Strategies | meppin

Implementation costs and funding sources:

Minimum implementation costs will total US$10 million. This will be used as a pawn payment to pay an existing government and the citizens for whom it is responsible to agree to the execution of a five-year pilot project. This pawn payment is a way to guaranteed and make almost impossible for them to lose, because they have already had in their hands the money for anything goes wrong or loss, i.e. they have nothing to lose. Should this occur, and the project is successful at achieving target metrics and financial results for government, industry, and the population at large, then there will be an expectation that this initial outlay pawn payment would be repaid to our nonprofit organization. Funds will be secured from nonprofit foundations, citizens (major and minor donors), governments aid organizations or the companies itself that would administrate the territory .

Strategic Vision: Implementing Meritocratic Government and Citizen Acceptance

As with almost any governmental system, the strategic implementation of a meritocratic government (MG) within a given national territory or designated subset thereof, cannot be a one-size-fits-all proposition. Beyond persuading citizens, governmental and political party leaders, the private sector, and others as to the efficacy of shifting to a meritocratic system, there will be other considerations. These will include culture, as well as whether a given region is in a conflict zone or has any history of democratically elected government. Strategies will need to be sensitive to and directly address all of these variables. However, in broad strokes, the following are some ideas as regards MG implementation.

MG is a system that’s designed to benefit everyone and, for a variety of reasons, it's likely to be attractive to most people. Consequently, given an opportunity for learn about its full implications, it’s equally likely that a successful pilot project can be launched and, as a result of witnessable and objectively verifiable results, its merits generate a desire for MG systems to be implemented elsewhere.

A critical advantage of MG is that it is extremely secure because the moving parts of the engine that drives it have been streamlined such that the principle objective is the acquisition of a form of profit through single land value tax (SLVT) revenues. These are solely dependent on economic growth, which is produced by citizens directly working towards efficient outputs, thereby increasing the inherent value of land and the opportunities it can generate. The more successful is the system, the greater will be the prosperity and satisfaction of all at life aspects of a bigger number of citizens, With greater prosperity, citizens will be contributing more in SLVT, which will permit for the better functioning of the MG system. This will further establish the credibility of MG as a sensible and viable alternative to existing governmental forms, which will, in turn, encourage its adoption elsewhere.

As anything that might damage the quality of life for the citizenry or their opportunities to achieve success – up to and inclusive of the potential for internal or external conflicts – will decrease the generation of SLVT revenues and, thereby decrease the effectiveness of the MG system. Thus, the government has a vested interest in focusing its attention and efforts on maximizing every opportunity to create the context within which all citizens can be successful and minimizing circumstances in which some citizens benefit as a consequence of others’ loss.

Consequently, MG is, in an almost pure sense, a business-results driven system. What profits it, profits its citizens. Accordingly, it will always be in the best interests of the government to invest in infrastructure and systems that benefit all citizens – public health, security, fare-free rapid mass transit, and lifelong education (those cost would be included in SLVT). Because all those services can be charged on SLVT because they automatically would increase the SLVT/LER/lands market oriented value price The latter would include full governmental support for elementary, high school, and college level learning, but for advanced degree programs, as well as skills enhancement programs and reorientation/retraining for the unemployed. Professionals who need time off from work to enhance their education would continue to receive their full salaries, while unemployed individuals participating in training initiatives would receive an appropriate living wage. The funding required to fully support all of these activities will be offset by the SLVT increases they will generate, as well as the projection that in an SLVT/MG system salaries would be 80% higher than today’s salary’s under nonprofit government and LCT economic system Some of MG policies are copied or similar from Singapore, e.g. land income/SLVT, bonus payment for public servants and long life learning for citizens .

The structure of MG/SLVT dramatically minimizes the possibilities, necessity, reasons, and desires of corruption/or steal because there is no one to steal from, as the government already profits from the country legally and have infinite ways to profit more, that are totally dependent how much he makes better life and increase wealth for the citizens as explained previously. From government side he also can profit more by inventing many new efficiencies to decrease the administration cost to profit more. The decrease of administration cost would also enable to MG invest more, give more benefits to citizens to increase SLVT. From other side if he steals, he will decrease its own profit because of the SLVT decrease value if he divests the country, he can be persecuted, receive big fines, loose the next election to govern the country, loose the opportunity for the company to expand to other territories to profit more money, and probably would lose its entire business.

This occurs because MG is also accountable and vulnerable. MG has a totally divided power. The Population would elect four branches of government: Legislative, executive, judiciary, police/army/law enforcement, for the Municipality, state and federal governments. Each one would be a different separated company and can have the same owners or be a subsidiary of one company. Also that means if a company is working for federal government, it can’t work for state, or municipal, and vice versa, independently which branch of government they are. Any bad act of any branch of government, it’s very easy to be kicked out by the population or by the other branch of government, e.g. a federal police or judiciary can remove an abusive state police or state executive, and be replaced by other elected companies. All other government departments, agencies, PPP and so forth would be under the direction of separate and distinct meritocratic companies designated according the branch of government they are under jurisdiction. Plus, a key component of an MG-based society would be the existence of free and unrestricted media.

Accordingly, MG vastly undercuts the temptation of government to be influenced by groups or individuals seeking advantage or privilege on account of ideology, party politics, or allegiance to religion, nationality, a foreign power/proxy, etc. Such corruptions to the system would only serve to decrease SLVT revenue and undermine the government itself, let alone the prosperity, security, and well-being of the society it administers.

This purposeful focus on SLVT can also work, not just for governmental ends, but the motivational objectives of citizens themselves as they would seek to disempower and disengage from those factors and forces that would diminish SLVT revenue attainment and growth. Indeed, within this context, it may be argued that MG can create a significant economic framework around which conflicting parties within a given society can unite. While certain and seemingly intractable animosities may remain, an MG system – able to deliver, to all citizens and in equal manner, essential services, plus plausible opportunities to produce tangible and widespread benefits through personal and business wealth generation – might contribute dramatically to a reduction of tensions and act as a catalyst towards dispute resolution.

Risk and benefits:

Although it’s not possible to prove it will be possible to successfully implemented SLVT or MG with SLVT, because it never existed this type of government and economic system. This is the most attractive charity project in human history that it’s worth to donate, because of the following reasons: 1) It’s extremely cheap, the only cost it’s to develop and implement a pilot project. 2) It will benefit an infinite amount of people, because of the following factors: A) Being profitable, after a successful pilot project, it would spread out to the world to most countries. B) Profits from resolving most world’s problems, it will resolve infinite amount of problems, e.g. enable the poor to produce its own wealth for the sole porpoise profiting later, as explained in our texts.

This means, SLVT or MG risks of not being able of successfully implemented and losing the money, it’s extremely low comparing to the benefit it can create. Consequently, for those who wants to help the biggest amount of people, trough testing a new system that could be a much better system, it’s worth to donate for the implementation.

Although other charities projects have low risk of not successfully helping those needy. But the reason for that it’s because they are extremely simple and archive very limited result, they just give to the needy what they need and have the following disadvantages: 1) Maintain the needy continuously dependent on the help, e.g. food. 2) They cost infinitely much more. 3) Always were able to help and resolve the problem of a small portion of the needy people, because the funds necessary to help all needy people are much bigger than funds available. 4) Because it’s not profitable, it little expands.

MG and SLVT have a lot of similarities, but MG have even more benefits.

Although MG (but not SLVT) it’s a charity project to create a profitable company. Only a charity can create this type of business. Because we don’t suit their requirements for private investment for the following reasons: 1) Have a business plan with territory ready for implementation. But to create a business plan and find a territory for implementation, will cost time and money, that we don’t have. 2) Investors prefer a business that has the biggest barrier to entry, to monopolize their business. The whole idea of MG and to be meritocratic, it’s needs to be anti-monopoly, it’s needs to have many companies that would compete to administrate a land for a limited time and, only can extend this time and administrative territory amount, if it’s better than competitors trough wining next elections in this territory and other territories. For that, all the information required for the creation of a MG needs to be available for any group of investors create a new company. If MG, it’s developed by a private investor he will do maximum as possible to have no competition. 3) Private sector prioritizes business with less governmental involvement because they are much easier, faster and are less risky to implement. From other side we are open for the private sector investment if the he looks to us.

Although there is a need to explain much more and write new strategies how it will be possible to implement SLVT and MG, but we only could write more if we receive donations. The MEPPIN founder already made big sacrifices to research many years with his own money and time and pay our editors, but now he has no more money and time to research and pay editors.