The richest 1% have wealth = to the 3 billion poorest living on $2/day.
The richest few
Financing the Eco-City
We are all equal before God, but if money is God, we are not!
There are about 7.7 billion human beings on our planet. Moreover, the total wealth is rising to about $280 trillion. The wealthiest 1% own 48% more than the most impoverished population. In other words, the 77 million richest people have more money than 3.7 billion of the poorest combined. According to Oxfam, 42 business people hold as much wealth as the 3.7 billion of the poorest. There are also wealthy pop stars, kings, princes, prime ministers and presidents of countries, most of whom hide their actual wealth in hedge funds and secretive offshore accounts.
Finance sources ideas:
- Donating or leasing public land to build the Eco-city and its surrounding Eco-industries.
- Guarantying the interest payment for the Eco-homes’ mortgages using government or corporate bonds or other means.
- Mortgaging Eco-homes could be open to any individual, charity, company, Bank, industry or social housing investors and others at a tempting 3% return which is better than the banks’ interests on deposits.
- Charities and lotteries could help the homeless, disabled and elderly
- The government spending cost per head should follow the residents to the Eco-city to be spent on its infrastructure and welfare system.
- Each Eco-home is prefabricated for self-build by 7 people in 7 days following step by step instructions and supervised by an expert builder to establish credit and equity in an Eco-home for each family.
- Each capable Eco-city’ resident must accept available jobs or skills’ training to work and repay the mortgage, otherwise, leave the Eco-city and lose equity.
There i s more than $ 33 trillion hidden in trusts and secret offshore tax -haven accounts in Switzerland, Germany, Luxembourg, the USA, Singapore, the Cayman Islands, the Virgin Islands and many other small countries. But who knows the truth? They are secretive funds for businesses and bribed politicians. Also, the global derivatives market is worth $1.2 quadrillion while the total GDP of all countries is rising to $100 trillion.
Such wealth in the world poses these questions: Why does poverty still exist? Why is there a wide gap between the wealthy and the poor? Why do the elite few have much more than they ever need, while the poor are desperate for food? Why do nearly half of the population of the planet or more than 3.6 billion people live on less than $2/day?
I am not suggesting communism or socialism as a solution, but I am not defending capitalism either. The Eco-socio- economic system is a concept to protect the fundamental human rights and ensure a decent standard of living for the poorest as a minimum. There are enough pieces of the big cake to go around for everyone on this planet. Some have bigger bellies than others, some can eat but have no food, others have more food than they can chew.
There are adequate funds on this planet to build a series of Eco- cities of all sizes, shapes and forms to remove poverty from every country. However, the current trend in any housing project ends up with more money for developers and suppliers that makes a house unaffordable by the poor. Notably, there are strict conditions that cannot be met by the unemployed and those who are on a low income. Hence, they cannot own a house. Additionally, the retired, those blacklisted by credit scoring agencies and those unable to get a deposit have no hope of climbing the housing ladder.
The Eco-socio-economic system allows even the homeless to own a house, have an address to become entitled to housing benefits and benefits from the welfare system.
Note: In the UK, if people do not have an address, they cannot benefit from the welfare system and the government does not automatically house them to give them an address! Hence, they become homeless and street beggars to survive. I am sure there are similarities even in most Western rich countries.
Another example: California is one of the fifth largest economies in the world, yet its poverty is 20%. Why can’t it become the largest economy and poverty is 0%?
The formula is simple: an affordable Eco-home costs $100,000 and, based on 1.5 to 3% interest, it would cost between $125 to $250/month for a family of four to live in an Eco-home. It is affordable for any working family in most countries and is even much less than any monthly rent or housing benefits paid by Western governments for the unemployed or retired. On average, renting in the UK costs about $1,000/month when paid by the welfare system, while paying interest on a $100,000 Eco- home is less than $250/ month. Governments are short-sighted if they do not invest in social housing and save billions.
The cost of the estimated infrastructure for an Eco city is about $40 billion plus. The government could finance it by diverting the funds from some needless projects to the Eco-city or redirecting the public spending per head for the two to four million people who will move to the Eco-city. Therefore, the public expenditure per head follows them and so there is no need for extra government borrowing or spending for such a priority project.
Finances for the Eco-city could come from various sources, such as local and global private lenders, banks, industries and businesses, provided that the investments are guaranteed by the government. Of course, it is up to the investors to accept lower interest and a lesser amount of profits depending on global competition, turnover and interest rates at the time of borrowing, which varies in different countries.
When investment is open to everybody, then anyone could invest any amount of money. Investors can choose to lend, either for an Eco- home at a guaranteed 3% profit maximum or invest in any business or industry that guarantees 5% tax-free minimum profits. This way some people can get more revenue on their savings than what they get from keeping it in a bank.
The Eco-taxation system will allow 5% tax-free profit to encourage investors to move to the Eco-city, train and hire locals, pay taxes from revenues gained above the 5% tax-free threshold allowed and enjoy lower overheads and the Eco-city’s free facilities.
There is a high percentage of struggling elderly with lots of equity in their houses that exceeds $100,000, who could easily downgrade to have spare cash to look after their health better and enjoy a more comfortable life in their retirement. The charities that take care of the elderly and disabled could also help to support them when living in an Eco-home in an Eco-city.
Housing associations could get a better return on their investment from buying Eco-homes in the Eco-city and anybody with access to loans or equity could do the same. Therefore, financing the Eco-city will not be a problem and could be done without creating a burden on the national budget.
Nevertheless, one can envisage more open inward investment opportunities from the rest of the world, including private investors, governments, all the global banks and anybody with enough money to invest in an Eco-home for $100,000 to benefit from 3% interest. The flow of investment will be overwhelming. Even industries can invest in their factories and build Eco- homes for their employees to guarantee their loyalty for many years to co me.
Even the worst government could see the economic sense in prioritizing the Eco-city project as the best investment and value for taxpayers’ money. Governments spend billions on the welfare system and social issues for the unemployed, getting nothing in return. However, if the taxpayers’ money were spent to build the Eco-city and employ the unemployed, it would be paid back through the profits from the tax revenues.
Furthermore, governments do need to invest billions, but must guarantee the loans and probably need to spend $20 billion to $40 billion on the Eco-city’s infrastructure instead of spending on less important projects. The benefits of building an Eco-city to serve two to four million citizens outweighs the benefits of any other national projects, such as high-speed rail or even a nuclear power plant or increasing international aid, while poverty and homelessness exist at home.