Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
Pin It

Philanthropy in Sustainable Community DevelopmentsHow is it possible to pay for all of the services that are granted to us by our dear leaders and our illustrious representatives in government? (Is the sarcasm literally dripping from that statement?) By and large, the basic principle has been to tax the producers to provide for those that cannot or do not produce or otherwise become productive and contributing members of societyi.

While it is a little known fact, before the days of the robber barons, the corporate structure was decidedly different in the USA. Effectively, what is being proposed here is little more than a variation of the original principles of the Republic of the independent but united States of America in regards to corporate interests which many of the Founders and Framers feared would destroy the republic if not kept in check.

In short, the financial proceeds from the Corporation would be largely reinvested back into the community development. Though what of the costs of government? Is government, when properly enacted, not a service of and for the people?

Now none of the founding members believe for even an instant that such a practice is going to be easy to implement or conveniently replace the often overbearing and even oppressive tax structures in some areas of the world, though in some locations, and within a more limited set of parameters, the implementation of a program such as this is very practical and equally possible … if not probable.

If anyone can work to restrain government from expanding well beyond its original and intended reach, it is those who pay the salaries of government agents and agencies. If the corporations are paying for the government, and the people are the shareholders of said corporate entities … the government will inevitably be held directly to account, and if they are not, the shareholders will demand reasons as to why not. The shareholders … or the citizenry as it were, will have direct access to hold both the corporations and the government to account as well, given the presence and enforceable nature of the Ombudsman Program and the Citizen Review Board.

Such a system would reduce necessary taxation of the people to a federal system of taxation, if that too were not borne by the corporations as wellii. Thus, it would be possible for the people to keep what they earn. This also extends out into the oncoming … already occurring technological and automation revolution. Under such a system, the proceeds of the corporation would still benefit the corporation and their key personnel, but would also ensure the continuation of the customer base which is necessary to justify the existence of the corporation to begin withiii.

Those people that do work, should not be burdened by oppressive taxes any more than those who do not should be starved to death, but again, it requires a very delicate balance and an integrated and adaptive approach to create such a system … and it is in every sense of the word, a complex system.

When it comes to utilities, the provision of basic housing and utilities is a basic function of the community, though again, one that can be provided through a strategic investment program and accounts established for the purpose of payment of the costs associated with the provision of community utilities and services. Such a system will take a lifetime or more to construct, but it is distinctly possible to accomplish with the proper motivation in place. If the current evidence of poverty and violence and environmental destruction is not in and of itself a sufficiently motivating factor, the rioting masses when automation rules the day may help to finally turn the tide towards a new system.


i It should be noted that government does not in fact, create anything. Rather, government always has been a drain on productivity. While some may ridicule or otherwise criticize such an observation, government does not, by definition create or otherwise productively contribute to society. Government is force and coercion … albeit necessary to some degree, though it certainly should not be seen as the final solution.

ii Working within the current state of governance, such a system will not be possible, though working through the indigenous and/or aboriginal people, such a setup may in fact be very possible. Ideally, there should be no personal income tax burden upon the workers, in full accordance with Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Service Code and a host of other laws protecting the people from such oppression, though the governments would still require funding. However, under such a system, with the people given an ultimate, albeit weighted voice against both governments and corporations, if these were also limited to the payment of tax liabilities, it would be substantially easier for the people to retain control over both the corporate interests and the governing body to the extent that they would still be allowed to function, but would not be given the opportunity to oppress.

iii There is still a great deal of ongoing debate about the impact of automation on stock markets and other trade platforms and exchanges, though it is fairly safe to say that trades and exchanges will continue to be a vital role for economic and financial stability in all aspects of the continuation of the species and the preservation of society … no matter who … or what may actually be conducting the trades.

Return to the Table of Contents for Whole System Sustainable Development

Let us know what you think please!

Pin It