That's a good start.
Daily or hourly uploads aren't real-time though. Why not just be fully real-time? Would an overnight allow for catching errors?
Why an average within the basket? If you have a defined basket, then the sum would be enough. Did it go up or down and by what percentage, yes? Why do we want to rule out outliers? If we keep them, we're better reflecting everything, aren't we?
How difficult would it be to handle all transactions of an industrial and consumer-goods-and-services nature sans financial speculation?
How do we deal with speculation influencing commodity prices? Futures have been highly contaminated by market manipulators using high frequency trading and the machinations of quants on behalf of the hyper-greedy "investment" banksters. Don't we get rid of finance capitalism altogether?
As for taxation to work in real-time, we would need every account to be reduced by an equal percentage. This truly would be sharing the pain but also the gain. If productivity remains real as opposed to the hocus-pocus of the derivatives markets, then we'd have vastly more gain across-the-board than setbacks.
The government would be issuing currency directly into the economy via public works and other government spending. If the projects are productive streams, it would be a boon for everyone beyond the wildest imaginations of most people.
More to the point though is that this is why I initially asked about whether we need the system to be economy-wide. We need more than seller data for real-time. We need buyer and seller account access. It would be the public bank, the US Treasury, controlling the supply in real-time.
In addition, we need to consider the velocity of money in terms of productive gains and losses, don't we? We're most interested in price inflation. People sitting on money is different. Reducing the total amount even though it's not all circulating seems to be an area that would need refinement.
"...the government would not get away with modifying the code behind the scenes in order to give themselves more money, thus creating inflation." I believe that the issue is with where the money is spent as opposed to "more money" per se. The supply must be exactly pegged to real productivity desired (voted for at every level) or we won't see growth. We must drive for growth in real productivity, sustainable productivity, healing productivity and all with an eye to increasing the quality of life for everyone. This would be Economic Democracy.
"No software would need to be run on anyone's home computers or handheld devices." The only reason I was thinking about this was in anticipation of handling all transactions rather than a basket of goods (where so many factors change), including people doing garage sales, and such (certainly not as Big Brother though but rather the exact opposite for once).
I should think that quality of life versus the value of a dollar is the simplest expression. Innovation will garner great quality of life if done right, but the supply must grow to accommodate people's buying (really sharing in the bounty). This is where real productivity loops back in.
So, I'm hoping others and you will map the big picture with this overarching view in mind as the target.
What I envision would render tax returns, per se, moot.
"All the sales data minus the name of the seller would all be public and downloadable so that the public could check it for outliers or for manipulation attempts by corrupt businesses." If we can bring more economic democracy to business and make business subject to more daylight and if we can get society at-large to self-promote cooperation for the shared benefit of all, we will have gone a long way to reducing the mentality that seeks to corrupt.
Beware the "angry bankers." That's wise advice. Ultimately, I see no need for commercial banks if the economy is sufficiently democratized.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)