You're not entitled to your money

[Musician]

"You're not entitled to MY money!" You hear it everywhere these days. On the news, in political debates... at those ridiculous tea party rallies. "It's MY money and the government has NO right to it."

But lets back up a bit here. What exactly is money? Paper? does it have any inherent value? No, currency is a part of our economy, a man made construct. We developed currency, and the entirety of our economy for a sole purpose: to most effectively distribute resources among the population of a community. We developed money, because once we started living together in populations larger than 100 or so people, we NEEDED a system to track and distribute wealth.

The legal tender that you "own" is really just a certificate of value issued to you by the government, managed by the government, and given value by the government for the sole purpose of distributing resources throughout a society. People who say that the role of government has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, must have a serious misunderstanding of the history of human governance, as managing the distribution of resources (and in doing so creating productivity) is essentially the reason government exists in it's current form.

But I digress, let me get back to the point. Right now, all the Randians are scrunching their brows, pouting, and asking themselves "Why wouldn't I be entitled to my money? Private property is an innate human right!" Innate rights don't exist bud. There's no force of nature that bestows exclusive use of a piece of land to one person. The idea that you're inherently entitled to your property is a fairy tale, like Santa, or GOD (LOL CRY SOME MORE). property rights, like just about everything in our society is a human construct.

The only reason we even have property rights, is because capitalism has proven itself to be an effective system for distributing resources. See what I'm getting at here? Capitalism hasn't survived because it's innately right or moral, it's survived because it's effective at distributing resources (note: resources include both tangible products and services. examples of tangible goods being food, housing, etc and examples of services being healthcare, military and police protection, etc) and promoting productivity. But capitalism has failings, and in order to keep society healthy, the government regulates and controls certain areas of the market in order to more effectively distribute resources.

In order to pay for these government interventions, we instate taxes. This is where the tea partiers cry because they're "entitled" to their money. No you're not. By being a US citizen, by being a part of our nation's community, you have signed a social contract that essentially states that you will work within our guidelines, which have been (supposedly anyways) specifically implemented to benefit the community over the individual. The government never grants you complete entitlement to all your money. No government in existence does that.

Inevitably someone will bring up the following point: "I do have an inherent right to my money, and you know why? Because my labor inherently produces goods. I have a right to the inherent fruits of my labor, sweat of my brow, etc, etc, etc." That's great and all, but the whole argument falls apart when currency becomes involved, because as stated before money is a human construct, and in modern society, any "inherent fruits of labor" are going to be given an artificial value in currency. So then the question is "who decides what a man gets paid for his labor?"

The capitalist argues that the invisible hand of the free market will decide. After all you're only worth what people will pay you. But in this kind of scenario the hard working manual laborer who grinds a 9-6 work week deserves less compensation than the man who works a comfortable office job managing bank loans. Many of you will read that last sentence and totally agree with it, which is understandable seeing as in the US we're conditioned from birth to believe that white collared working men are somehow "better/smarter/whatever" than blue collared working men. That's fine if you believe it, just realize there's not neccesarily a factual basis for that, it's a completely emotional argument.

In contrast, the communist argues that both the banker and the worker are equally essential to society. After all, who would construct our buildings if it weren't for the worker? And who would manage the distribution of wealth if it weren't for the banker? If any one of these proffessions were to dissappear entirely, it would be chaos. So the fruits of their labor deserve equal payment in resources. Obviously communism didn't work in practice for a variety of reasons, but it's core principles are no less valid that the core principles of capitalism. Once again, there is no natural law that states the free market philosophy is moral, and that the community philosphy is not.

So the next time you're at a Tea Party rally, making vitriol filled speeches about how the government is stepping over the line, and how we're becoming a godless welfare state, or having man on man sex or whatever you do there, consider this: Maybe you're the one with the entitlement complex.

[poxpower]

At 3/25/10 05:24 PM, Musician wrote: That's fine if you believe it, just realize there's not neccesarily a factual basis for that, it's a completely emotional argument.

Well it's partially driven by supply and demand. Anyone can shovel coal into a pit but it takes a great deal of education to build a rocket. So there's certainly good argument to be made why a job is worth more than another one.

I also like how tea party goers are basically poor saps who work at some factory and make almost no money and they complain to protect the interests of assholes who make more in a minute than they make in a year.

Anyway I agree with your post.
We live in a society and you're entitled to JACK SHIT if we don't feel you are. You don't get to make a billion dollars through your hard work when you live on the savannah under Matumbo the banana republic dictator and his theocratic board of voodoo shamans.

Massive wealth can ONLY be accumulated through living in a large society and no amount of bullshit could ever convince me that I DESERVE to earn 30 million dollars a year or that I should keep all of it.

Also this reminds me of cellardoor who never understood the argument that taxing someone who makes 100 billion dollars by 99% a year still leaves the guy with a billion dollars to live on. Whoever makes so much money that taking 50% of it leaves them with a higher salary than a hockey team needs to shut the fuck up.

[thedo12]

At 3/25/10 06:06 PM, poxpower wrote: never understood the argument that taxing someone who makes 100 billion dollars by 99% a year still leaves the guy with a billion dollars to live on. Whoever makes so much money that taking 50% of it leaves them with a higher salary than a hockey team needs to shut the fuck up.

exactly
Anyways, all money is really is power of course there's limit to the power money brings (people still have rights) however for the most part it's basicly whoever has the most money has the most power.

In any system you can see that when a small percentage of the people have vast amounts of power they will abuse it. Thats why we invented democracy so at least the major power at the time (government) would be subject to change based on the will of the majority.

[Musician]

At 3/25/10 06:06 PM, poxpower wrote: Well it's partially driven by supply and demand. Anyone can shovel coal into a pit but it takes a great deal of education to build a rocket. So there's certainly good argument to be made why a job is worth more than another one.

I understand that this is how the free market tends to set prices and wages. I even personally believe that it's the right way to set prices and wages (most of the time). The point is that this isn't inherently a correct evaluation. The problem comes in when the work of a laborer is valued below what it takes to keep him alive. Then we're going into an area where resources aren't being distributed effectively by the government (basic living standards aren't being met for a segment of the population) and controls need to be put in place.

Also this reminds me of cellardoor who never understood the argument that taxing someone who makes 100 billion dollars by 99% a year still leaves the guy with a billion dollars to live on.

I remember him and I've still got my cellardoor6 bingo card on my hard drive. That guy was a freaking riot... for all of 2 hours then his ridiculousness lost its novelty. I'm glad he's gone

[Proteas]

At 3/25/10 05:24 PM, Musician wrote: Maybe you're the one with the entitlement complex.

I'm entitled to my opinion, and here it is;

I may not be entitled to the money I make according to you, but I am entitled to a say in how it's spent. While I may not be actively involved in the budgetary procedures of our government, if I don't like the way my elected representatives in government are spending the money I work for that I don't get to spend, I can simply vote them out of office.

That's democracy. And you can sit there and write these little smug rants or snipe at these groups who will NEVER see your post all you want, but they have the right to say these things and vote the way they want to.

[Musician]

Little do you know Proteas that personally I totally agree with you

In America, people do have the right to protest, and to vote, and to voice against the actions of their government (not an inherent or natural right, but I digress). The problem I have is when these people try to make the argument that they're entitled to their currency, and that the government isn't allowed to impose taxes for some innate moral reason (that doesn't exist).

[Ytaker]

At 3/25/10 05:24 PM, Musician wrote: "You're not entitled to MY money!" You hear it everywhere these days. On the news, in political debates... at those ridiculous tea party rallies. "It's MY money and the government has NO right to it."

Clearly you're not supportive of such people, given that you're calling them ridiculous.

But lets back up a bit here. What exactly is money? Paper? does it have any inherent value? No, currency is a part of our economy, a man made construct. We developed currency, and the entirety of our economy for a sole purpose: to most effectively distribute resources among the population of a community. We developed money, because once we started living together in populations larger than 100 or so people, we NEEDED a system to track and distribute wealth.

Not really. It's mostly to do with trade. It was first developed by merchants, to allow them to trade better, and spread for a host of reasons. In a barter economy, there are several limitations- no common value of goods, indivisibility, hard to store many perishable goods, difficulty in detering payments. That's why we need money.

The system to distribute wealth was the benevolence of your leader, or charity, in the past. The system to track wealth was opulence- rich people would have gold reserves, or huge herds of animals. I'm not even sure how money is supposed to track and distribute wealth. They're just tokens. You'd give them to other people to increase your wealth- get something you valued more than they.

The legal tender that you "own" is really just a certificate of value issued to you by the government, managed by the government, and given value by the government for the sole purpose of distributing resources throughout a society. People who say that the role of government has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, must have a serious misunderstanding of the history of human governance, as managing the distribution of resources (and in doing so creating productivity) is essentially the reason government exists in it's current form.

Not at all. the main purpose of government is security, peace, and to interact with other peoples. Lots of governments, maybe even most in history managed without money. Productivity occurs with or without government. It's caused by technological advance.

But I digress, let me get back to the point. Right now, all the Randians are scrunching their brows, pouting, and asking themselves "Why wouldn't I be entitled to my money? Private property is an innate human right!" Innate rights don't exist bud. There's no force of nature that bestows exclusive use of a piece of land to one person. The idea that you're inherently entitled to your property is a fairy tale, like Santa, or GOD (LOL CRY SOME MORE). property rights, like just about everything in our society is a human construct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_D eclaration_of_Human_Rights

Article 4, 17.

To the extent to which 4 increases and 17 decreases they're annoyed.

The only reason we even have property rights, is because capitalism has proven itself to be an effective system for distributing resources. See what I'm getting at here? Capitalism hasn't survived because it's innately right or moral, it's survived because it's effective at distributing resources (note: resources include both tangible products and services. examples of tangible goods being food, housing, etc and examples of services being healthcare, military and police protection, etc) and promoting productivity. But capitalism has failings, and in order to keep society healthy, the government regulates and controls certain areas of the market in order to more effectively distribute resources.

Even before that, people had property. You don't need capitalism to make a house.

Capitalism has survived because it makes it easier to get things you want, and so people always try it, even when it's illegal. It's more than just distribution of resources. Both parties benefit from it, and the value of both items is higher.

Capitalism rarely provides military forces. That's one of the main functions of goverments. Protecting from other governments. Likewise with police. There have been a few religious, and society ordered police services, but the scope of capitalism based police firms is very limited, since it's illegal for them to beat people up.

Government tends to be vastly less efficient than the market, terrible at resource distribution. That's why they often partner up with charities and private organisations. They do it because politicians want to help and win votes. And a tea partier is obviously not gonna believe it's gonna be great governance.

In order to pay for these government interventions, we instate taxes. This is where the tea partiers cry because they're "entitled" to their money. No you're not. By being a US citizen, by being a part of our nation's community, you have signed a social contract that essentially states that you will work within our guidelines, which have been (supposedly anyways) specifically implemented to benefit the community over the individual. The government never grants you complete entitlement to all your money. No government in existence does that.

The contract just says you have to obey the laws. There's no law that states you have to benefit other people. And the US historically has had low taxes. Moving towards higher taxes is against what people had come to expect. Plus, Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes.

then the question is "who decides what a man gets paid for his labor?"

Still the market, the government just takes a cut. If you change that, fix wages, you're going into socialism.

The capitalist argues that the invisible hand of the free market will decide. After all you're only worth what people will pay you. But in this kind of scenario the hard working manual laborer who grinds a 9-6 work week deserves less compensation than the man who works a comfortable office job managing bank loans. Many believe... white collared working men are somehow "better/smarter/whatever" than blue collared working men. That's fine if you believe it, just realize there's not neccesarily a factual basis for that, it's a completely emotional argument.

So, you'd be against increased funds for education, and in favour of setting wages? The reason the manual worker has crap wages is because he doesn't know much. Go to school, university, spend tens of thousands of pounds and years of time getting smarter, and you get a better wage. Taxes don't change that.

In contrast, the communist argues that both the banker and the worker are equally essential to society. After all, who would construct our buildings if it weren't for the worker?

Another. Workers are really common.

:And who would manage the distribution of wealth if it weren't for the banker?

In soviet russia, banker distributes corpse across the ground. But really, a crappier banker.

:If any one of these proffessions were to dissappear entirely, it would be chaos.

If the bankers vanished, yes. If all the builders vanished, lots of immigrants would take their jobs. We still have architets, who can teach new people. We'd deal easily enough. Probably wouldn't even notice the change.

:So the fruits of their labor deserve equal payment in resources. Obviously communism didn't work in practice for a variety of reasons, but it's core principles are no less valid that the core principles of capitalism. Once again, there is no natural law that states the free market philosophy is moral, and that the community philosphy is not.

Natural law- humans are religious. Natural law- if you take away the fruit of their labours, the builder has much less incentive to work. Human law- give the people power, and they'll abuse it.

In general- while I agree taxes aren't bad, your reasons for thinking so are stupid.

[SmilezRoyale]

let me start by saying that I'm using a laptop here, so I won't be as careful with my typing work than i usually am. Because fixing errors on a laptop is annoying for me.

At 3/25/10 05:24 PM, Musician wrote:

But lets back up a bit here. What exactly is money?

Who is 'we' for one, the royal 'we' is the language of the tyrant. Also, currency was not developed by anyone in particular, it emerged as a means of making trade more efficient. Second, an economy does not have a purposes per, say, i.e. an economy is not the creative genius of some indvidual or ome group with a stated objective. An economy is a system of interaction between individuals that emerges as a means of satisfying individual demands most effecitvely. You, who obviously conflate society with the state and who obviously conflate the innovation of money with the state because at present the state has a monopoly on the issuance of 'money'. Money was not created to track and distribute wealth, it was created to facilitate trade more effectively.

States did not originate money either, they monopolized it because back when silver and gold were used as currency, the government could tax without taxing by issuing impure silver and gold and valuing them as pure silver or gold, if a private company did this people would eventually find out and refuse to accept that currency, but a government can issue legal tender laws forcing people to accept that money at the given value, which, as gresham's law states, results in people using the bad money over the good money. That is how coins of the realm were established; not for the sake of improving the wealth of society, but for the sake of interfering in it's growth process for the benefit of the despot and his friends.

And since you probably support what is commonly referred to as "democracy", i can imagine you would object to this at least on the grounds that these governments were not popularly elected in any way; it is still a state in that it has stately powers but it is not what you might call 'public'. So governments doing this kind of thing in the olden days is no different than if some private corporation with tax powers did it, so don't give me the line about how the government at the time was monopolizing money for the common good.

You don't understand money, it seems.

The legal tender that you "own" is really just a certificate of value

You're basically describing an economy as if every economy in the world is run in a stalinistic fashion, where the government sets all wages and all prices and determines all levels and means of production; essentially an economy driven by the chaos of the arbitrnary, and nor does the government establish the value of it's currency. The Russian federation values it's rubble [sp] at 1 to 1 to the dollar, you'd be a fool to call this the actual value.

The government can 'set' a value of it's currency but ultimately the price for which goods and services businesses will sell, unless disasterous price controls are implemented, is determined by the good and services produced in the country in question, as well as other factors. If you lived on a desert island with nothing but green backs, good luck trying to assign any real value to what is now your cabana roof shingles and toilet paper.

Again, money is a medium of exchange, it represents value only to the extent that it remains true to the level of goods and services (Which must be valued by the market, not by some arbitrary edict) that are produced by CIVIL SOCIETY. Saying that because the government issues money, means that the government controls the distribution of all goods and services in an economy is like saying that All of the poetry in the world prior to computers was the genius of the ink companies that gave poets the medium to transfer their ideas more effectively.

And therefore the government's money, and thereby the government itself, only has power because the private sector that produces the goods and services that back said money. producers in the market, operating under the constraints of monopolized money, will assign market values to other goods and services as determined by supply and demand, and this determines what gets produced. When a person can offer labor that is of high demand and low supply, it is reflected in their income. This is how resources are distributed. Money allows for these resources to be distributed more effectively but Governments throughout history have a terrible record of maintaining the fidelity of their currency, and their failure to do keep the value of currency stable, (as a result of their counterfieting) has disrupted the ability of producers to calculate profits and losses, the essential signals of production, this leads to chaos in distribution of resources, god i hate the word distribution, and has lead to the destruction of civilizations. Partly because you advocate Laissez Faire Statism (the absurd idea that government can regulate itself and should therefore be given free reign to do whatever it pleases as long as a politician can amass 51% of an ignorant populace behind him)

So from a utilitarian prespective the government monopoly on money has created Chaos, and that it one of the reasons i Aim to convince people like you to abolish it. I can go into specifics as to why governments are doomed to cheat their 'people' and why private citizens cannot, but i only have a few chars

As for 'rights' I agree, my support of property rights is utilitarian based, But you're statement has more truth than you realize. Because This is also why saying people have a right to healthcare is absurd. You are entitled to nothing, what you get in life is determined by the value you provide to society, and that can only be determined when people freely and voluntarilly pay for certain goods and services. That is not socialism, that is a voluntary society.

What is commonly referred to as socialism, or state capitalism, or sometimes fascism, or corporatism, or a mixed economy, or whatever, is different. Proponents of this system such as yourself advocate that value be determined by some unaccountable Czar making arbitrary edicts with no respect to prices and voluntary exchange. And that this be enforced by coercion. You call this anti-social and self destructive system the will of society because ignorant voters get to chose between two political elites. It's not civilized, it's not enlightened, it is primative and brutish.

You ask why a laborer earns less than a banker; and you invoke the most primitive of all economic ideas imaginable, the economy eqivalent of creationism, the annoying labour theory of value. Wages are determined by derived demand, or to make it simpler, how much an employer is willing to pay his employee is his wage, and that ammount is determined by how much the employer observes the labor can add to the value of the company, which is determined by the willingness of consumers to buy the good or service that the laborer provides.

To say that you have natural rights is mysticism, but to say that a small group of lawyers arbitrarilly setting wages and prices is the will of society, is most mystical sophistry of our age.

I want to say more but i only have about 900 chars, i'll wait for you to respond and then i'll discuss more. But i strongly recommend you read into principles of economics, the first economics work that demolished the labor theory of value, that explained the social value of trade between individuals, and showed how wages and prices are actually established in society and why these market prices are so important.

[Musician]

At 3/25/10 09:13 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Money was not created to track and distribute wealth, it was created to facilitate trade more effectively.

Economies as a whole were made to track and distribute wealth. Think about it, what challenges does a society face? They ask, how do we provide for our people? 40,000 years ago in a hunter gatherer society, the answer to this was simple. The hunters would hunt, the gatherers would gather, the homemakers would take care of the young, and at the end of the day everyone would sit down and eat. This worked back then because during that time people lived in 50 person groups (or groups of about that size), and everyone was so close together and so small in number that it was easy to track and distribute resources.

But as humans started forming in larger groups currencies came into use. I say they did this because they needed to find a way to effectively track and distribute resources. You say they did this because they needed to more effectively facilitate trade. What you fail to realize is that these two points don't contradict each other. Obviously efficient trade is an important part of managing a large distribution of resources.

States did not originate money either

I don't remember ever saying that it did. Why do you keep avoiding my real points here and attacking strawman arguments? You're trying to paint me like I'm trying to give the state credit for economic innovations. I'm not, and It doesn't matter who invented it, that's completely besides the point. What I'm saying is that this is how larger governments have traditionally operated (larger governments meaning city-state and up, smaller governments being those of small towns and villages).

The legal tender that you "own" is really just a certificate of value

You're basically describing an economy as if every economy in the world is run in a stalinistic fashion, where the government sets all wages and all prices and determines all levels and means of production

No, once again you're misunderstanding my point. But it's probably my fault so let me elaborate a little bit here. The government doesn't give money value in the sense that it sets what a dollar is worth. It gives money value by standardizing it as legal tender. If you take a look at your dollar, you'll notice in fine print "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" The government has forced what would normally be a piece of paper into an item of value through law. Understand? That's what I'm referring to.

Saying that because the government issues money, means that the government controls the distribution of all goods and services in an economy is like saying that All of the poetry in the world prior to computers was the genius of the ink companies that gave poets the medium to transfer their ideas more effectively.

I don't understand you're analogy at all. And I'm trying to. But besides that, "controls" is the wrong word. Obviously the government doesn't control the distribution of wealth in a laissez faire society. A government does however manage an economy. How it does this depends on their economic governing style. A pure laissez faire economy obviously wouldn't have any government intervention, but the government would manage the economy by facilitating contractual agreements, and standardizing legal tender. In a pure communist society, the government wouldn't allow a private market, would assign roles to individuals, and equally distribute resources among its people.

Vastly different designs that adhere to the same core principle. The government's role is to manage the distribution of resources (and also to manage the production of resources but that's a different subject I think).

you advocate Laissez Faire Statism (the absurd idea that government can regulate itself and should therefore be given free reign to do whatever it pleases as long as a politician can amass 51% of an ignorant populace behind him)

What? This is not what I advocate at all. It's true that I do believe that decisions should generally be made through majority decisions, but I think it should be done so through a system of checks and balances, much like the ones we have in place today.

As for 'rights' I agree, my support of property rights is utilitarian based, But you're statement has more truth than you realize. Because This is also why saying people have a right to healthcare is absurd. You are entitled to nothing

I agree, you are entitled to nothing. I don't think people are entitled to health care, but I think they should get it. Why? Because the purpose of society is to provide for it's people. If capitalism really has failed (and it appears that it has), then we must find an altered means to provide for our people.

what you get in life is determined by the value you provide to society, and that can only be determined when people freely and voluntarilly pay for certain goods and services.

Ah, and see this is where we enter the realm of opinion. It is not a fact that your value to society can only be determined by free market evaluation. Like I said in the OP, there are other ways of determining value. Let me ask you this question. You truly believe that the free market makes accurate assesments of a persons worth in labor correct?

Being someone of your stance I'm sure you're aware of the current wealth distribution in the US. The upper quintile holds somewhere around 85% of the total wealth. What that would seem to imply is that 20% of people in the US do 85% of the work. This is the free market's assessment. The question is this: do you really believe that is correct?

I don't. I'd lean towards the communist position that every laborer is equally important to a functioning society. That doesn't mean I think distribution should be completely controlled by the state as in a communist society, rather that the state needs to balance out the free market assessment with a bit of common sense every once in a while. If the free market places the value of the manual labor worker at lower than the price of living, then the state needs to shift the distribution of resources in order to provide for that person.

Wages are determined by derived demand, or to make it simpler, how much an employer is willing to pay his employee is his wage

Yes, as I said to poxpower, I understand that this is the way the free market evaluates a persons value. My question is this: Is that evaluation correct?

But i strongly recommend you read into principles of economics

Why should I? First of all, I already know the principles of economics so fuck your snide little comment, I don't appreciate that shit at all. Secondly, this isn't an economic debate, no matter how much your try to make it one. It's a social argument about the idea of innate human rights, and the idea of entitlement.

[Ytaker]

At 3/25/10 11:02 PM, Musician wrote:

But as humans started forming in larger groups currencies came into use. I say they did this because they needed to find a way to effectively track and distribute resources. You say they did this because they needed to more effectively facilitate trade. What you fail to realize is that these two points don't contradict each other. Obviously efficient trade is an important part of managing a large distribution of resources.

There's evidence of trade prewheel, and pre money. Long before it was economic to manage those sorts of resources. A lot of the trade was in small, valuable goods, like jewellry, clothes, and spices.

Even later on, the goal was never efficient allocation of resources. When cities were formed, they needed grain- and then, it wasn't about efficient allocation of resources. It was about cities producing valuable goods, and farmers wanting them, and as a consequence, working harder to produce more food. Merchants don't care about managing resources.

A more pertinent example would be the (massive) grain trade to rome. It was beset with attempts to hijack it for political purposes, with soldiers and political influence fighting over it. Nothing to do with trade- merchants didn't care what the politicians said. But, maintaining law and order, making sure no one interupted it, was very important, and they did it very well. Later, Caesur distributed grain free to people- not to be efficient, but to win support, since otherwise his policies sucked.

I don't understand you're analogy at all. And I'm trying to. But besides that, "controls" is the wrong word. Obviously the government doesn't control the distribution of wealth in a laissez faire society. A government does however manage an economy. How it does this depends on their economic governing style. A pure laissez faire economy obviously wouldn't have any government intervention, but the government would manage the economy by facilitating contractual agreements, and standardizing legal tender. In a pure communist society, the government wouldn't allow a private market, would assign roles to individuals, and equally distribute resources among its people.

In communist societies, they tend to distribute resources to the government- military, science, and politicians. Plus, they have a tendency to underestimate the amount of resources needed, which is why there were huge bread lines.

Also, the contracts thing is the most important aspect of the government. They keep the law. It's one of their most important purposes, and one of the ways in which they help the economy. No point in trading if someone is just gonna kill you and steal your stuff. And they have to be fair, and neutral.

Vastly different designs that adhere to the same core principle. The government's role is to manage the distribution of resources (and also to manage the production of resources but that's a different subject I think).

Distribution of resources is still done by the economy, and production. By making money, the government does two things- control inflation, and pay for its policies. If they try to regulate the distribution of resources, and production, that's a whole new thing.

Being someone of your stance I'm sure you're aware of the current wealth distribution in the US. The upper quintile holds somewhere around 85% of the total wealth. What that would seem to imply is that 20% of people in the US do 85% of the work. This is the free market's assessment. The question is this: do you really believe that is correct?

A lot of those are retirees. They have wealth because they've worked all their life. Obviously, a 70 year old has given more to the economy than a 21 year just out of unnie. And higher paid salaries, they tend to be more valuable than lower paid ones. A good doctor can save hundreds of people's lives over their career, say. A politician's decisions can effect millions of people, for better or worse. A skilled scientist who starts a company does more for the economy than most workers. And the net effect is lots of cheap products, so even poor americans have tvs, cars, and lots of food. Absolute wealth is more important than relative wealth.

I don't. I'd lean towards the communist position that every laborer is equally important to a functioning society. That doesn't mean I think distribution should be completely controlled by the state as in a communist society, rather that the state needs to balance out the free market assessment with a bit of common sense every once in a while. If the free market places the value of the manual labor worker at lower than the price of living, then the state needs to shift the distribution of resources in order to provide for that person.

Already does, minimum wage. As such, the main concern is keeping employment high, so everyone can get a job if they want.

[SadisticMonkey]

You copied this off of 4chan

[Musician]

At 3/26/10 03:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: You copied this off of 4chan

Actually it was posted on 4chan after it was posted here. See I know because I was the one who posted it on 4chan

[Major-n0ob]

What the OP fails to understand is that it is NOT the government that came up with our money, it is the Federal Reserve. And what ever happened to laisse faire capitalism? Finally, there is NOTHING wrong with citizens asserting their hold over their own earnings. The government has been overtaxing and wasting money for a very long time now (both parties). Though, in all fairness, the democrats have easily been the worst.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 3/25/10 09:13 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Money was not created to track and distribute wealth, it was created to facilitate trade more effectively.

Economies as a whole were made to track and distribute wealth.

Yes, economies as a whole EMERGED (When you use the word 'made' or 'created' it is very much like saying that the human specie was 'made or 'created'. Rather than 'evolved' or 'emerged'

The reason that the distinction between emergent money and 'created' money is important is because the issuance of money, and the maintaining of it's value, and it's distribution do not require the State. Your argument is that because the State issues money, and money is essential to the distribution of goods, the state has a stake in intervening in the distribution of goods. If you were to argue that only the state could issue money effectively, then this argument might hold some water, but that is a case you have to make. Just because it does so now does not mean it necessarily has to or that this system is the most efficient.

Or, in other words, the state's legitimacy in controlling production is not justified by it's involvement in currency, because the fact that it has a monopoly on money doesn't mean money can be handled by individuals and groups operating voluntarily.

If I made myself king of the world and decreed that All roads had to be built by my companies and no one else, would it be legitimate to say that because I my companies are an essential part of land based commerce that I therefore must necessarily be given jurisdiction over any trade or production that is affected by, or affects in itself, all land based commerce.

Also, money doesn't need to be legal tender for it to serve as money any more effectively than Federal Reserve notes or some other legal tender. And so this still does not prove in any way that The state is essential to the issuance of money for the economy. Yes, it can declare pieces of paper money by legal decree and that is something that banks who do not have 'mystical legal powers' can do. But civil society can give paper 'stores of value' value without the government as they have done and continue to do in ways you do not seem to appreciate.

If you feel that standardization is something that requires a State, again this is not true. Standardization emerged as it made sense for businesses to do so. (Though not completely to the point where diversity is also harmed). Standardization is important to money but it is not unique to the state, so this is again not a reason why we need the state to issue money. I can make this case if you want me to.

Government had also put itself in charge in the production and distribution of other goods and services that it no longer does. (I'm thinking about Thatcherism in Britain).

In reality, a value free approach would dictate that the only justification for government control and distribution of resources is the social utility, not the mere fact that government is involved in money. I do not even accept the premise that government management of currency is the most efficient way of handling money, but even if we accept this as true it does not follow that government management of resource production and distribution in other ways is good for society's utility. And this again is a specific case that needs to be made.

You say the government's job is to manage the distribution of resources, the problem is, who gave it that job and why Am I supposed to believe that the Government is the most effective means at achieving this end. This strikes me as an argument by assertion.

The present system allows for individuals who have neither knowledge nor any incentive to acquire it vote for one of TWO candidates of two major political powerhouses. After which the matters of legislation, execution, and interpretation of the legislation are made by individuals within and appointed to the government. For all intensive purposes this is as much as society permeates into the functions of government. This is, for all intensive purposes, a very cartelized market in the selling of policies during restricted time intervals, with a record for incredible dishonesty, where Government is otherwise left to regulate itself.

Why? Because the purpose of society is to provide for it's people. If capitalism really has failed (and it appears that it has)

You're going from one ghost voice to another. "The purpose of society is to provide for it's people", is as baseless as "People are entitled to Healthcare". Both are assertions that cannot be proven empirically or logically as factual. As for free society failing, it is the state that has failed its people.

You truly believe that the free market makes accurate assesments of a persons worth in labor correct?

Yes. Value is subjective, all value is subjective. Why Elvis made and makes so much money is because people are willing to buy his music and merchandise. They value it. The valuation of goods and services can only be done in a fashion by which people are able to voluntarily chose what goods and services they buy with the resources they have aquired by providing value to their relevant society.

If no one is willing to pay for something, i.e. no one is willing to give up anything for owning That thing, we can assume that thing has no value. if someone is willing to pay a lot for that thing, that thing is presumed to have a great deal of value. That is how value is determined.

And when prices do not reflect society preferences gauged with the relative scarcity of these goods and services, i.e. supply and demand, and instead reflect the arbitrary decisions of some bureaucrat, you get chaos in the structure of production. Things are produced that people do not value nor care to buy.

This is the free market's assessment. The question is this: do you really believe that is correct?

It is not the free market's assessment because we do not live in a free market. We live in a society where people's ability to voluntarily chose between options provided is severely limited by the State. I will reflect this question back upon you. We live in a society where the upper quintile holds 85% of the Wealth, How much power does your system need? If these problems you complain about haven't been solved by a government that is several times larger in relative terms and likely thousands of times larger in absolute terms than the government in the past?

And It's not as If I haven't made the case elsewhere that state laws are designed primarily to protect the incomes of those of wealth and connection. I don't simply claim that these inequalities are the product of a statist society as you claim they are a natural product of a voluntary society, I explain why they are so.

As far as what inequalities would exist between individuals if we lived in a purely voluntary society, I can't give you an exact answer. I would guess that it would probably be less than what it is now, but that the median income of society as a whole would be increasing faster than it is now because of increased productivity, and those that were in the top 1% would only be there because (With the exception of heirs and what not) For some reason, individuals voluntarily gave that person that much money, perhaps those individuals invented something innovative, or they invested in companies which provided consumers with added value.

Principles of economics is the name of a specific book on economics, it's by Carl Menger, I wasn't talking about Econ101

I don't. I'd lean towards the communist position that every laborer is equally important to a functioning society.

That is your assertion. I can say that Clowns are as valuable to society as standup comedians and so should be paid the same regardless of the fact that people voluntarily pay differently for these two services, but I'm doing nothing more than giving my preferences some superhuman properties.

[basherboy357]

Fine.

You're not entitled to my WEALTH.

[morefngdbs]

I've said it in a bunch of different threads here .
Money is NOTHING but a PROMISE to PAY ! !

So what do you have if a homeless broke street person writes you a check for a billion dollars ?
Anyone care to respond ?

[kamil-fucker]

OP, your right, Im suprised to see an American who isn't screaming out how fantastic or fatal the wellfare bill is, and how America is / isn't going to turn into a godless socialistic state, but just use common sense for your arguments.

I agree with you, however, one small thing you forgot to say, the US dollar isn't made by the US government , its made by the FED, which is a private company, more or less bound by the government.

So not even the US government "takes" your money, but a private company, gotta love America!

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/25/10 06:06 PM, poxpower wrote: Also this reminds me of cellardoor who never understood the argument that taxing someone who makes 100 billion dollars by 99% a year still leaves the guy with a billion dollars to live on. Whoever makes so much money that taking 50% of it leaves them with a higher salary than a hockey team needs to shut the fuck up.

So if I see a multi-millionaire I should be allowed to rob him at gunpoint and take as much money as I want provided he can afford to lose it?
"No, but.."

but what, the state should be able to?

[Ytaker]

At 3/25/10 06:06 PM, poxpower wrote: Also this reminds me of cellardoor who never understood the argument that taxing someone who makes 100 billion dollars by 99% a year still leaves the guy with a billion dollars to live on. Whoever makes so much money that taking 50% of it leaves them with a higher salary than a hockey team needs to shut the fuck up.

They could shut up. And they could move to another country with better tax rates. And they could work less, since their hard work is earning them less money. If there was a circa hundred percent tax for anything over a billion, people would work hard to keep their income below a billion- move income off the books, split up their income, cut jobs, fire people. And in the end you'd get less money than before.

Also, rich people tend to form charities, for scientific and human development.

Plus, a lot of that wealth will be in whatever earned them the money- their company, or business. If you tax it all, you'll destroy their buisness, and again, vastly cut your future tax intake.

[gumOnShoe]

At 3/31/10 01:37 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So if I see a multi-millionaire I should be allowed to rob him at gunpoint and take as much money as I want provided he can afford to lose it?
"No, but.."

but what, the state should be able to?

You are assuming he's entitled to have money and that he's an individual and not a part of the larger community. The more appropriate viewing of this issue is that a man with more money has more responsibility to the people to which he belongs and the system to which the money belongs. If he fails to meet those responsibilities, then it should come as no surprise when society demands it of him and is in turn willing to take what the society needs to survive, in this case by taxes.

A man who has 100 million U.S. dollars has nothing if the U.S. should fail.

In a perfect society private industry would take care of all of the public's needs. Since they haven't and can't, a public institution (or government) has been established to ensure these things happen.

[morefngdbs]

At 3/31/10 12:25 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: A man who has 100 million U.S. dollars has nothing if the U.S. should fail.

;;;
Exactly, under the fiat monetary system.
Money isn't worth the paper its printed on if the monitary system collapses.
This was seen very recently in Zimbabwe.
It was costin g the Government something like 9 american cents to print billion Zimbabwean Dollar notes in Germany & a billion Zim's at the time were not worth 9 american cents !

Your money is only worth what the promise to pay is worth. If a country becomes unable to keep their promise, your currency devalues.

Just a note the American dollar has lost more than 90 % of its value since WW2 (which means it now takes 90.00 to buy what you could back then for 1 !!! )

Also since 1971 the dollar has lost 97% of its gold value. So the $35.00 1972 dollars that would buy an ounce of gold, today you need $1115.35 American dollars to buy 1 ounce of gold !!!!

[Ytaker]

At 3/31/10 12:25 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 3/31/10 01:37 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So if I see a multi-millionaire I should be allowed to rob him at gunpoint and take as much money as I want provided he can afford to lose it?
"No, but.."

but what, the state should be able to?

You are assuming he's entitled to have money and that he's an individual and not a part of the larger community. The more appropriate viewing of this issue is that a man with more money has more responsibility to the people to which he belongs and the system to which the money belongs. If he fails to meet those responsibilities, then it should come as no surprise when society demands it of him and is in turn willing to take what the society needs to survive, in this case by taxes.

The value of money comes from businesses, productivity, and work. The government can't set the value of money. If they tried, that would cause rampant hyperinflation. And quite possibly, as a businessman, he may well be supplying a valuable service to people already. By taxing him more heavily, you're encouraging him to provide that service less (just as smoking taxes encourage people to smoke less), and narrowing the tax base. And the US has either the second or fifth highest corporate tax rate in the world, depending on the measure you use.

A man who has 100 million U.S. dollars has nothing if the U.S. should fail.

In a perfect society private industry would take care of all of the public's needs. Since they haven't and can't, a public institution (or government) has been established to ensure these things happen.

US dollars would still have a great deal of value, and he may well have substantial assets which are recession/ war proof in other countries, or material assets to support him

And in the new, more perfect society of Obamacare, a public institution has been created to funnel vast sums of money to the insurance industry. And a great deal of the tax costs are from paying huge public sector wages (on average, including benefits, 30000-40000 dollars more than equivelent private sector jobs). A rich person has no certainty that their money is actually gonna help anyone- more likely, it's gonna go fund a rich government official's job, because the government allocates the money.

He may even be funding morally corrupt practises. So the rich person is paying more to, say, fund a teacher in DC who has campaigned to end the DC scholarship program for black kids because the teacher prefers high wages to good safe education for kids. Or 4.7 billion dollars in bribes to the Stupak dozen, to convert their votes to pro choice ones.

[poxpower]

At 3/31/10 01:37 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

So if I see a multi-millionaire I should be allowed to rob him at gunpoint and take as much money as I want provided he can afford to lose it?
"No, but.."

but what, the state should be able to?

It's called "the social contract". We make laws and have selected an organization to enforce those laws and if you don't like it, try to change it or get out.

Your whole "omg taxes are like someone robbing the rich at gunpoint" thing is retarded.

[SadisticMonkey]

So, because the state uses force to create a monopoly on the monetary system i.e they force you to accept legal tender, which is to say worthless paper money, this somehow equals signing a social contract?

ahahahah

and wait, aren't conservatives meant to be the ones who say "love or it leave it love it or leave it !!!"?

because if your regular conservative made that sort of argument you would have claimed how stupid he is, and yet when it suits you you'll use it
hahaha

[poxpower]

At 3/31/10 11:13 AM, Ytaker wrote:

Plus, a lot of that wealth will be in whatever earned them the money- their company, or business. If you tax it all, you'll destroy their buisness, and again, vastly cut your future tax intake.

Money that you reinvest isn't taxed as far as I know. There's a million loopholes in the tax laws designed specifically to give businesses a break and to let them grow.

What we're talking about here is individuals paying themselves or receiving INCREDIBLE sums of money as salaries for their personal use with people like sadisticmonkey living in a fairy lala land who thinks that these guys have somehow earned that money from the ground up with no help at all in an equal opportunity country.

Get real. Not everyone is born equal and not everyone is born with equal opportunities and luck through life. Some kid who could have been the next Magic Johnson probably busted his legs in a ski accident and how he's working at McDonald's. You don't get to be Bill Gates through hard work alone, those guys are PLAIN LUCKY and they happen to live in a society that give them every possible opportunity to get where they got and to think they don't owe the rest of us anything though some anarcho-capitalist pipe dream is just ignoring reality.

At 3/31/10 07:09 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So, because the state uses force to create a monopoly on the monetary system i.e they force you to accept legal tender, which is to say worthless paper money, this somehow equals signing a social contract?

Look up what a social contract is.

and wait, aren't conservatives meant to be the ones who say "love or it leave it love it or leave it !!!"?

I gave you a 3rd option.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

I think I just read Margaritaville (Pun Intended)

[Ytaker]

At 3/31/10 07:23 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/31/10 11:13 AM, Ytaker wrote:

Plus, a lot of that wealth will be in whatever earned them the money- their company, or business. If you tax it all, you'll destroy their buisness, and again, vastly cut your future tax intake.

Money that you reinvest isn't taxed as far as I know. There's a million loopholes in the tax laws designed specifically to give businesses a break and to let them grow.

What we're talking about here is individuals paying themselves or receiving INCREDIBLE sums of money as salaries for their personal use with people like sadisticmonkey living in a fairy lala land who thinks that these guys have somehow earned that money from the ground up with no help at all in an equal opportunity country.

http://www.usa-investment-tax.com/

Who are you assuming has all this wealth? Most people who are extremely wealthly get it from business of some sort.

http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/200 8/04/18/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-
not-inherited-their-wealth/

Only 6% get it from inheritance. Most work for it. And Sadisticmonkey objected to the idea that the rich person was signing a social contract. I doubt he'd object to all taxes. I do, seriously doubt though, that many rich people have gotten a huge benefit from the expensive parts of government, medical and pensionwise. Most of them pay for their own medical care and have investment funds. They get some benefit from increased health in the populace, but a great deal of that is private care, and a huge amount of the public bit of it is just vaccination. And a lot provide their employees with healthcare anyway.

Also, even people who don't do much with their money tend to put it in banks, or stocks. Stocks are essentially money loans for businesses. Absolutely vital. There's an inherent benefit to saving up money, over spending it, which is what a high taxation on such income, as you said, would encourage. Especially since the USA has no VAT.

[Al6200]

At 3/25/10 05:24 PM, Musician wrote: "You're not entitled to MY money!" You hear it everywhere these days. On the news, in political debates... at those ridiculous tea party rallies. "It's MY money and the government has NO right to it."

But lets back up a bit here. What exactly is money? Paper? does it have any inherent value? No, currency is a part of our economy, a man made construct. We developed currency, and the entirety of our economy for a sole purpose: to most effectively distribute resources among the population of a community. We developed money, because once we started living together in populations larger than 100 or so people, we NEEDED a system to track and distribute wealth.

One of the basic rights is the right to contract. When you were given that paper, it was made under the assumption that the paper had some value. If it didn't, the transaction would be fraudulent.

The legal tender that you "own" is really just a certificate of value issued to you by the government, managed by the government, and given value by the government for the sole purpose of distributing resources throughout a society. People who say that the role of government has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, must have a serious misunderstanding of the history of human governance, as managing the distribution of resources (and in doing so creating productivity) is essentially the reason government exists in it's current form.

No. This is not true. The government does not own you. I have no idea where you would have gotten this idea.

But I digress, let me get back to the point. Right now, all the Randians are scrunching their brows, pouting, and asking themselves "Why wouldn't I be entitled to my money? Private property is an innate human right!" Innate rights don't exist bud. There's no force of nature that bestows exclusive use of a piece of land to one person.

Randians believe that money is a human construct. Just to provide a brief (and admittedly over simplistic) summary of their political philosophy: in anarchy, the unproductive exploit the productive through the use of physical force. The productive create free markets, which allow one to keep the material wealth that one produces. The market is a human creation that exists so that the unproductive cannot exploit the productive.

I like to see Objectivism as having some essential similarities to Marxism, in that it is rooted in a historical "us vs. them" / "producers vs. parasites" narrative.

The idea that you're inherently entitled to your property is a fairy tale, like Santa, or GOD (LOL CRY SOME MORE). property rights, like just about everything in our society is a human construct.

Haha. I suppose I agree that people aren't inherently entitled to property. In a slave society (which is essentially all that existed before the free market), people aren't even entitled to ownership of their own bodies and their own labor.

So well our right to property is not "inherent", it is not really

The only reason we even have property rights, is because capitalism has proven itself to be an effective system for distributing resources. See what I'm getting at here? Capitalism hasn't survived because it's innately right or moral, it's survived because it's effective at distributing resources (note: resources include both tangible products and services. examples of tangible goods being food, housing, etc and examples of services being healthcare, military and police protection, etc) and promoting productivity. But capitalism has failings, and in order to keep society healthy, the government regulates and controls certain areas of the market in order to more effectively distribute resources.

I'm not sure if I totally agree with this, but it is a reasonable position. One question though, who decides how well resources are being distributed? If it is possible for some person to decide by some mechanism other than free choice, then why don't we just let them make distribution decisions?

My personal belief is that it is simply impossible to distribute based on some non-choice criteria without reducing a person to a simple means to an end.

In order to pay for these government interventions, we instate taxes. This is where the tea partiers cry because they're "entitled" to their money. No you're not. By being a US citizen, by being a part of our nation's community, you have signed a social contract that essentially states that you will work within our guidelines, which have been (supposedly anyways) specifically implemented to benefit the community over the individual. The government never grants you complete entitlement to all your money. No government in existence does that.

This is an interesting train of thought. You owe it to yourself to investigate the research that has already been done. Look up Nozick's Entitlement Theory and Rawl's Minimax (derived from the Veil of Ignorance).

Inevitably someone will bring up the following point: "I do have an inherent right to my money, and you know why? Because my labor inherently produces goods. I have a right to the inherent fruits of my labor, sweat of my brow, etc, etc, etc." That's great and all, but the whole argument falls apart when currency becomes involved, because as stated before money is a human construct, and in modern society, any "inherent fruits of labor" are going to be given an artificial value in currency. So then the question is "who decides what a man gets paid for his labor?"

The capitalist argues that the invisible hand of the free market will decide. After all you're only worth what people will pay you. But in this kind of scenario the hard working manual laborer who grinds a 9-6 work week deserves less compensation than the man who works a comfortable office job managing bank loans. Many of you will read that last sentence and totally agree with it, which is understandable seeing as in the US we're conditioned from birth to believe that white collared working men are somehow "better/smarter/whatever" than blue collared working men. That's fine if you believe it, just realize there's not neccesarily a factual basis for that, it's a completely emotional argument.

None of those last two paragraphs make any coherent sense. In a free system people are paid if others choose to pay them money. It doesn't rely on racism any more than a centrally planned distribution scheme might.

In contrast, the communist argues that both the banker and the worker are equally essential to society. After all, who would construct our buildings if it weren't for the worker? And who would manage the distribution of wealth if it weren't for the banker? If any one of these proffessions were to dissappear entirely, it would be chaos. So the fruits of their labor deserve equal payment in resources. Obviously communism didn't work in practice for a variety of reasons, but it's core principles are no less valid that the core principles of capitalism. Once again, there is no natural law that states the free market philosophy is moral, and that the community philosphy is not.

This is just non-sense. The central planner who just doles out money to anyone who does anything "essential" would totally fail.

So the next time you're at a Tea Party rally, making vitriol filled speeches about how the government is stepping over the line, and how we're becoming a godless welfare state, or having man on man sex or whatever you do there, consider this: Maybe you're the one with the entitlement complex.

[poxpower]

At 3/31/10 10:43 PM, Ytaker wrote:

Only 6% get it from inheritance.

And?
??

Most work for it.

No one's denying that.

I doubt he'd object to all taxes. I do, seriously doubt though, that many rich people have gotten a huge benefit from the expensive parts of government, medical and pensionwise.

Yeah, CAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY RICH.

That's the promise of America. Anyone can "make it" and in exchange, anyone who "makes it" has to give something back.

There's an inherent benefit to saving up money, over spending it, which is what a high taxation on such income, as you said, would encourage.

I'm not an expert on that but you get taxed BEFORE you decide what to do with your cash, so what does it matter if you "save it" after?

[Ytaker]

At 3/31/10 11:35 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/31/10 10:43 PM, Ytaker wrote:

Only 6% get it from inheritance.

And?
??

Most work for it.

No one's denying that.

"
What Kevin Bacon're talking about here is individuals paying themselves or receiving INCREDIBLE sums of money as salaries for their personal use with people like sadisticmonkey living in a fairy lala land who thinks that these guys have somehow earned that money from the ground up with no help at all in an equal opportunity country."

Well, I assumed you were making some sort of point with that. The reason they receive incredible stocks of money is because their company is worth a lot. The only major help they've received is the law.

I doubt he'd object to all taxes. I do, seriously doubt though, that many rich people have gotten a huge benefit from the expensive parts of government, medical and pensionwise.

Yeah, CAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY RICH.

That's the promise of America. Anyone can "make it" and in exchange, anyone who "makes it" has to give something back.

They do. Making companies gives something back. You're saying that making it means they have to fund, say, a war in iraq or increased teacher salaries. The normal way they give something back is through charity work. The government demands enormous amounts of money mostly because it pays its employees extremely high wages. And they already pay high taxes. The US has one of the most progressive tax rates in the world, with around 44% paying no federal income taxes and the top 5% paying 60% of it. They are paying a substantial share. This massive disparity only got worse after the bush tax cuts. (from 53-60%)

Besides, if they don't use many government resources while they're making it, if they go to a private school, buy their own healthcare, then they would have very little to give back. You're still gonna take their money. Because it's really not about what they've taken from the system. It's about what we can take from them that's doable.

There's an inherent benefit to saving up money, over spending it, which is what a high taxation on such income, as you said, would encourage.

I'm not an expert on that but you get taxed BEFORE you decide what to do with your cash, so what does it matter if you "save it" after?%u2248%u2248%u2248

There are forms of spending that are safe. Life insurance. Some rich people get paid in wine, or gold, which is untaxed. Diamonds are popular. An earlier person was talking about how a man with 100 million was nothing without the government. Because the government taxes them, a lot of them rely on luxury goods instead. But yeah. Whatever they do, they're not gonna be investing their money in a business.