Yours is the most serious critique anyone has ever offered to me.

To your first point, as a matter of style I accept that you could be correct. I thought stating it that way--which is perfectly accurate regarding unemployment and poverty--would either challenge people to try to debunk it or convert them.

The idea is not to capture money from individuals. As I write every time I write about it, an individual, however rich or not, would only have to disburse money into purchases or investments to avoid having money collected.

I do note, at least in places, that basing the amount of money for funding government on population does raise the issue of validating that number.

There could yet be one or more costs that I have not foreseen, but having been thinking about this idea for forty years, I hope not. People might object to certain features of it, which I don't make the headline but do address eventually (such as a ban on bonuses paid to individuals), but those are not "hidden" in the sense that I have knowledge of them that I am withholding.

I appreciate your bluntness and do not take criticism personally. (My only problem is with misstatements about the paradigm, which I have to correct lest anyone else see them and see that they go unchallenged and draw incorrect conclusions from that.) I hope you will be willing to consider that much of your suspicion is simply the usual mistrust human beings (including myself) tend to have of a new idea, especially such a big idea, most especially one that they are receiving directly from the author in a forum like this one. It hasn't been 'validated' by being published in an edited forum. (I have tried and tried--still try--that route.)