Every year, every Alaskan gets a thousand dollars or more just from being a resident in Alaska and a co-owner of their oil wealth.

Do Americans want a citizen-ownership income? The chance is here.

If they want, they should vote for the Green Party. The Green Party of the United States.

This is taken from the Green Party Platform:


D. Livable Income

We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.

1. We call for a universal basic income (sometimes called a guaranteed income, negative income tax, citizen's income, or citizen dividend). This would go to every adult regardless of health, employment, or marital status, in order to minimize government bureaucracy and intrusiveness into people's lives. The amount should be sufficient so that anyone who is unemployed can afford basic food and shelter. State or local governments should supplement that amount from local revenues where the cost of living is high.

The Green Party's Presidential candidate is Dr. Jill Stein.  http://www.jillstein.org/

Are the Americans so captivated by debate words, those of Obama and Romney, that they will forgo cash dividends year after year?

If only every country, UK, India, Canada, Switzerland, Brazil, Singapore, Malaysia, Germany, France, etc., has a political party that offers citizen income on its political platform.

The future of the country belongs to you. Yes. The present too.

Singapore's acting minister Chan Chun Sing told a group of young people, "The future of this country belongs to you."

Chairman Mao told a group of young Chinese the same thing in 1957, "China's future belongs to you."

Alaskans are even more idealistic. The young ones, even babies, own Alaska right now. They don't have to wait for the future.

Alaska pays an annual dividend to every resident regardless of age, as reported in the Alaska Dispatch:
"The oldest applicant was 107 years old, and the youngest was born "minutes before" the qualification deadline on December 31, 2011."

The future is here. For Alaskans.

The future is always in the future. Own your country now.

Citizen Education: It’s time we realised India’s mineral wealth belongs to its people, not to the politicians | Chetan Bhagat

It’s time we realised India’s mineral wealth belongs to its people, not to the politicians | Chetan Bhagat:

   "The political parties are managers of the nation’s assets, not owners."

It is urgent that citizens have an good education that they are owners of their countries, not just in politician's slogans, but in cold hard cash.

The Alaska model of citizen-ownership democracy has been very well hidden from citizens around the world.

Few people ever heard of this. And even fewer ever dream of getting any income from their citizen wealth. But this is a dream worth dreaming. A citizen-ownership income can eradicate poverty.

In Singapore, a citizen-ownership income is expected to be more than $6000 a year for every citizen. This income will allow individuals to live with dignity.

For a household of 4 members, the expected citizen-ownership income is expected to be more than $26,000 a year. In comparison, there were 240,000 households (26% of total households) who earned less than $24,000 in 2000.

If I may add to the story by Chetan Bhagat, the managers (politicians) are controlling the "huge jewellery shop full of precious ornaments and family treasures", keeping any revenue or profit in the opaque accounts while the family members (citizens) are starving. 

We're All Better Off When We're All Better Off - Rich Barton | HopperandDropper.com

We're All Better Off When We're All Better Off - Rich Barton | HopperandDropper.com

This statement is from a book called The Gardens of Democracy.

What Basic Income, Basic Capital, and Citizen-ownership Democracy want to achieve is precisely these. Getting everybody better off.

There are many perspectives on why citizens should get regular income/dividend from their countries.

1. Human dignity. No one should have to live in abject poverty when the country is prosperous.
2. Welfare.
3. Citizen-ownership rights. Citizens have the right to regular incomes from their share of the common wealth in their countries.
4. Economics. Such income will stimulate the economy.
5. Eradicating poverty.
6. Justice. As the Pope has said, people deserve money from their being (being citizens and owners of their countries), not just from their acting.
7. Stability. A big mass of people in poverty is an invitation for a revolution.

Not everybody agrees with this statement. Some believes that the rich should get richer while the poor get poorer. One argument, put forward by the rich, is that if the rich don't get richer, the poor will get very much poorer. Can the rich and the poor both get richer?

Is Najib Razak turning Malaysia into a citizen-ownership democracy?

Malaysia is giving money to individuals and households, with very little conditions. It is not near the unconditional citizen-ownership income or the unconditional basic income, but it is on the way there.

In 2011, Malaysia's 2012 budget gives the following, called 1Malaysia People's Aid (BR1M):

Low-income household
One-off RM500 cash assistance for households earning 3,000 per month and below
One-off RM100 schooling assistance for primary and secondary school students from age 6 to 16, up to Form 5
One-off RM200 book vouchers for students of private and public tertiary institution, and Form 6.

In 2012, Malaysia 2013 budget gives even more, called BR1M 2.0. In version 2.0, unmarried individuals are also given cash.

According to thestar.com.my

"Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, in tabling Budget 2013 last Friday, announced BR1M 2.0, a second one-off payment of RM500 for households earning less than RM3,000 per month. He also announced that BR1M 2.0 was extended to cover single unmarried individuals aged 21 and above earning not more than RM2,000 per month, with a single one-off payment of RM250."

If Malaysia keeps BR1M every year, and extend it to more and more people, it could evolve into a partial citizen-ownership democracy.

Quotes and Thoughts: Pussy Riots: Words to think about...

Quotes and Thoughts: Pussy Riots: Words to think about...: …people in our country have lost the sense that this country belongs to us, its citizens. They no longer have a sense of themselves as citi...

Think.
Citizen means ownership means citizen income. Political and economic power in the hands of every citizen.

Lee Hsien Loong and Citizen-ownership Democracy.

Before the general election in May 2011, Lee Hsien Loong told voters, "Singapore belongs to you." This is reported by Channelnewsasia. (Here is another link from asiaone.)

Abraham Lincoln also said that the United States belong to their people, in his Inaugural address in 1862:

     "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it."

It took the Americans more than 100 years since Lincoln's speech before one state, Alaska, implements true ownership. Residents in Alaska have been getting annual income from being owners of Alaska.

Do Singaporeans have to wait 100 years before they can get annual incomes from being owners of Singapore?

There is hope. There is a world-wide movement for citizen right to a basic income just for being citizens in their countries. Brazil is doing it. Switzerland is doing it. Canada is doing it. Germany Merkel is talking it.  Macau is doing it. Mongolia is doing it. Alaska has already done it.

Even Singapore's neighbor Malaysia is doing it.

This Patriotic American: That oil belongs to US, Mr Obama

This Patriotic American: That oil belongs to US, Mr Obama: I have been advocating the paying of royalties directly to the citizens of the US ever since I found out that Alaska does this, about 6 mont...


There is hope. Every citizen needs to know that he is the owner of his country - and that means a citizen-ownership income in cold hard cash. Regularly and unconditionally.

Chancellor Merkel. Everyone has to live off his work. Really?

"Chancellor Merkel used her answer to make a point against the unconditional basic income that some in Germany have called for. Everyone had to try and live off their work, she said, pointing out that generally, there was a lot of flexibility on today’s job market." From Basic Income News.

This is a common argument used by people against the idea of a basic income. People must work to earn money. How can people get money for free? From the view of current democracies, this seems like a fair enough argument.

However, from the perspective of a citizen-ownership democracy, this argument is just not valid. Look at the owners of properties, or owners of shares in companies. Do these owners work to get their monies? No. And the country's laws will make sure that renters pay rent. Thus, it is not true that everyone lives off his or her work. The very rich can live off their ownership rights.

Citizens are being short-changed. They are owners of their country. Yet they get nothing from their ownership (except Alaskans). Just like the very rich who own properties and shares, citizens too own many properties and other forms of wealth in their country. Just like the very rich who receive monies from being owners, citizens too should receive monies from being owners of their country.

There is strong support from the Pope, who believes that justice "prompts us to give the other what is “his”, what is due to him by reason of his being or his acting." Money for acting (working) is only half the justice. The other half is money for being citizen owners.

What is happening in current democracies is that the rightful citizen-ownership income has been 100% taxed and (mis)appropriated into the state treasury. Citizens need to be educated that ownership means money. Citizen-ownership income is not a tax of the rich to pay to the poor. It is a share of the monies generated when a country's common wealth is transferred to private entities. When a country's oil is sold to private companies, that revenue should belong to all citizens. When a country's electromagnetic bandwidth is sold to telecommunication companies, that revenue should belong to all citizens. When a state sells land parcels to private entities, that revenue should belong to all citizens. Any sale/lease by the state of common properties to private entities, that money should belong to all citizens.

Fox News Praises the Alaska Model | Alaska Dividend Blog

Fox News Praises the Alaska Model | Alaska Dividend Blog:

'O’Reilly began by saying, “It is my contention that we, the people, own the gas and oil discovered in America. It’s our land, and the government administers it in our name.”

Later, Dobbs added (as O’Reily nodded and voiced agreement), “All of the vast energy reserves in this country belong to us, as you said. In Alaska there’s a perfect model for what we should do as a nation."'

Politicians all over the world have been saying that countries belong to their citizens. Only in one state has that slogan been translated into real cash.

Different Perspective: Are you a citizen or owner of your country?

Different Perspective: Are you a citizen or owner of your country?: “Wewe ni mwenye- inchi au mwana- inchi?” This question is from the Swahili language widely spoken in the East Africa region. In Engl...

Here is an interesting perspective on merely citizens or owners of your country. From Africa. Here are the first few lines.

“Wewe ni mwenye- inchi au mwana- inchi?”

This question is from the Swahili language widely spoken in the East Africa region. In English, its translation is as follows; “Are you the owner of your country or are you just a citizen?” 

I should add that you are the real owner only if you see your citizen-ownership income coming in year after year. Just like in Alaska.

Alaska - another round of citizen-ownership income

Alaska announces another round of dividend for all residents: US$878. This is the citizen-ownership income, derived from part of Alaska's oil revenue.

This is what the Frank Gerjevic says in Anchorage Daily News, in Sep 2012:

"The dividend has sealed our status as an owner state, giving yearly, tangible, kitchen-table evidence that our resources are indeed owned in common and to be developed for the benefit of us all."

And the dividend goes to every resident regardless of age, as reported in the Alaska Dispatch:
"The oldest applicant was 107 years old, and the youngest was born "minutes before" the qualification deadline on December 31, 2011."

This is what citizen-ownership democracy is about. A political power - your vote. An economic power - the citizen income from common ownership of the country. Political and economic powers must go hand-in-hand for each and every citizen. Current democracy (mis)appropriated the economic power into the state, leaving big segments of their citizens in poverty.

A citizen-ownership income can eradicate poverty.