I am not shy about acknowledging that I am a better thinker than I am a writer. Even so, it is irritating for me for people to make blatantly inaccurate statements about my proposal. People have read it and understood it.

Re. the matter at hand, what is meant by “structure?” Organizations? Rules? Both of those are absolutely present in my presentation of my proposal.

The economy as a whole would have the same structure that it has at present. The only institutional changes would occur in the monetary system.

The heart of the matter is the “allotted income.” The money for it would be created as needed. That money could originate in the existing central bank (in the U.S., the Fed). Alternatively, we could establish a new monetary agency that would do nothing but create that money as needed and pay it out as required (and receive the money that got returned to it).

Three groups of people would be eligible to be paid that income: retirees, adults too incapacitated to work, and people being paid the minimum income. In that way everyone in society who was old enough to work or retired would be eligible for that income (though no one would be required to accept it) or have a job that paid more than that income. The amount of that income would be based on the current median income (so in the U.S., say $15/hr.; $600/wk.), so there would be no (involuntary) poverty.

I’m not going to reproduce the whole thing here, but that structure allows (preferably local) government to pay people to work in jobs that paid no benefits at no cost to the (local) government. That ensures that no one need be unemployed. At the same time, since all other jobs would pay at least some benefits, people would have an incentive to seek jobs that did also include benefits.

Since (all) government could also be funded directly by the same entity that administered the allotted income (at the current per capita rate of total government spending, forever), we could also eliminate all taxes and public debt.