"Your" Money & Taxation

[philosopher]

Pro-capitalists make the claim your money is... your money.

But the monetary system is the domain of the state. Only the state can make money.
So in essense, what you're doing is to borrow money from the state.

You are prohibited from making your own money.

Then the pro-capitalists claim that your money is what you've earned through hard work, luck or inheritance and that the state should not "steal your money" through taxation.

But you cannot get money from anyone without a cooporation between humans.
Meaning that if you work in the fields, someone owns the fields and has to agree to give you money.

In any case the real owners of the money are the ones who own the land or resources. How did they get there? First-past-the-post principle.

I've never heard any good arguments why first-past-the-post is fair. And that's essentially what capitalism is all about.
The only ones in favor of first-past-the-post are the lucky ones who made it first.

Here's the real question for you:

How is it fair that the big corporations are allowed to exploit the labourers?
How is it fair that those with more money are allowed more a say in a democracy than those with less money?
(in the U.S. and just about any western democracy, money entitles you the right to be heard more often and be noticed).

What bad stuff would happen to a society that taxed the landowners and big corporations to make welfare for the common people?
What bad stuff would happen to a society that made any citizen (rich or poor) equal in democratic rights and equal rights to be noticed in a democratic discussion?

Of course the big corporations and rich folks would simply move abroad. And that's why I think that any big corporation should be owned by the State and licensed to private companies. This way no companies can take all the resources and the entire company and move abroad.

[FlashDangerpants]

Pro-capitalists make the claim your money is... your money.

But the monetary system is the domain of the state. Only the state can make money.
So in essense, what you're doing is to borrow money from the state.

You are prohibited from making your own money.

That is expressley untrue. around 96% of the money supply is created in the private sector and you as an individual have the right to create it yourself.All you have to do is have a ledger with debt on one side, credit on the other, and then extend some credit to another individual at an agreed rate of interest (please observe all local legislation pertinent to your state, refraining from illegal abuses). As soon as you enter their liability as an asset on one side, and a liability on the other in your ledger, any difference between those two columns is money you legally created.

It happens all the time, there are tons of schemes in operation today all over the world based on that exact principle.

You are such a dumb bullshit artist. All of the idiotic mistakes you constantly make are easily avoidable if you just stop to wonder first whether some fact you are about to state with complete confidence is actually at all true.

All the rest of what you wrote there is similarly stupid, but I'm not really in the mood for it.

[Age]

Pro-capitalists make the claim your money is... your money.

But the monetary system is the domain of the state. Only the state can make money.
So in essense, what you're doing is to borrow money from the state.

You are prohibited from making your own money.

Then the pro-capitalists claim that your money is what you've earned through hard work, luck or inheritance and that the state should not "steal your money" through taxation.

But you cannot get money from anyone without a cooporation between humans.
Meaning that if you work in the fields, someone owns the fields and has to agree to give you money.

In any case the real owners of the money are the ones who own the land or resources. How did they get there? First-past-the-post principle.

I've never heard any good arguments why first-past-the-post is fair. And that's essentially what capitalism is all about.
The only ones in favor of first-past-the-post are the lucky ones who made it first.

Here's the real question for you:

How is it fair that the big corporations are allowed to exploit the labourers?
How is it fair that those with more money are allowed more a say in a democracy than those with less money?
(in the U.S. and just about any western democracy, money entitles you the right to be heard more often and be noticed).

What bad stuff would happen to a society that taxed the landowners and big corporations to make welfare for the common people?

None that I have yet seen.

What bad stuff would happen to a society that made any citizen (rich or poor) equal in democratic rights and equal rights to be noticed in a democratic discussion?

None that I have yet seen.

Of course the big corporations and rich folks would simply move abroad. And that's why I think that any big corporation should be owned by the State and licensed to private companies. This way no companies can take all the resources and the entire company and move abroad.

[Age]

Pro-capitalists make the claim your money is... your money.

But the monetary system is the domain of the state. Only the state can make money.
So in essense, what you're doing is to borrow money from the state.

You are prohibited from making your own money.

That is expressley untrue. around 96% of the money supply is created in the private sector and you as an individual have the right to create it yourself.

I could be completely wrong but I think that the point being made here is you can not print money. You are literally legally prohibited from making your own money.

If I am wrong I would like to be corrected.

All you have to do is have a ledger with debt on one side, credit on the other, and then extend some credit to another individual at an agreed rate of interest (please observe all local legislation pertinent to your state, refraining from illegal abuses). As soon as you enter their liability as an asset on one side, and a liability on the other in your ledger, any difference between those two columns is money you legally created.

But you did not actually create money by doing this You may have created a position of where someone else owes you money, but the money has to come from somewhere originally. Creating money is usually only done by the ones who have the right to legally print the money. This is the only way you can legally create money.

It happens all the time, there are tons of schemes in operation today all over the world based on that exact principle.

You are such a dumb bullshit artist.

Is this an actual irrefutable fact, or just your opinion only?

All of the idiotic mistakes you constantly make are easily avoidable if you just stop to wonder first whether some fact you are about to state with complete confidence is actually at all true.

This is great advice, which would be great if 'you', adult human being, followed it.

All the rest of what you wrote there is similarly stupid, but I'm not really in the mood for it.

Well that is one way of not looking at the truth of things and not discussing that.

[FlashDangerpants]

I totally explained to you in the most basic form how nearly all the money in the world is created. You can use Google and look up fractional reserve banking if you doubt me. You also need to Google M0, M1, M2 money supply. There is little chance that you will understand it if you do though, sorry, but I have tried explaining stuff to you before, and the truth is that it never works. I now look forward to you telling me how perfectly you understand everything, and then demonstrating total ignorance again.

The paper money and coins are a miniscule fraction of the money that is in circulation. The link I gave you though describes people who do actually print their own currency.

[philosopher]

I could be completely wrong but I think that the point being made here is you can not print money. You are literally legally prohibited from making your own money.

If I am wrong I would like to be corrected.

No, you are totally right. I meant printing money, sorry I couldn't find the right word for it (english is not my native language).

You are such a dumb bullshit artist.

What about you simply get the hell out of this forum? You are worth nothing.
You contribute absolutely NOTHING to a serious discussion about anything. All you can do is call me an idiot and say all what I say is "bullshit".

I'm really getting tired of you, FlashDangerpants.
I wish you get banned.

[Age]

I totally explained to you in the most basic form how nearly all the money in the world is created.

And how was that again?

This is what you said:
All you have to do is have a ledger with debt on one side, credit on the other, and then extend some credit to another individual at an agreed rate of interest (please observe all local legislation pertinent to your state, refraining from illegal abuses). As soon as you enter their liability as an asset on one side, and a liability on the other in your ledger, any difference between those two columns is money you legally created. [/quote]

IF I write on a piece of paper that you owe me money, then I have not created money, I have just shared around what money is already in existence, which obviously means the money that has also already been created.

Just getting you to give me more money back than I gave you, does not mean that I created money. This just means that you now have to get more of the money, which has already been created, to then give it to me.

By doing what you say does not create money at all.

You can use Google and look up fractional reserve banking if you doubt me. You also need to Google M0, M1, M2 money supply.

There is no need to.

There is little chance that you will understand it if you do though, sorry, but I have tried explaining stuff to you before, and the truth is that it never works.

If that is what you believe, then it must be true, right?

I now look forward to you telling me how perfectly you understand everything, and then demonstrating total ignorance again.

I think you will be waiting a while. I have absolutely no idea how I can tell you how perfectly I understand everything. As far as I am aware I do not even understand any thing perfectly, let alone everything.

Are you able to explain how anyone could understand anything perfectly, or how perfectly everything could even be understood?

By the way, how many times exactly have I demonstrated total ignorance, to you?

The paper money and coins are a miniscule fraction of the money that is in circulation. The link I gave you though describes people who do actually print their own currency.

And, by the way, thank you for a newspaper article, from over six years ago.

But I could not find any actual relevance in it to what you were saying. In fact, if anything, it was giving more support to the view that money is created by human beings through printing, and not by just writing words like liability and asset on pieces of paper and whatever the difference between those figures are creates money.

[FlashDangerpants]

Boring. Google the things I said to Google and you will learn about money supply. Or bullshit me like a whiny child and see how much of a fuck I give.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm really getting tired of you, FlashDangerpants.
I wish you get banned.

I don't care. Either quit being a bullshitter or get called a bullshitter. Those are the entire set of options available to you.

[Skepdick]

Pro-capitalists make the claim your money is... your money.

But the monetary system is the domain of the state. Only the state can make money.
So in essense, what you're doing is to borrow money from the state.

You are prohibited from making your own money.

This is a grave understanding of what money is. Money is a store of value
The state can print money, but the state cannot create value. In fact - the more money the state prints, the less value money has. This is called inflation. Of course there are those times in history, where money became more valuable as toilet paper or for lighting fires than as an instrument of exchange.

What is meant by "my money" is "I get to keep the value I created".

If you are more interested in the philosophical/sophistry angle - you can always ask the question "What is value?"
The short answer is - nobody knows.

[FlashDangerpants]

In short, money can be anything that can serve as a

• store of value, which means people can save it and use it later—smoothing their purchases over time;

• unit of account, that is, provide a common base for prices; or

• medium of exchange, something that people can use to buy and sell from one another.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fa ... basics.htm

But if you are dealing with people who think it's just bits of paper, that's getting a bit too far ahead of them.

[philosopher]

What is meant by "my money" is "I get to keep the value I created".

Now we're getting to my point:

What about the workers working in factories? They produce the values which the big boss gets all for himself (nearly).
The workers are paid low wages in return.

That's also known as exploitation of the working class.

We've got to do something about it.

[Skepdick]

What about the workers working in factories? They produce the values which the big boss gets all for himself (nearly).
The workers are paid low wages in return.

And they get paid a salary for it. And their salary is not a function of the business' profit margins.

That is to say. When the business' profits halve - the workers' wages don't. This is called risk.

Wage workers don't want risk.

That's also known as exploitation of the working class.

We've got to do something about it.

The low-wage, underpaid factory worker can quit their factory job, start their own factory and compete with their boss.

Your mis-interpretation is not original. Karl Marx beat you to it.

[surreptitious57]

Value can be either a subjective or objective measure of quantity or quality

So something as simple as price but equally something more subtle like aesthetic
Some things can be therefore both high value and low value or only one of them

expensive and aesthetic
inexpensive and aesthetic

expensive and unaesthetic
inexpensive and unaesthetic

[philosopher]

The low-wage, underpaid factory worker can quit their factory job, start their own factory and compete with their boss.

No he can't. Starting your own factory requires lots of money. If you don't have it, you're at the mercy of the banks.
And they won't neccessarily lent you money.

Even if he succeeds at starting his own factory, the well-established companies will have advantages in this "competition" (a competition that is really an illusion).

And then what? Well, then the factory worker has to get back to his former boss and tell he was wrong about quitting his job.

His boss will probably tell him: "And you know that you will start at an even lower salary?" and the worker will have to reply "yes" and agree to wage cuts.

Meanwhile the boss gets more and more money. He also pays less taxes because he can threaten the government with moving abroad if he's not getting what he wants.

The workers democracy and their welfare state will collapse.

That's capitalism. It needs to be abolished or at least heavily regulated. More regulated than it is currently.