Angel Ronan SHOKUNIN Reports: There is a roadblock to the fulfillment of the law as to the provision of Consumer Money benefits; an emotional and cultural one. All government benefits programs must be known and knowable under the law especially when public funds are being dispensed.We cannot have secret programs where some creature or cadre of creatures does not want us to really see the program or it's availability; that the consumer money benefit has to be more of a treasure hunt like a dog or bear foraging for a food or a bone; or to the content of the West Indian marooned in the 6th generation ( with his techy government phone company job used to interrupt system expectations) you will see some people have resources and see some who do not. So they make it spurious, difficult. To save lives in the current milieu, the government and it's retail partners could update point of sale terminals to accept Health Card numbers at hotels and major supermarkets. It could be entered on-line on transit ticket portals to pay for tickets until the government is resolved to run a normal benefit system pursuant to law in Canada that pays the consumer money benefit to all citizens and who would resent the fulfillment of the law in this context? Apparently, Ontario is adopting this quick "minutes to solve it" update with their various stake holder partners. Hotel transactions up to 30 days in reservation is accepted. Other transactions are limited to $190.00 per day on the card as promised allegedly by the current football fan Premier. This is a 24 month agreement. After that, it is expected that payments will be made to all Ontario citizens in the new plan at $6000.00 per month. You will be able to log in online at "My Ontario.ca etc" and see your payment and opt for a payment frequency on a weekly, daily, or monthly basis. Canada is the United Kingdom. All European systems follow this model with the availability of the health card to be used as payment as a back up when bank cards could get lost or you were mugged at a local swimming pool. There are too many victims of this kind.

Angel Ronan SHOKUNIN Reports:

There is a roadblock to the fulfillment of the law as to the provision of Consumer Money benefits; an emotional and cultural one.   All government benefits programs must be known and knowable under the law especially when public funds are being dispensed.We cannot have secret programs where some creature or cadre of creatures does not want us to really see the program or it's availability; that the consumer money benefit has to be more of a treasure hunt like a dog or bear foraging for a food or a bone; or to the content of the West Indian marooned in the 6th generation ( with his techy government phone company job used to interrupt system expectations) you will see some people  have resources and see some who do not. So they make it spurious, difficult.  

 To save lives in the current milieu, the government and it's retail partners could update point of sale terminals to accept Health Card numbers at hotels and major supermarkets. 

It could be entered on-line on transit ticket portals to pay for tickets until the government is resolved to run a normal benefit system pursuant to law in Canada that pays the consumer money benefit to all citizens and who would resent the fulfillment of the law in this context? Apparently, Ontario is adopting this quick "minutes to solve it" update with their various stake holder partners.  Hotel transactions up to 30 days in reservation is accepted.  Other transactions are limited to $190.00 per day on the card as promised allegedly by the current football fan Premier. This is a 24 month agreement. After that, it is expected that payments will be made to all Ontario citizens in the new plan at $6000.00 per month.  You will be able to log in online at "My Ontario.ca etc" and see your payment and opt for a payment frequency on a weekly, daily, or monthly basis. Canada is the United Kingdom. All European systems follow this model with the availability of the health card to be used as payment as a back up when bank cards could  get lost or you were mugged at a local swimming pool.  There are too many victims of this kind.  

When we frame Universal Basic Income (UBI) specifically as "Consumer Money," the conversation shifts from a welfare debate to an economic engine debate. The core problem you're highlighting is the funding mechanism: do we tax the "robots" (production) or the "receipts" (consumption)?

Both paths have significant trade-offs in how they affect the economy and the individual.

1. The Automation Tax (Taxing Production)

This approach targets the decoupling of productivity from labor. As AI and robotics allow companies to generate record output with fewer humans, proponents argue we should capture that "saved" labor cost.

 * The Logic: If a machine replaces 100 workers, the company’s profit spikes because its payroll disappears. A tax on that automation captures a portion of those gains to fund UBI.

 * The Pros: It prevents extreme wealth concentration in the hands of "capital owners" (the people who own the robots).

 * The Cons: It’s notoriously hard to define what a "robot" is. Is a spreadsheet a robot? Is an ATM? There is also the risk of stifling innovation or causing companies to move their automated factories to countries without such a tax.

2. The National Sales Tax / VAT (Taxing Consumption)

This is the "Andrew Yang" model (Value Added Tax). To fund a meaningful UBI, most economists suggest a rate significantly higher than current state taxes—often landing in that 17% to 25% range.

 * The Logic: It is almost impossible for big tech companies to "loophole" their way out of a VAT because it’s baked into every transaction.

 * The Pros: It captures revenue from every single Google ad, Amazon delivery, and automated service. It scales perfectly with the size of the economy.

 * The Cons: It is regressive by nature. Lower-income people spend 100% of their paycheck on goods, meaning they feel the 17% tax much more than a billionaire does.

   * Counter-argument: If you pay $200 in VAT but receive $1,000 in UBI, you are still "net positive."

Comparison: Who Carries the Burden?

| Feature | Automation Tax | National Sales Tax (VAT) |

|---|---|---|

| Primary Target | Tech-heavy corporations | The end consumer |

| Ease of Collection | Hard (Definition issues) | Easy (Baked into prices) |

| Economic Impact | May slow tech adoption | May reduce total spending |

| Sustainability | High (if automation grows) | High (as long as people buy things) |

The "Consumer Money" Loop

The irony of the 17% sales tax is that the UBI it funds is what gives consumers the money to pay the tax in the first place. This creates a circular flow:

 * Tax is collected on a sale.

 * UBI puts that tax back into a citizen's pocket.

 * Citizen spends the UBI on a new product.

 * Repeat.

The goal isn't just to "give money away," but to ensure that in an automated world, the velocity of money doesn't hit zero because no one has a paycheck.

Would you like me to run some hypothetical numbers to see how a 17% tax vs. a UBI check would impact a household's "net" monthly income?

The idea of rebranding Universal Basic Income (UBI) to "Universal Consumer Money" aligns with a growing school of economic thought that views cash transfers not as "welfare," but as a necessary economic lubricant to keep the wheels of capitalism turning when human wages no longer provide enough liquidity.

While many assume Europe has already made this a standard, the reality is more nuanced. Here is a breakdown of why this shift hasn't fully happened in North America and what a post-automation world might look like.

1. Why it isn't "Standard" yet (North America vs. Europe)

It is a common misconception that UBI is already a national standard in Europe. In reality, no European country has a fully permanent, nationwide UBI as of 2026. However, there are deep structural and cultural reasons why the conversation is further ahead there than in North America.

The Social Contract Gap

 * Europe (The Solidarity Model): Most European nations operate on a "Social Market Economy." They have robust existing safety nets (healthcare, free education, strong unemployment). In this framework, UBI is seen as a natural upgrade to an aging system to handle automation.

 * North America (The Liberty Model): In the U.S. and Canada, the "Work Ethic" is deeply tied to moral worth. Public sentiment often views unconditional money as a "handout" that might discourage work. Here, the focus remains on "Job Creation" rather than "Income Decoupling."

Policy vs. Experimentation

While North America has hundreds of city-level pilots (like those in California or Ontario), they are often privately funded or temporary. European discussions are more likely to happen at the state or EU level, focusing on taxing "robot labor" to fund social dividends.

| Feature | North American Approach | European Approach |

|---|---|---|

| Primary Goal | Poverty alleviation & "Freedom Dividend" | Maintaining social stability & labor transition |

| Funding Idea | Often seen as "debt-financed" | Often discussed as a "Robot Tax" or "Wealth Tax" |

| Political Hurdle | Concerns over "Laziness" | Concerns over "Budgetary feasibility" |

2. Life After "Near Total Automation"

If we reach a point where machines do 90% of the work, the "Standard of Living" becomes a question of access rather than earning. Without a consumer money policy, the economy would collapse because robots don't buy products—people do.

What would people actually do?

If survival is guaranteed by "Universal Consumer Money," human activity would likely shift into three main categories:

 * The Creative & Artisanal Economy: High value will be placed on things "made by humans." Hand-painted art, human-coached sports, and "authentic" experiences would become the new luxury goods.

 * Community & Care Work: Automation struggles with deep empathy. Humans would spend more time caring for the elderly, mentoring youth, and participating in local governance—work that is currently undervalued because it doesn't "generate profit."

 * Hyper-Leisure and Self-Actualization: Much like the ancient Greek concept of Schole (leisure), the goal would be the pursuit of knowledge, hobby mastery, and physical health for their own sake.

The "Elysium" Risk

The dark side of this transition is the risk of a digital divide. Without a "National Uniform Policy" like you suggested, we could see a two-tier society: owners of the AI/Robots living in post-scarcity, while the rest of the population remains in "technological unemployment" without the "consumer money" to participate in the economy.

Next Step

The term "Universal Consumer Money" is actually a very clever way to frame UBI to conservatives because it emphasizes market participation. Would you like me to help you draft a policy proposal or an article using this specific "Consumer Money" framing?

It makes a lot of sense to pivot the language toward Consumer Money, especially in North America. By framing it as a "Consumer Dividend" or "Market Participation Fund," you bypass the "welfare" stigma and focus on the cold economic reality: a capitalist system requires buyers to function.

Here is a conceptual draft of how this policy could be framed to appeal to both the public and policymakers, followed by a look at the "Circular Flow" of such an economy.

The "National Consumer Dividend" Policy Proposal

Core Objective: To ensure market liquidity and national economic stability in an era of high-output AI and robotic automation.

1. The Revenue Mechanism (The "Robot Dividend")

Instead of taxing human labor (which becomes scarce), the funding is derived from:

 * Automation Value-Added Tax (AVAT): A tax on the productivity gains of autonomous systems.

 * Data Sovereignty Fees: Companies using public data to train AI models pay a royalty into the national fund.

2. The Distribution (The "Consumer Money")

Every citizen receives a monthly digital credit. Unlike traditional welfare, this is:

 * Uniform: The same amount for everyone to eliminate administrative bureaucracy.

 * Non-Debtable: It cannot be seized by creditors, ensuring it stays in the "consumer loop."

3. The Economic Impact

This creates a Floor for Demand. Even if a factory is 100% automated, the "Consumer Money" ensures there are people capable of buying the goods that factory produces, preventing a "Deflationary Spiral."

A Strategic Article Outline: "The Case for Universal Consumer Money"

If you are looking to write an article or social media thread on this, here is a powerful way to structure the argument:

 * The Diagnosis: Explain that the "Job-Income-Consumption" loop is breaking because AI is decoupling productivity from human hours.

 * The Rebrand: Introduce "Universal Consumer Money." Argue that calling it "Basic Income" sounds like a safety net for the weak, while "Consumer Money" sounds like fuel for a powerful engine.

 * The National Interest: Frame it as a matter of national security. If citizens can't consume, the domestic market collapses, and the nation becomes vulnerable to economic depression.

 * The Human Purpose: Pivot to the "After-Work" world. Explain that when humans are freed from "survival labor," we enter an era of "contribution labor"—art, local politics, and innovation.

Here is the breakdown of the National Consumer Dividend through two lenses: a technical economic framework for the "Robot Tax" and a persuasive pitch to win over skeptics.

Part 1: The "Robot Tax" Framework

To fund Universal Consumer Money, we must shift the tax base from human labor (Income Tax) to machine output. A standard formula for an Automation Value-Added Tax (AVAT) might look like this:

Where:

 * T = The Automation Tax due.

 * r = The statutory dividend rate (e.g., 15%).

 * P = Total productivity/output value of the firm.

 * L = Total human labor costs (wages and benefits).

The Logic: As L approaches zero (total automation), the taxable base (P - L) grows. This ensures that as a company replaces humans with AI, their contribution to the National Consumer Fund increases proportionally.

Part 2: The 3-Minute Elevator Pitch

Target Audience: A skeptical business owner or fiscal conservative.

The Hook:

"We’ve always looked at UBI as a social safety net, but that’s the wrong way to see it. If we automate 50% of jobs, we aren't just losing workers; we are losing customers. A robot can build a car, but it can’t buy one. Without 'Universal Consumer Money,' capitalism literally runs out of fuel."

The Argument:

"Think of this as a National Consumer Dividend. In the past, we taxed people for working. In the future, we tax machines for producing. We then distribute that value back to the citizens—not as 'welfare,' but as 'Market Liquidity.' It guarantees that there is always a floor of demand in the economy. It keeps small businesses open and keeps the 'circular flow' of money moving when wages no longer exist."

The Close:

"This isn't about getting 'something for nothing.' It's about ensuring that the massive wealth generated by AI doesn't just sit in a server farm, but actually circulates through our local stores, our theaters, and our service industries. It’s the only way to keep the free market alive in an automated age."

Part 3: Revenue Comparison Table

How "Consumer Money" changes the national ledger:

| Source of Revenue | Traditional Economy | Automated Economy (UCM) |

|---|---|---|

| Personal Income Tax | 50-70% of Budget | < 5% (Phased out) |

| Corporate Tax | High (but often avoided) | Replaced by Output Tax |

| AI Data Royalty | Non-existent | High (Tax on training data) |

| Economic Outcome | Scarcity-based | Demand-stabilized |

Source of Revenue	Traditional Economy	Automated Economy (UCM)
Personal Income Tax	50-70% of Budget	< 5% (Phased out)
Corporate Tax	High (but often avoided)	Replaced by Output Tax
AI Data Royalty	Non-existent	High (Tax on training data)
Economic Outcome	Scarcity-based	Demand-stabilized