The Basic Income Suplement

Basic analogy in simpler terms, scale the country to the family who owns the house where some evil family members decided to start charging rent other family members to pay for which they force them to do work that only deemed valuable to the controlling group who then decide how much of the rent "credits" is paid out to whom, and if some family members refused to work and pay they are starved and thrown out of their rooms onto the streets. Is this how normal family business functions? God be the judge who deserves what.

Instead of using Guaranteed Minimum Income, more accurate term is basic income suplement, i.e. to make sure that all members of society, as in the family, have the basic human rights and survival needs adequate for the human dignity and wellbeing and legally binding according to the UN Human Rights, specifically article 25, national charter rights, and also according to the morals and effics in collective sharing of natural resources that each citizen represents and each human being does as well as the creation of God in God's good world, where only God has true ownership of the land, air, water, fire and all of the creation.

From God all comes and to God it shalt return. Pride, envy, greed, anger are called the deadly sins for a good reason. Fear not, there is no free lunch in the world, everything comes with the price and consequences of the choices made. After all, the Golden Rule, treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. Be fair and just, and allow room for growth, learning, and improvement in the ways of the Divine love, truth, and peace, for at the end of the life's journey only the souls without the ego can make it through the St. Peter's Gates.

Also, the whole idea of the negative tax theory and the guaranteed minimum income suplement was developed by the conservative Milton Friedman "an American economist who received the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his research on consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and the complexity of stabilization policy."

Reason being for it is that it is much cheaper to give poor money to maintain overall social stability and progressive growth of the individuals and the collective as a whole.

We are talking about that people should and must get what their rightful share of the collective wealth, rights, and freedoms, and maintain their freedoms and rights and what is their own personal interest, property, self determination and expression. It is not about giving people what they don't deserve, rather the opposite, the people getting what is rightfully theirs.

Then they can decide if they want to be lazy and do fuck all or get a job or career doing what they truly want and/or need, instead of being forced through coercion, deception, thievery, and criminal conspiracy to enslave and subjugate them by the very few shadow elites.

Live! Prosper! Be Well!