“Reality is all that you perceive it to be.”
“The battle for the mind of North America will be fought in the video arena: the Videodrome. The television screen is the retina of the mind's eye. Therefore, the television screen is part of the physical structure of the brain. Therefore, whatever appears on the television screen emerges as raw experience for those who watch it. Therefore, television is reality, and reality is less than television.”
“Your reality is already HALF video hallucination. If you're not careful, it will become TOTAL hallucination. You'll have to learn to live in a very strange new world.”
Doctor Brian O’Blivion from VIDEODROME
“Death and Taxes” are stated to be the only certainties of human existence. With respect to Taxes the phrase never states that taxes are intelligently applied.
Human beings are ultimately an animal species. Whether the human species has a “soul” or not and what religious system may or may not be “the Way” are subject to debate. The point is that there are currently inside the United States 300+ million people and around the globe there are 7+ billion people. Everyone will die some day and everyone is subject to some form of taxation to manage a system of government. The issue is not what Systems exist today. The issue is what future Systems Design to accommodate the population in each country and also globally is a Systems Design that makes sense.
The most efficient cost effective systems are Systems Designed using the Keep It Simple & Stupid (KISS) principle. The effect of a System Design that is not predicated upon the KISS principle is evidenced in the United States. The example used is the legislation titled the Affordable Care Act (ACA) \ “Obamacare.” ACA is not Systems Designed around the KISS principle and therefore it will ultimately fail. This failure is played out in media as there are continuous upgrades to the legislation being conducted by fiat of the Executive Office of the Administrative Branch. If the ACA actually were achieving a proper Systems Design the fiats would not be necessary. The ACA is just another series of Byzantine layers added to an already Byzantine System that has been built over time.
Evidence of how the Byzantine nature of the “pre-ACA” Systems Design is made more Byzantine by the implementation of the ACA Systems Design can be seen by using some Common Sense. All that is required is to remove one’s personal bias.
The United States has a government entity titled the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that “scores” the economic impact of legislation with respect to the legislation that is sought to be passed. The CBO scored the ACA as “deficit neutral” which means that the CBO issued an opinion that the passage of ACA would not increase the deficit of the United States. By using a little Common Sense one can see how stupid any belief in such a “score” is.
The ACA is 1,500+ pages of text that provides a bounty of economic assumptions. These economic assumptions are all unknown unknowns. It is impossible to know what the actual experience rate of insurance policies will be over a 10 year period. It is impossible to know what the taxes to be collected from the various taxes imposed will be over a 10 year period. It is impossible to list all the assumed economic unknown unknowns within ACA without completely boring the reader. Yet, in theory, in a 3 day period, the CBO “scored” the ACA as “deficit neutral.”
Within ACA there are a variety of clauses that allow for the issuance of regulations. Over the last few years the regulations have been issued. The regulations currently create a stack of paper well over 10 feet tall. Just one of the regulations is a mandate that all future health insurance policies issued in the United States must contain “coverage” (i.e. “expense”) for contraceptives. Whether one is for or against the contraceptive mandate is irrelevant to the point. The point is that there is no way that the CBO could have known that the ACA would mandate this expense as the ACA did not explicitly contain this expense so how could the CBO “score” the ACA as “deficit neutral” when not only the contraceptive mandate was unknown but also a 10 foot tall stack of additional regulations?
The Common Sense answer is that it is impossible for CBO to have accurately scored the ACA yet the CBO provided a scoring that has been used to promote the ACA for passage. This is the epitome of the Byzantine Pineapple! A Byzantine system of government bureaucracies exists making proclamations about proposed and existing legislations…proclamations that are the fantasy of unknown unknowns.
So…the prior established System of using CBO is a Byzantine decision rule system that provides ultimately useless data. This system now has ACA added on top of it making the system even more Byzantine but ultimately providing useless data. Those who are inside the skin of the Pineapple partake of the fruit and those who are not inside the skin are thwarted from partaking of the fruit.
The proclamations that were made will never become reality. The proclamations made were and continue to be played out in the Videodrome. “Television is reality, and reality is less than television.” The proclamations are “half hallucination.” If one is not careful this half hallucination becomes total hallucination and one lives in a “strange new world.”
The CBO\ACA example used is specific to the United States but the conceptual example applies to countries \The UN around the globe. New programs and initiatives and taxes are issued that build more layers upon already Byzantine Systems constructed of Unknown Unknowns. Those who profit from such Byzantine Systems are those in the position inside the skin of the Pineapple.
This is Systems Analysis of the current structure of the current socio-legal-economic-political systems in place. Ask yourself this question: If a more efficient cost effective System that incorporates the KISS principle is to be designed then what will it look like?
If a more efficient cost effective System that incorporates the KISS principle can be designed then the only issue remaining is how to accomplish implementation of such a system. Ask yourself this question: What political party in existence has such a Systems Design that is presented to the public for implementation over a period of years?
The answer is that there is NO such plan presented to the public. Yet...as is evidenced by the proposed 75% tax rate in France or the call for “lower taxes and less government” from Tea Party groups globally and from all the other Byzantine proposals put forth by political parties and governments globally…humans are willing to believe in daily stimuli presented as fact without asking themselves why they believe that the stimuli data is factual. Absent a clearly defined plan that follows the KISS principle that the vast majority of the populace in any country can understand than how can any human believe in any of the stimuli data received?
Designing a system requires parameters to be established. The next section defines parameters for a Systems Design for a Flat Tax System that ties Government Spending to Government Revenue. The United States Federal Government budget is used as the example but the Systems Design can be used by any level of Government (local, state\province\etc. or Federal\Parliamentary\etc) in any country. Arguments can be made pro and con with respect to certain aspects of the Systems Design but the “Top Down Design” as structured works without major tweaking.
Systems Design Parameters
Parameter #1: A System designed to ELIMINATE Unknown Unknowns as much as possible
One parameter is the elimination of economic unknown unknowns from the System Design. This means a Systems Design that is not based upon Employment\Unemployment Rates or Future Interest\Inflation Rates. This concept of a Systems Design is an alien concept to modern Macroeconomic concepts and this ties back to the original question in The Byzantine Pineapple of why anyone should believe that the daily stimuli data of receiving and tracking monthly reports about such data is even necessary to function for the purposes of Government.
Parameter #2: A System designed to treat Citizens equally
The United States of America Declaration of Independence states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
This statement contains the second parameter of Systems Design. The parameter is a Systems Design that treats people equally.
Parameter #3: A System designed for the benefit of “Citizens”
A 3rd parameter is that the System Design is considered to be for the benefit of Citizens of a country or area of designation. Non-Citizens can be addressed in any region but each non-Citizen needs to have some form of designated status instead of being an orphan record. Non-Citizens are either enrolled to receive Citizenship or they are not enrolled to receive citizenship. If non-Citizens are not enrolled to receive citizenship then there is some form of status that must be applied to the individual (work Visa, travel Visa, etc). Excuses for not having any status at all are not allowed.
Parameter #4: The single “Big Brother” Database of Citizens
A 4th parameter is that the Systems Design requires some form of “Big Brother” database. The Systems Design issue is that the database construction and use respects the concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence of treating Citizens with “equality” while also allowing for “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Current Systems in the US Federal Government have a multitude of databases of Citizens and Non-Citizens. These databases all receive separate maintenance and these databases ultimately end up with conflicting data about citizens. These databases need to be collapsed into 1 unifying database that is managed by a new Department of Information Systems.
Parameter #5: A System that balances Government Revenue to Government Spending
A 5th parameter is that Government Revenue is balanced to Government Spending via the Macro Economic formula. Ask yourself this question: have you ever seen a Macro Economic Formula that ties Government Revenue to Government Spending? Ultimately the answer is no because there is no desire on the part of those in positions of control or influence to tie Government Spending to Government Revenue. Take some time and think about that concept and think about what the inherent implications of what this means. It inherently means that politicians have no controls over their looting the public treasury and bankrupting future generations.
“Needs Based Social Welfare Systems”
Currently in the United States and in other countries there is a great schism in society between two competing groups that have many different labels. Some of these labels are “the Right and the Left”; “the Capitalists and the Socialists”; “the Haves and the Have-Nots”; ”the Communists and The Free Marketers”…and other “marketing buzzword conflicts.” Ask yourself this question: What makes one group “correct” and the other group “incorrect”?
There are 7+ billion people on Planet Earth. In the United States there are 300+ million people. In Europe there are 700+ million people. It can be assumed with reason that the vast majority of people have never read economic texts in detail. It can be assumed that the vast majority of people have not read political science texts in great detail. Yet if one is to ask people around the globe their opinion of “Capitalism” or “Socialism” the people will very likely reply with strong opinion that “one system is good and the other system is bad”…even though the people really don’t know what they are talking about!
“Capitalism” and “Socialism” as defined in economic texts really do not exist in the countries around the globe. There are aspects of each economic system in use but the reality is that a variety of different economic theorems are used around the globe to affect socio-legal-economic-political systems in the various countries around the globe. Ask yourself this question: Why do people around the globe vehemently believe in the terms Capitalism and Socialism when neither system is truly in existence?
An opinion of the answer is that people want to believe that somewhere in the nebulous of humanity are beings akin to The Architect in The Matrix Trilogy. People want to believe that there is a clearly defined master Architectural System titled “Capitalism” or “Socialism” and that the Architect of each Macro Economic concept holds the key to ultimate human prosperity and equality. This ties back to the original question of how do people determine what they believe to be fact?
Ask yourself this question: Why do people believe that either Capitalism or Socialism or Communism or each new Needs Based or Social Welfare program introduced will actually make life better for an individual or a country?
An opinion of the partial answer is that people want to believe that the socio-legal-economic-political systems in countries around the globe (and via The United Nations) treats people “equally” and gives people a “fair chance” in life. Absent the presentation of any other Systems Design people cling to beliefs that have been shown not to be factual.
A “Systems Analysis” of the Social Welfare systems that have evolved is that the current systems are primarily designed around the somewhat nebulous concept of “needs based systems.” A “needs based systems” is a system where some form of governmental entity makes decisions about the “needs\lack of needs” of the Citizenry to make decisions about the doling out of public funds.
The issue is that “needs based systems” are ultimately doomed to fail. This failure is evidenced by the following programmatic events that occur with respect to “needs based systems”:
a) A “needs based system” requires adding Byzantine Layers of bureaucracy which adds cost and inefficiencies in operation of the “needs based systems.”
b) Citizens are not treated equal by a “needs based systems.” The “needs based system” segregates citizens into different categories.
c) The categories sorting method of the “needs based system” ultimately is modified over time. This modification process adds more Byzantine layers to the original “needs based system” categorization process.
d) By their very nature “needs based systems” are not deigned to eliminate “needs.” “Needs based systems” perpetually require a continuously morphing Byzantine “decision rules set” to continuously make decisions about “needs” as the political parties in charge of the governmental systems change over time. The system is therefore about perpetuation of the “needs based systems” rather than “needs” elimination.
e) “Needs based systems” do not provide 100% Quality Control. “Needs based systems” always have 4 kinds of “red ping pong balls” of error inside the systems. “Needs based systems” always have:
1) User fraud of individuals or cartels that seek to profit from submitting false data to receive the capital being distributed by the “needs based system.”
2) Political capital\largesse fraud. Political parties manipulate “needs based systems” for internal fraud as well as to both buy votes and re-pay political favors to donors to the Political Parties.
3) Natural System error. Any individuals “needs” change over time but the Systems Design of “needs based systems” is not prepared to track and account for changes in the “needs\lack of needs” of hundreds of millions (let alone billions) of Citizens. The simplest example is the “needy” person who wins the big capital lottery. An “income based needs system” is prone to not recognizing that the lottery winner theoretically no longer “has a need” because of a suddenly large asset base.
4) Conflicting “needs based systems” that do not account for Citizens actions a whole with respect to the variety of “needs based systems” that a Government has created. Each individual “needs based system” is actually a sub-system to a macro-economic total system. The more individual sub-systems in place the more sub-systems that a Citizen can apply to for “needs based assistance.” The more sub-systems in place the more Byzantine the decision rule making process becomes to track the Citizen. The more each individual “needs based sub-system” morphs over time the more the tracking sub-systems for each “needs based subsystem” must morph over time to account for all the changes that have occurred. This epitomizes The Byzantine Pineapple. As time moves forward the systems become more Byzantine.
Ask yourself this question: What is sought to be accomplished by all the various “Needs based systems” that Governments create? The answer needs to be defined in clear specific terms rather than “nebulous buzzwords.”
This Systems Analyst perceives that the “needs based systems” are what are also termed “social welfare systems.” The terminology is irrelevant; what are relevant are the goals to be accomplished. At the very simplistic core there are 3 basic goals that are sought by governmental “needs based systems\social welfare systems”:
1) Insure that all citizens have enough capital to exist on a daily basis
2) Insure that all citizens are provided basic “health care.” Note: “Health care” is not “Health Insurance.”
3) Insure that all citizens have an addressed place to call home that has the basic needs necessary for survival (heat, power, basic appliances).
It really is that simple. The new Systems Design needs to have the 3 goals above as additional parameters.
Chapter 4: The Flat Tax Formula
The following Flat Tax Formula is modeled after the United States Federal Government model. Implementing the model over the long term meets the parameters specified for the Systems Design. The succeeding chapters of The Byzantine Pineapple explain the features of the Flat Tax Formula in greater detail as well as providing an implementation plan for The Flat Tax Formula. The impact of the Flat Tax Formula with respect to the legal systems in use is also explained in more detail in succeeding chapters.
Flat Tax Rate% = (S% ) + (SS% ) + (H% ) + (L% ) + (D%) + (I% ) + (M% ) + (E% ) + (VA% ) + (ST% ) + (DHS% ) + (EY% ) + (J% ) + (A% ) + (N% ) + (NIP% ) + (T% ) + (TRE% ) + (INTER% ) + (LBR% ) + (CE% ) + (ACE% )+ (EPA% )+ (NSF% )+ (SB% )+ (CNS% ) + (IS% )
The Sum of all the various %’s is the Flat Tax Rate.
The Definitions of the Flat Tax Sub Rates are
Economic “Unknown Unknowns” of The Flat Tax Formula
1) S% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund a universally equal Redistribution of Wealth to all Citizens.
2) SS% is defined as the % of PTD required to “resolve” all current outstanding Social Security obligations as the system is “phased out.” In theory this should be 0% for the program is designed to “pay for itself.”
3) H% is defined as the % of PTD required Health Care for Citizens.
4) L% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to paying for living quarters for Citizens who opt for the Public Housing Zone Option.
Economic “Knowns” of The Flat Tax Formula
a) I% is defined as the % of PTD required to make Interest Payments on the US debt.
b) D% is defined as the % of PTD required to Pay down a portion of the US debt.
c) M% is defined as the % of PTD used to fund the Military Department.
d) E% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund Education.
e) VA% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund Veteran Affairs.
f) ST% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund The State Department.
g) DHS% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
h) EY% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund the Department of Energy.
i) % is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund the Justice Department.
j) A% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund Agriculture.
k) N% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund NASA.
l) NIP% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund National Intelligence Program.
m) T% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund Transportation.
n) TRE% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to fund the Department of Treasury.
o) INTER% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to Fund the Depart of Interior.
p) LBR% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to Fund the Depart of Labor.
q) CE% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to the Commerce Department.
r) ACE% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to Fund the Army Corps of Engineers.
s) INTER% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to Fund the Depart of Interior.
t) EPA% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to Fund the Environmental Protection Agency.
u) NSF% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to Fund the National Science Foundation.
v) SB% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to Fund the Small Business Administration.
w) CNS% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to Fund the Corps for National Service.
x) IS% is defined as the % of PTD dedicated to Department of Information Systems.
Chapter 5: Assumptions of the Future Flat Tax after full implementation
1) PTD is defined as a population of total tax dollars available. PTD for prior years is an economic known.
2) PTD assumes Payroll Taxes have been eliminated and replaced with a flat tax rate.
3) PTD assumes Federal Fees and Taxes on the population have been eliminated.
4) PTD assumes that the Health Care Insurance industry is eliminated and replaced by having the Federal Government make direct payments to providers for medical expenses.
5) An Annual method of % recalculation exists
