Inflation Control for the Post-Employment Economy

Abstract

Modern Monetary Theory establishes that a sovereign currency issuer is constrained by inflation, not revenue. As automation decouples productive capacity from employment, the state’s existing instruments for withdrawing purchasing power (Income Tax, National Insurance) erode in proportion to the displacement they are supposed to manage. This paper proposes the Sovereign Energy and Bandwidth Excise (SEBE) as an automatic stabiliser whose withdrawal capacity scales with the automation that necessitates greater public spending. SEBE taxes two physical inputs to automated production (commercial energy consumption in kWh, cross-border commercial data in TB) and functions as the drain in a fiscal bathtub where government spending is the tap. At launch in 2030, SEBE withdraws £34-46 billion from the corporate sector (2026 prices), growing to £93 billion by 2040 and £159 billion by 2045 as automation scales. The paper demonstrates that SEBE’s withdrawal capacity and the need for public spending are mechanically linked to the same variable (automation infrastructure deployment), creating a self-balancing fiscal instrument that existing taxes cannot replicate.

Keywords: Modern Monetary Theory, automation, fiscal policy, inflation control, automatic stabiliser, Pigouvian taxation, sovereign currency, post-employment economics

1. Introduction

1.1 The Wrong Question

Policy debate about automation and taxation is dominated by a question that obscures the real problem: “How do we fund public spending as employment declines?”

This framing assumes the government collects money from the private sector and then spends it. In the orthodox accounting identity, tax revenue constrains expenditure. Deficits are borrowing. The question becomes one of arithmetic: can a new tax raise enough to replace the old one?

For a sovereign currency issuer, this is the wrong question. The UK government creates pounds when it spends and destroys them when it taxes. It does not collect pounds before spending them, any more than a scoreboard collects points from the crowd before awarding them. The accounting identity holds, but the causation runs in the opposite direction from the household analogy.

The correct question is: as automation decouples productive capacity from employment, how does the state maintain its ability to withdraw purchasing power from the economy at a scale sufficient to prevent inflation?

1.2 The Withdrawal Problem

The UK currently withdraws £534 billion per year through employment-linked taxation: Income Tax (£329B) and National Insurance (£205B), together representing 42% of total government receipts (OBR November 2025 EFO, updated February 2026). Both instruments depend on the existence of paid employment. As automation displaces workers, these instruments lose their tax base.

This is not a revenue problem. A sovereign currency issuer cannot run out of its own currency. It is an inflation management problem. The state’s capacity to withdraw purchasing power from the economy shrinks precisely when the need for public spending (supporting displaced workers, maintaining aggregate demand) grows. The fiscal scissors close not because the government runs out of money, but because its drain narrows while the tap must run harder.

1.3 The Bathtub Model

The fiscal dynamics of a sovereign currency issuer can be represented as a bathtub (Mosler, 1997; Wray, 2015).

The tap is government spending (new money enters the economy)
The drain is taxation (money is removed from the economy)
The water level is the money supply relative to productive capacity

If the tap runs faster than the drain, the tub overflows: inflation. If the drain exceeds the tap, the tub empties: deflation, recession, austerity. The purpose of taxation is not to supply the tap (the tap is connected to the mains) but to control the water level.

Employment taxation has been the primary drain for eight decades. It now has a structural leak: automation widens the drain’s dependency on a shrinking variable (wages). SEBE proposes a new drain connected to the expanding variable (automation infrastructure), ensuring the state retains withdrawal capacity as the economy transforms.

1.4 Research Question

Can a tax on the physical infrastructure of automation function as an automatic stabiliser whose withdrawal capacity scales with the same force that necessitates increased public spending?

This paper argues that it can, and proposes the Sovereign Energy and Bandwidth Excise as that instrument.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Three Functions of Taxation Under MMT

In the MMT framework, taxation serves three purposes (Wray, 2015; Mitchell, Wray and Watts, 2019):

Withdrawal of purchasing power to maintain price stability (the primary macroeconomic function)
Behavioural correction through Pigouvian incentives (discourage harms, encourage efficiency)
Reduction of inequality by altering the distribution of purchasing power

These are distinct from the orthodox function of “raising revenue.” A sovereign currency issuer does not need tax revenue to spend. It needs taxation to create the fiscal space in which spending does not generate excess demand.

2.2 SEBE Performs All Three Functions

Withdrawal: SEBE removes £34-46 billion at launch from the corporate sector (specifically, from the automation-intensive operations that are displacing employment). As automation grows, SEBE withdrawal grows. The drain widens in proportion to the force that requires the tap to run harder.

Pigouvian correction: SEBE taxes energy consumption per kWh, not output or innovation. A facility that achieves the same productive output with less energy pays less tax. The incentive is to automate efficiently. SEBE also incentivises domestic compute investment: the Digital Customs Duty sets offshore compute at a permanent price disadvantage relative to domestic operation (where the operator pays the Sovereign Energy Excise instead).

Inequality reduction: Automation concentrates surplus in capital owners (infrastructure operators, hyperscalers, shareholders). SEBE withdraws purchasing power from these entities, creating space for redistribution to the broader population without inflationary pressure.

2.3 The Sectoral Balance

In MMT terms, the government deficit is the non-government surplus (Godley, 1999; Wray, 2015). If automation concentrates private sector surplus in a small number of capital owners while eliminating the wage income that sustained aggregate demand, two things happen simultaneously:

The government must spend more (displaced workers need support, public services need funding)
The private sector surplus concentrates in entities with a low marginal propensity to consume

SEBE addresses both. It withdraws surplus from the entities where it concentrates (capital-intensive automation operators) and creates fiscal space for the government to spend where demand needs sustaining (displaced workers, public services, universal income).

The sectoral balance is improved: the government deficit funds private sector income broadly, not just capital accumulation narrowly. SEBE is the mechanism that enables this rebalancing without inflationary excess.

2.4 Productive Capacity as the Real Constraint

The binding constraint on government spending is not revenue but productive capacity (Kelton, 2020). The government can spend up to the point where demand exceeds the economy’s ability to produce goods and services. Beyond that point, spending generates inflation.

Automation increases productive capacity. More goods and services can be produced with fewer human inputs. This means the economy can absorb more government spending before hitting the inflation wall.

SEBE taxes the infrastructure of the very process that expands productive capacity. The withdrawal instrument and the capacity expansion are structurally linked. As automation widens the fiscal space (by increasing what the economy can produce), SEBE widens the drain (by taxing the energy and data that automation consumes). The tap can run harder because the economy produces more, and the drain can handle it because SEBE tracks the same expansion.

This is the central design property: the tap and drain are mechanically linked to the same variable.

3. The Anchor Migration

3.1 The Employment Anchor

In the MMT literature, the Job Guarantee (JG) is proposed as a price anchor and automatic stabiliser (Tcherneva, 2020; Mitchell, Wray and Watts, 2019). The JG establishes the exchange value of the state’s tax credits in unskilled labour hours: the government offers employment at a fixed wage to anyone willing and able to work, creating a buffer stock of employed labour that expands in downturns and contracts in upswings.

The JG is an effective stabiliser when labour is a significant input to production. The buffer stock functions because employers draw workers from it when demand expands, and workers return to it when demand contracts. The wage floor propagates through the economy, anchoring the price level to the cost of human labour.

3.2 The Eroding Anchor

The JG anchor weakens as automation reduces the role of human labour in production. If unskilled labour hours become a diminishing share of productive input, the buffer stock becomes a permanent institution rather than a counter-cyclical one. The pool does not drain because employers do not need the workers. The anchor is tied to something that is becoming economically marginal.

This is not an argument against JG in the present or near term. It is an observation that any price anchor must be tied to a variable that holds or grows, not one that is eroding.

The trajectory of automation suggests that the binding constraint on production is migrating from labour to energy and compute. A data centre does not need workers to produce output. It needs electricity and bandwidth. An automated warehouse needs power, not pickers. An AI inference cluster needs GPU hours, not analysts.

3.3 The Energy Anchor

SEBE proposes that the anchor migrates to energy and compute. The Sovereign Energy Excise establishes a floor cost for the physical input to automated production. This floor propagates through the economy in the same manner as the JG wage floor, but it tracks the input that is growing in economic significance rather than the one that is declining.

Under SEE, the cost of automation is bounded below by the tax on its energy consumption. This creates a self-balancing dynamic:

If automation is cost-effective despite SEE, it proceeds. SEBE revenue grows. The withdrawal capacity expands. Fiscal space for redistribution widens.
If SEE makes automation less cost-effective than human labour for a given task, employers retain workers. Employment tax revenue is maintained. Less withdrawal from SEBE is needed because less displacement is occurring.

In either case, the fiscal position is sustainable. The anchor holds because it is tied to the variable (energy) that the economy cannot do without, regardless of whether production is human-intensive or machine-intensive.

3.4 Complementarity, Not Replacement

SEBE and the Job Guarantee are not mutually exclusive. In the near term, where human labour remains a significant production input, JG provides a price anchor and counter-cyclical buffer. As automation advances and the labour anchor weakens, SEBE provides the successor anchor tied to the emerging binding constraint.

The transition is gradual. Both instruments can coexist. But any fiscal framework that relies exclusively on employment-linked instruments (including JG) faces structural degradation as automation proceeds. SEBE provides the long-run successor mechanism.

4. The SEBE Mechanism

4.1 Component 1: Sovereign Energy Excise (SEE)

Tax base: Commercial electricity consumption at facilities with IT load above 500kW. This threshold exempts every household, small business, shop, restaurant and office. It targets data centres, automated warehouses, large-scale manufacturing and AI training facilities.

Rate structure (2026 prices, CPI-indexed annually):

Consumption Bracket	Rate (£/kWh)
0-500kW	Exempt
500kW-5MW	£0.08
5MW-50MW	£0.20
>50MW	£0.45

Metering: Hardware Root of Trust at three points (generation, storage, load) ensures tamper-evident, cryptographically attested measurement. The meter reads what it reads. One physical measurement replaces thousands of pages of corporate accounting.

Why energy, not compute: Every computation, regardless of hardware architecture (GPU, TPU, ASIC, neuromorphic, quantum), consumes energy. Energy is architecture-neutral, physically measurable, tamper-resistant and efficiency-rewarding (more efficient hardware pays less SEE for the same output). Proposals to tax FLOPS, individual robots, or AI models all fail on measurement, definitional ambiguity, and architectural evasion. Energy is the correct proxy.

4.2 Component 2: Digital Customs Duty (DCD)

Tax base: Commercial data crossing the UK digital border. Consumers are exempt. Domestic data centre traffic is exempt (it pays SEE on energy instead). DCD targets UK businesses using offshore cloud providers, calling offshore APIs or running compute workloads abroad.

Rate structure:

Annual Border Traffic	Rate
< 10 PB/year	£200/TB
10-100 PB/year	£400/TB
> 100 PB/year	£800/TB

DCD rate rationale: DCD is set so that offshoring compute is always more expensive than operating domestically (where the operator pays SEE). This creates a Pigouvian incentive for UK data centre investment, strengthening both the SEE tax base and UK compute sovereignty.

Enforcement: At Internet Exchange Point (IXP) level, using existing peering infrastructure and BGP routing data. Aggregate commercial throughput is measured at the point where the cable meets UK jurisdiction. No individual traffic is inspected. The principle is weighing the container, not opening it.

4.3 Withdrawal Capacity

At launch (2030): £34-46 billion/year (2026 prices)

Growth trajectory (all figures 2026 real prices):

Year	SEE	DCD	Total SEBE
2030 (launch)	£30B	£8B	£38B
2033	£40B	£8B	£48B
2035	£50B	£7B	£57B
2040	£83B	£10B	£93B
2045	£140B	£19B	£159B

These figures represent withdrawal capacity, not “revenue to fund spending.” The government does not need this money to spend. It needs to remove this money from the economy to create space for spending without inflation.

Full derivation from first principles (UK energy consumption statistics, data centre capacity, wholesale bandwidth pricing, LLM token economics) in the companion document SEBE Revenue Model.

5. The Self-Balancing Property

5.1 Tap and Drain Linked

SEBE’s defining design property is that the withdrawal instrument and the spending need are driven by the same variable: automation infrastructure deployment.

As automation increases:

More workers are displaced (the government must spend more: UBI, public services, retraining, demand maintenance)
More energy and bandwidth are consumed by automated systems (SEBE withdrawal capacity grows)

As automation slows:

Fewer workers are displaced (less spending is needed)
Less energy and bandwidth growth (SEBE withdrawal growth slows)

The tap and drain scale together. Neither runs away from the other. This is not a coincidence. It is the design. The tax base is the physical infrastructure of the process that creates the fiscal need.

5.2 Comparison to Existing Automatic Stabilisers

Existing automatic stabilisers (progressive income tax, unemployment benefits) operate counter-cyclically within the employment paradigm. They smooth cyclical fluctuations around a stable long-run employment trend.

SEBE is designed for a structural shift, not a cyclical fluctuation. The long-run trend of employment is downward (as automation proceeds). Existing stabilisers weaken as the trend progresses because they depend on the variable that is declining. SEBE strengthens because it depends on the variable that is growing.

Instrument	Linked to	As automation increases
Income Tax	Employment	Revenue falls
National Insurance	Employment	Revenue falls
Corporation Tax	Accounting profit	Revenue gameable
VAT	Consumer spending	Revenue falls with demand
SEBE	Automation infrastructure	Revenue grows

SEBE is the only UK fiscal instrument whose withdrawal capacity grows with the force that creates the need for greater public spending.

5.3 Not Hypothecated

Consistent with MMT principles, SEBE revenue is not ring-fenced. The government allocates spending through normal democratic processes, responding to the economic conditions of the day.

The withdrawal function is independent of the spending decision. SEBE removes purchasing power from the corporate sector. What the government does with the fiscal space that creates (UBI, public services, NHS, infrastructure, any combination) is a political choice. The mechanism is the contribution. The distribution is democratic.

6. Inflation Dynamics

6.1 Stage 1: Modest Injection, Structural Withdrawal

If SEBE revenue is used to fund an initial Universal Basic Income (illustrative: ~£650/adult/year at 2030 launch, growing with SEBE revenue), the inflationary dynamics are benign:

Injection scale: ~£38B distributed across 58.8 million adults. Per capita: roughly £54/month. This is a rounding error relative to median household income (£31,627/year). Demand-pull inflation from this injection is negligible.
Withdrawal scale: SEBE removes £34-46B from corporate balance sheets. This is purchasing power that would otherwise accumulate in shareholder returns, executive compensation and offshore reserves. The withdrawal is anti-inflationary.
Net effect: Redistribution from low-propensity-to-consume entities (corporations) to high-propensity-to-consume individuals (the general population). Aggregate demand is maintained or modestly stimulated. Inflation risk is low.

6.2 Stage 2: The Productivity Question

A full Universal Living Income (£29,000/adult/year, matching median take-home pay) requires fiscal expansion of approximately £2 trillion per year (at 2045 projected population). This is an order of magnitude beyond SEBE’s withdrawal capacity at that point (~£159B).

Stage 2 depends critically on the productive capacity expansion that automation delivers. If automation increases output by a factor of 2-3 (plausible given current trajectory: computing costs fall ~30% annually, renewable energy costs have fallen ~90% in a decade, manufacturing unit costs trend downward), the economy can absorb this fiscal expansion without inflation because the real goods and services available vastly exceed current levels.

If productivity gains are modest, Stage 2 is inflationary and must be deferred or scaled back. The two-stage design allows observation and adjustment: Stage 1 provides real-world data on inflation dynamics, feedback loop magnitude and productive capacity expansion before Stage 2 is attempted.

Stage 2 also requires complementary withdrawal instruments beyond SEBE: wealth taxation, land value taxation, financial transaction taxation. SEBE is the largest single component but not the only one.

6.3 Automation Reduces Production Costs

A critical dynamic strengthens SEBE’s inflation management properties: the same automation that SEBE taxes simultaneously reduces the real cost of producing goods and services.

Automated manufacturing, logistics, energy management and service delivery all drive unit costs down over time. This has three consequences:

SEBE adds a cost, automation removes a larger one. SEE increases energy costs for automated facilities, but automation reduces the total energy, labour and materials required per unit of output. The net effect on consumer prices is ambiguous and may be deflationary.
Universal Basic Services become cheaper to deliver. Free public transport costs less to operate when vehicles are autonomous. Free energy costs less to generate when renewable infrastructure is automated. The fiscal burden of UBS declines in real terms.
The fiscal space widens from both sides. SEBE withdrawal grows (more automation, more energy consumption at macro level). Costs of public provision shrink (automation reduces unit costs). Revenue up, costs down.

6.4 The International Constraint

The bathtub model must account for the external sector. The UK is not a closed economy. It imports energy, food, raw materials, medicine and semiconductors. Every import transaction requires the pound to hold value for the seller.

A government that spends without taxing undermines confidence in its currency. When the pound loses external value, import prices rise regardless of domestic fiscal management. Taxation disciplines the currency externally as well as managing the water level domestically.

SEBE provides this discipline. It demonstrates that the UK state taxes real economic activity at scale, that the tax base grows structurally, and that domestic fiscal management is credible. This supports sterling confidence in international markets, which in turn supports the import capacity on which living standards depend.

7. Comparison to Alternative Instruments

7.1 Job Guarantee as Automatic Stabiliser

The JG is the MMT community’s primary stabiliser proposal. It creates a buffer stock of employed labour at a fixed wage, expanding in downturns and contracting in upswings.

Strengths: Proven counter-cyclical logic, price anchor through wage floor, maintains workforce skills and social cohesion.

Structural limitation: The buffer stock assumes employers will draw from it when demand expands. If automation means employers expand output without additional human labour, the buffer does not drain. The JG becomes a permanent institution rather than a counter-cyclical one. The wage anchor is tied to a variable (unskilled labour) whose relevance to production is declining.

SEBE complements JG in the near term and supersedes its anchor function in the long run. This is not a conflict. It is a transition from one binding constraint (labour) to another (energy/compute).

7.2 Carbon Levy

Carbon taxation already exists in most advanced economies to drive the fossil-to-renewables transition. The SEE is distinct from a carbon levy:

Carbon levy targets emissions. SEE targets commercial energy consumption regardless of source.
Carbon levy tax base erodes as the economy decarbonises (by design). SEE tax base grows as automation scales (by design).
A renewable-powered data centre displaces workers just as effectively as a fossil-powered one. The labour displacement externality is source-agnostic. SEE captures it. The carbon levy does not.

SEBE and carbon taxation are complementary, not competing. They tax different externalities (displacement vs emissions) through different bases.

7.3 Corporation Tax Reform

Corporation Tax taxes accounting profit: a construct that multinational firms routinely minimise through transfer pricing, intellectual property routing, and jurisdictional arbitrage. The effective UK tax rate on large tech firms is a fraction of the headline rate.

SEBE taxes physical resource consumption. A data centre in Slough draws power from the grid and the meter records it. The operator cannot transfer-price a kilowatt-hour to Dublin or route electrons through a subsidiary in Luxembourg. The measurement is physical, not financial.

This is not an argument against Corporation Tax reform. It is an argument that physical measurement is a more reliable tax base than self-reported accounts, particularly for the sector (automation infrastructure) that is driving the structural shift.

7.4 FLOPS Tax

Proposals to tax floating-point operations fail on five counts:

FLOPS is not a standardised unit (FP64, FP32, FP16, INT8, BF16 produce different counts for the same useful work)
No physical measurement point exists (hardware counters are software-readable and trivially spoofable)
Evasion is architectural (switch to ASICs, lower precision, use neuromorphic or analog compute)
Punishes efficiency (newer hardware doing the same work in fewer operations pays less)
Unmeasurable offshore (cannot meter a GPU in Virginia from London)

Energy is architecture-neutral, physically measurable, unavoidable and efficiency-rewarding. It is the correct proxy for taxing automated production.

8. Implementation Considerations

9.1 Phased Deployment

Phase	Timeline	Action
1. Legislation	2027-2028	Energy Act and Finance Act amendments, SEBE rate schedule
2. Metering rollout	2028-2030	HRoT deployment at facilities >500kW, IXP-level DCD monitoring
3. Launch	2030	SEE and DCD live, monthly corporate invoicing
4. Review	2032	First full review of rates, thresholds and inflation impact

9.2 Administrative Simplicity

SEBE is simpler to administer than income tax. The measurement infrastructure (energy meters, IXP traffic counters) already exists in basic form. The liability calculation is a function of meter readings, not of corporate accounts, deductions, allowances and exemptions. Estimated administrative cost: less than 1% of revenue.

9.3 International Considerations

SEBE is designed to function unilaterally. The DCD ensures offshore compute cannot escape the tax: data crossing the UK digital border pays DCD, which is set above the SEE-equivalent cost. Companies that repatriate compute to the UK pay SEE instead (cheaper than DCD), strengthening the domestic tax base.

International coordination (EU harmonisation, OECD minimum standards) would strengthen SEBE but is not required for it to function. The UK can implement first and coordinate later, as it did with the digital services tax.

9. Limitations and Further Research

9.1 Acknowledged Gaps

This paper provides:

Theoretical framework (MMT-grounded) for SEBE as automatic stabiliser
Mechanism design with rate structures and enforcement approach
Order-of-magnitude withdrawal capacity estimates from first principles
Qualitative analysis of inflation dynamics

This paper does not provide:

Stock-flow consistent (SFC) model of SEBE within a sectoral balance framework
Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) analysis of macroeconomic effects
Formal modelling of the self-balancing feedback loop
Empirical estimation of behavioural response to SEE/DCD rates

9.2 Research Agenda

SFC modelling: Model SEBE within a Godley-Lavoie stock-flow consistent framework to quantify the sectoral balance effects
Inflation simulation: Agent-based model of SEBE withdrawal vs UBI injection under varying automation scenarios
Elasticity estimation: Empirical study of commercial energy demand response to SEE-scale price changes
Anchor migration study: Formal analysis of the transition from labour-based to energy-based price anchor
Pilot programme: Voluntary trial with 10-20 large facilities to validate withdrawal capacity estimates and compliance costs

10. Conclusion

The fiscal challenge of automation is not a revenue problem. It is an inflation management problem. The state’s existing withdrawal instruments (Income Tax, National Insurance) are structurally coupled to the variable (employment) that automation erodes. No amount of rate adjustment or base broadening solves this: as the tax base shrinks, the instruments lose capacity regardless of rates.

SEBE provides a withdrawal instrument tied to the variable that is growing (automation infrastructure). Its capacity scales with the force that necessitates greater public spending. The tap and drain are mechanically linked.

At launch, SEBE withdraws £34-46 billion from the corporate sector, creating fiscal space for the government to maintain aggregate demand through redistribution. By 2045, withdrawal capacity reaches £159 billion, approaching the scale of National Insurance. The mechanism is self-scaling, physically measurable and hard to evade.

For an MMT-informed fiscal framework, the question is not “can we afford this?” but “can we afford not to have it?” Without a successor withdrawal instrument, the state loses its ability to manage inflation as employment taxation erodes. SEBE ensures the drain matches the tap, the water level stays stable, and the transition to a post-employment economy is fiscally manageable.

References

Mitchell, W., Wray, L.R. and Watts, M. (2019). Macroeconomics. Red Globe Press. ISBN 978-1-137-61066-9.

Mosler, W. (1997). Soft Currency Economics. Available at: https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

Wray, L.R. (2015). Modern Money Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-53990-8.

Kelton, S. (2020). The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy. Public Affairs. ISBN 978-1-5417-3618-2.

Tcherneva, P. (2020). The Case for a Job Guarantee. Polity Press. ISBN 978-1-5095-4210-5.

Godley, W. (1999). “Seven Unsustainable Processes.” Levy Economics Institute, Strategic Analysis. Available at: https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/seven-unsustainable-processes

OBR (2025). Economic and Fiscal Outlook, October 2025. Office for Budget Responsibility. Available at: https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-october-2025/

ONS (2025). Employee Earnings in the UK: 2025. Office for National Statistics. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2025

DESNZ (2025). Energy Consumption in the UK 2025. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/energy-consumption-in-the-uk

IEA (2024). Electricity 2024: Analysis and Forecast to 2026. International Energy Agency. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2024

Huxley, J. (2026a). “SEBE Revenue Model: Derivation from First Principles.” Working paper, v2.0. Available at: https://github.com/Djarid/SEBE

Huxley, J. (2026b). “SEBE Distribution Model: Two-Stage Universal Income.” Working paper. Available at: https://github.com/Djarid/SEBE

Suggested citation: Huxley, J. (2026). Inflation Control for the Post-Employment Economy: The Sovereign Energy and Bandwidth Excise as Automatic Stabiliser. Working Paper, v1.0.