In yet another survey from Bloomberg, 70% said reducing unemployment is more important than reducing the deficit. But considerably less (47%) said Congress should extend unemployment benefits further.

Confused? Well, a fourth poll commissioned by the National Employment Law Project in June found 74% saying that helping the unemployed is more important than reducing the deficit.

Economist Mark Zandi, a former John McCain adviser, has also argued that helping the unemployed is more important than deficit reduction in the short-term. In fact, both he and the electorate are wrong (as is the Labour Party, Will Hutton and half the LibDems here). Yet again we have commonalities between the US and UK, in that everyone wants to do everything, but nothing that’s going to cause any pain. Hence the confusing poll results: everyone’s trying to square a circle.

So here’s a thought: suppose we drop the assumption that this is down to the Governments on either side of the Pond – does this free up the thinking at all? In my view yes, it does.

First of all, it removes the deficit as a consideration. If governments spend nothing, then any scheme will be deficit neutral and perhaps – indirectly – reduce it.

Second, asking governments to do it suggests that they have by far the biggest chunk of liquid money in the country. Clearly, this isn’t so: in normal times – when banks aren’t fannying around playing Russian roulette with each other – UK government spend from taxation is around £600 billion. The UK’s GDP is closer to £2.5 trillion – four times bigger. The American GDP is around £12 trillion – five times bigger than Britain’s – and around £3 trillion is spent annually through government – again, the relationship of spend to GDP is 1:4.

Third, suggesting the task is so big only governments could do it is completely erroneous: the extension of unemployment benefit in the UK, for example, would cost around £15 billion per annum. In the States, where rates, levels, and of course population sizes are different, you’d still only be looking at $50 billion.

Could business afford it? The short answer is probably more so in the US than the UK – but yes, of course it could. US company cash hoards are now at their highest levels in history; and why – only this morning, did not J P Morgan post a 76% increase in profits? In the US, the simple fact is that Goldman Sachs alone is facing more in class action liabilities than the amounts we’re talking about. In the UK, banks – especially retail banks – have pretty bad balance sheets. But let’s press on…there is a way through this.

Finally, there should be more to any scheme than just humanitarian considerations. Not only would ‘stealing’ the money from somewhere be simply postponing what is essentially an economic problem, right-wing politicians would get uppity about it and filibuster, the way they do. Also stealing is wrong.

What I propose is that the donors of the cash should be motivated 80% by enlightened self-interest and 20% by love of country. (OK, for banks we’ll make that 95/5).

Here’s the idea.

All banks and manufacturing companies employing over 500 people issue Purchase Bonds in proportion to their previous fiscal net profits. The higher the percentage rate of tax they already paid on gross profits, the less they have to put into my scheme. These are then distributed among the unemployed on a means-tested basis, and can be exchanged at face value to buy goods of a non-luxury nature. They would not be legal tender for any tobacco, alcohol, chocolate or sugar-based candy products; nor would they be accepted at fast/junk food outlets.

As for the acceptable multiple retail sector, they would not be allowed to inflict bonus discounts, sudden contract changes, margin snatches or other forms of financial blackmail upon suppliers for the duration of the scheme. The quid pro quo is that they don’t have to issue any Bonds – so their risk is comparatively small.

However, here’s the twist: none of the bonds would be exchangeable for foreign produced or grown products. (This would present multiple food and hitech retailers with a headache; and my answer to their plight is “Tough”.)

Now before anyone points this out, I do realise that the tax percentage paid clause will probably destroy the tax accountancy sector outright. That’s what we in the ideas business call a result. It will also turn us into siege economies and thus undermine the insane concept of globalism. Even better. It is innately likely to reduce the trade deficit. And last but not least, it would dramatically reduce our carbon footprints.

With the deficit reduced, our governments could then provide stimulus for the economy without increasing the deficit above the level it was when we started. In the UK, it might even make farming a viable concern again. Imagine that?

It’s an idea of elegant genius with just one flaw: both China and the EU would be pissed off beyond belief, and call it a trade war. Except that they’d be wrong, because no duties would be increased at all. The new Asian exporters would have to learn to create internal markets, and everyone in the West would be taught the oldest lessons of all: self-sufficiency, and thrifty household management.

The $64 trillion question, however, remains: what happens to the Bonds? And this is the part where the suits have to grit those teeth hitherto used purely for the purpose of mendacity. For the Bonds would be a self-created fund levied on the corporate sector by the likes of the CBI and IoD (UK) and their equivalent organisations in the US – you know, those guys who went to see Obama earlier this week to demand tax cuts for themselves, and cake for the unemployed.

It has to be done this way, or else it adds to the deficit: the days of Gordon Brown and Hank Paulson accounting are gone – hopefully forever. Also (tense those buttocks all you senior veeps) the sums chipped in would be completely unsecured if the whole thing went belly-up.

It wouldn’t – for two obvious reasons: no civil servants whatsoever would be involved in its conception and administration; and the corporate accountants would be using shareholder money – a substance infinitely more mind-concentrating than taxpayers’ money.

There would, however, be an undertaking – broadcast on all media but of no value in Law – by the Queen & Parliament/The President & Congress to the effect that, once the national finances had been restored to a state of propriety, government would exchange the spent Bonds returned to manufacturers against future tax liabilities – with, again, a higher valuation inversely proportional to the tax accountancy services used. When it comes to the tax accountants, it’s silver bullets or nothing for me.

Over to the comment thread.