South Is Usa's Poverty Belt, Gop Wants Same For Whole Country

[RankStranger]

I believe we have reached a stalemate in this argument.  We might as well all give up since nobody is convincing anybody.....Unless your purpose is to just stir shit up. 

 

That's just your narrative.

[BrotherJosh]

I believe we have reached a stalemate in this argument.  We might as well all give up since nobody is convincing anybody.....Unless your purpose is to just stir shit up. 

 

There's always common ground. I like football, you like football. What's your opinion on Dianne Feinstein? I'm sure we can agree there. 

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

I believe we have reached a stalemate in this argument.  We might as well all give up since nobody is convincing anybody.....Unless your purpose is to just stir shit up. 

 

There's always common ground. I like football, you like football. What's your opinion on Dianne Feinstein? I'm sure we can agree there. 

 

 

She is a complete BITCH. 

 

 

Agreed! Fuck that fascist, statist bitch. 

[mymistake]

 

 

 

You are not looking at something.  The cost of living in the state is lower than most states too.  So, if incomes are lower, so are prices.  It's all relative. 

 

 

So that is why you choose to play the game here in the USA even though you knew that meant being taxed.  You make choices.  Don't whine about the consequences.

 

 

And the Jews CHOSE to live in Germany in the 1930's and 40's until it was too late.  So they shouldn't whine about the consequences? 

 

 

 

You are dense.  You knew full well that you would be required to pay taxes before you ever earned your first Federal Reserve Note.  You knew that going in.  You knew the rules and you choose to join anyway.

 

 

Taxation isn't genocide.  The Jewish people were not informed that they were going to be exterminated if they didn't leave.  This analogy is even more bone headed than your notion that people who hold other opinions must have Asperger's Syndrome.

[mymistake]

I believe we have reached a stalemate in this argument. 

 

You failed at every step of the way.

 

 

 

 We might as well all give up since nobody is convincing anybody....

 

Convincing you isn't a goal.  It's not even possible.  Your position is driven by ideology.

 

However you do provide ample opportunity for everyone else to demonstrate the truth using facts.

[Vigile]

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget BO that according to your supposedly iron-clad property rights, you're living on stolen land. Stolen at GUNPOINT no less.

As a faithful supporter of Natural Rights ™, it is incumbent upon you to relinquish said property to its rightful owners (who you could easily track down).

Now sure you'll be out a little money. But you can sue the people who sold you the stolen land. I'm pretty sure you'll win because courts are magic- just say the right words at the right time. Justice will smile upon you!

 

I do believe you error:

 

Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2][/size] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights. [snippeed]

 

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/property-rights-among-native-americans

And so according to Natural Rights your land is communally owned by whatever tribe was run out at gunpoint.

 

I mean I would think that a guy who objects so strongly to having his own property taken would respect others' property rights. Don't tell me you're OK with ownership at gunpoint so long as it benefits you- say it ain't so!

 

Nope... you gotta give your land back to the tribe. Then sue whomever sold you the stolen goods. I'm sure the courts will just blow a wad of justice all over you.

Do they have a written title? My bet is 'NO'. That is what determines ownership.

ah, hell No! Rights are NATURAL. No piece of paper can supercede this higher ideal. Otherwise, you whose authority does someone grant said document?

[Vigile]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget BO that according to your supposedly iron-clad property rights, you're living on stolen land. Stolen at GUNPOINT no less.

As a faithful supporter of Natural Rights ™, it is incumbent upon you to relinquish said property to its rightful owners (who you could easily track down).

Now sure you'll be out a little money. But you can sue the people who sold you the stolen land. I'm pretty sure you'll win because courts are magic- just say the right words at the right time. Justice will smile upon you!

 

I do believe you error:

 

Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2][/size] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights. [snippeed]

 

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/property-rights-among-native-americans

And so according to Natural Rights your land is communally owned by whatever tribe was run out at gunpoint.

 

I mean I would think that a guy who objects so strongly to having his own property taken would respect others' property rights. Don't tell me you're OK with ownership at gunpoint so long as it benefits you- say it ain't so!

 

Nope... you gotta give your land back to the tribe. Then sue whomever sold you the stolen goods. I'm sure the courts will just blow a wad of justice all over you.

Do they have a written title? My bet is 'NO'. That is what determines ownership.

So when Spanish landed in Pensacola they could look at, in your case the Muskogean, demand a title and then take the land when no title was proffered?

Nope, that was lost in a war. In war, there is an old saying, "To the victor goes the spoils". Hell, even insurance policies will not pay out in the event of war or insurrection.

guess what buckaroo, that proverbial gun pointed at your head belongs to the Victor, so what are you complaining about?

[Vigile]

 

 

 

Direct taxation is taking of property without compensation.

 

yeah, except for all that compensation you use every single day of your life and that you can't live without.

[Vigile]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not justifying it. But the people who, personally would have owned it, are not alive anymore. As long as I am alive and I have title to the land I am on it is mine. As for the taxes, I can oppose them. I can do what ever I can to avoid, oppose, and fight them.

You imply you have natural rights to the land, that you say was not taken in a justified manner? Most of the Muskogean were transplanted to Oklahoma, against their will. It can be assumed if they were not transplanted they would still reside in Pensacola. Again, they did not have a "title" to the land but under your assumption they have a right to the land - unless it is taken by a gun pointed to their head at which case "to the victor go the spoils". Is the US Government not a victor in the case of taking your taxes? They can, in your own words, hold a gun to your head, imprison and kill you, does that not make them victorious to some extent? And as I said, these violent efforts qualify as open conflict, in which case there is a war being waged against you.

 

Sure they could violently take it from me. That does not make it right. They did it against Randy Weaver and many other people. The problem is that we are supposed to have a constitution that protects our rights, yet we have a government that tries to trample on them. There have been court cases. I suspect that if the tribes of the area went to court, they would be compensated for their loss, or at least they should be. Even if the county or state today wants your land say for a road or some other public use they are required to compensate them at fair market value. Perhaps the government should pay them for the loss of that land.

Or give them back the land? Unfortunately, land deals, court cases, and judicial processes have not been in favor of Native Americans. Historically, Native Americans have not been considered citizens thereby granting them full rights or access to the judicial process. They had a gun held to their head and they were forced off their land, which you now inhabit - and think you have a natural right to and therefore don't have to pay taxes.

Ahh...Why do you keep saying that I don't have to pay taxes? I have never said that. I OPPOSE direct taxes. I have no problem with indirect taxation, such as user fees or sales/excise taxes. What gives?

Direct property taxes on land that was taken in an unjustified manner?

Yes. It was taken by government intimidation/force.

government uses resources to steal the land you live on, indirectly sells it to you and then demands taxes on said land -- for services rendered mind you -- to the Victor belong the spoils.

[Vigile]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not justifying it. But the people who, personally would have owned it, are not alive anymore. As long as I am alive and I have title to the land I am on it is mine. As for the taxes, I can oppose them. I can do what ever I can to avoid, oppose, and fight them.

You imply you have natural rights to the land, that you say was not taken in a justified manner? Most of the Muskogean were transplanted to Oklahoma, against their will. It can be assumed if they were not transplanted they would still reside in Pensacola. Again, they did not have a "title" to the land but under your assumption they have a right to the land - unless it is taken by a gun pointed to their head at which case "to the victor go the spoils". Is the US Government not a victor in the case of taking your taxes? They can, in your own words, hold a gun to your head, imprison and kill you, does that not make them victorious to some extent? And as I said, these violent efforts qualify as open conflict, in which case there is a war being waged against you.

Sure they could violently take it from me. That does not make it right. They did it against Randy Weaver and many other people. The problem is that we are supposed to have a constitution that protects our rights, yet we have a government that tries to trample on them. There have been court cases. I suspect that if the tribes of the area went to court, they would be compensated for their loss, or at least they should be. Even if the county or state today wants your land say for a road or some other public use they are required to compensate them at fair market value. Perhaps the government should pay them for the loss of that land.

Or give them back the land? Unfortunately, land deals, court cases, and judicial processes have not been in favor of Native Americans. Historically, Native Americans have not been considered citizens thereby granting them full rights or access to the judicial process. They had a gun held to their head and they were forced off their land, which you now inhabit - and think you have a natural right to and therefore don't have to pay taxes.

Ahh...Why do you keep saying that I don't have to pay taxes? I have never said that. I OPPOSE direct taxes. I have no problem with indirect taxation, such as user fees or sales/excise taxes. What gives?

Direct property taxes on land that was taken in an unjustified manner?

Yes. It was taken by government intimidation/force.

government uses resources to steal the land you live on, indirectly sells it to you and then demands taxes on said land -- for services rendered mind you -- to the Victor belong the spoils.

Yet you defend the theft. What's next, will you defend the building of train cars to take people to death camps?

you're the one living on stolen land and claiming the spoils belong to the victor. Once again, Your logic fails you. By Your rules, the government won, thus the spoils, in this case simply property tax, belong to them. How then is this theft?

 

you're in a corner, do you not care, do you lash out at me, or do you make a fast joke? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Vigile]

 

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget BO that according to your supposedly iron-clad property rights, you're living on stolen land. Stolen at GUNPOINT no less.

As a faithful supporter of Natural Rights ™, it is incumbent upon you to relinquish said property to its rightful owners (who you could easily track down).

Now sure you'll be out a little money. But you can sue the people who sold you the stolen land. I'm pretty sure you'll win because courts are magic- just say the right words at the right time. Justice will smile upon you!

I do believe you error:

Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2][/size] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights. [snippeed]http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/property-rights-among-native-americans

And so according to Natural Rights your land is communally owned by whatever tribe was run out at gunpoint.

I mean I would think that a guy who objects so strongly to having his own property taken would respect others' property rights. Don't tell me you're OK with ownership at gunpoint so long as it benefits you- say it ain't so!

Nope... you gotta give your land back to the tribe. Then sue whomever sold you the stolen goods. I'm sure the courts will just blow a wad of justice all over you.

Do they have a written title? My bet is 'NO'. That is what determines ownership.

ah, hell No! Rights are NATURAL. No piece of paper can supercede this higher ideal. Otherwise, you whose authority does someone grant said document?

That piece of paper is how it's proven, but once again you are just trying to justify a Nazi lite position.

Oh, but property rights are natural. How did they exist before Lawers and governments? For that matter, if the document is what legitimize the right, you my challenged young buck have just legitimized the government.

[Vigile]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget BO that according to your supposedly iron-clad property rights, you're living on stolen land. Stolen at GUNPOINT no less.

As a faithful supporter of Natural Rights ™, it is incumbent upon you to relinquish said property to its rightful owners (who you could easily track down).

Now sure you'll be out a little money. But you can sue the people who sold you the stolen land. I'm pretty sure you'll win because courts are magic- just say the right words at the right time. Justice will smile upon you!

I do believe you error:

Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2][/size] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights. [snippeed]http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/property-rights-among-native-americans

And so according to Natural Rights your land is communally owned by whatever tribe was run out at gunpoint.

I mean I would think that a guy who objects so strongly to having his own property taken would respect others' property rights. Don't tell me you're OK with ownership at gunpoint so long as it benefits you- say it ain't so!

Nope... you gotta give your land back to the tribe. Then sue whomever sold you the stolen goods. I'm sure the courts will just blow a wad of justice all over you.

Do they have a written title? My bet is 'NO'. That is what determines ownership.

ah, hell No! Rights are NATURAL. No piece of paper can supercede this higher ideal. Otherwise, you whose authority does someone grant said document?

That piece of paper is how it's proven, but once again you are just trying to justify a Nazi lite position.

Oh, but property rights are natural. How did they exist before Lawers and governments? For that matter, if the document is what legitimize the right, you my challenged young buck have just legitimized the government.

It was who ever physically possessed it and would defend it. Nice try.

Indians occupied it, physically defended it and lost. The spoils are the government who fought them. You owe the victor its due for without a victor, York House would be on Indian land. Why is this so hard? I'm using your logic.

[Vigile]

I am not justifying it. But the people who, personally would have owned it, are not alive anymore. As long as I am alive and I have title to the land I am on it is mine. As for the taxes, I can oppose them. I can do what ever I can to avoid, oppose, and fight them.

You imply you have natural rights to the land, that you say was not taken in a justified manner? Most of the Muskogean were transplanted to Oklahoma, against their will. It can be assumed if they were not transplanted they would still reside in Pensacola. Again, they did not have a "title" to the land but under your assumption they have a right to the land - unless it is taken by a gun pointed to their head at which case "to the victor go the spoils". Is the US Government not a victor in the case of taking your taxes? They can, in your own words, hold a gun to your head, imprison and kill you, does that not make them victorious to some extent? And as I said, these violent efforts qualify as open conflict, in which case there is a war being waged against you.

Sure they could violently take it from me. That does not make it right. They did it against Randy Weaver and many other people. The problem is that we are supposed to have a constitution that protects our rights, yet we have a government that tries to trample on them. There have been court cases. I suspect that if the tribes of the area went to court, they would be compensated for their loss, or at least they should be. Even if the county or state today wants your land say for a road or some other public use they are required to compensate them at fair market value. Perhaps the government should pay them for the loss of that land.

Or give them back the land? Unfortunately, land deals, court cases, and judicial processes have not been in favor of Native Americans. Historically, Native Americans have not been considered citizens thereby granting them full rights or access to the judicial process. They had a gun held to their head and they were forced off their land, which you now inhabit - and think you have a natural right to and therefore don't have to pay taxes.

Ahh...Why do you keep saying that I don't have to pay taxes? I have never said that. I OPPOSE direct taxes. I have no problem with indirect taxation, such as user fees or sales/excise taxes. What gives?

Direct property taxes on land that was taken in an unjustified manner?

Yes. It was taken by government intimidation/force.

government uses resources to steal the land you live on, indirectly sells it to you and then demands taxes on said land -- for services rendered mind you -- to the Victor belong the spoils.

Yet you defend the theft. What's next, will you defend the building of train cars to take people to death camps?

 

you're the one living on stolen land and claiming the spoils belong to the victor. Once again, Your logic fails you. By Your rules, the government won, thus the spoils, in this case simply property tax, belong to them. How then is this theft?

you're in a corner, do you not care, do you lash out at me, or do you make a fast joke? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Yet another lame attempt to defend government Nazi like tactics and theft.

 

combo of one and two it is. Well played.

[Vigile]

Nazi hall monitor. Do I get a uniform? Nazis like uniforms

[mymistake]

 

 

You COMPLETELY missed my point. 

 

The fact that your point is invalid does not mean I can't understand what you wish were true.

 

 

 

DIRECT TAXATION may not be genocide, but the same forces that were used for Nazi genocide is at play with the direct extortion and collection of income, property, and any other form of direct taxation.

 

But it is not used for genocide.  Nazi's had two arms, two legs, two eyes and two ears.  That doesn't make these things inherently evil.  You emphasize the coincidence and hype it up using Nazis.  You are Goodwin's Law personified.

 

 

You can try to tap dance around that FACT.

 

I do not ignore facts.  When the facts are irrelevant I point out why they are irrelevant and then laugh at those who pretend said facts mean things they do not.  Nazi's using direct tax doesn't make direct tax evil.

 

 

Try not paying it and see what happens.

 

You knew not paying tax in the US is against the law.  You knew there is a penalty.  You knew that before you ever earned Federal Reserve Notes.  You knew it going in but choose to be part of the Federal Reserve system anyway.  It's your choice.  What the Nazi's did 60 years ago is irrelevant for reasons already explained.

 

 

As for you MM. You are one who tries to control everybody's thoughts on this board.

 

Put more aluminum foil on your hat.  The aluminum foil will block my mind control rays, but only if you use enough.

[mymistake]

 

 

As for you MM. You are one who tries to control everybody's thoughts on this board.

Put more aluminum foil on your hat. The aluminum foil will block my mind control rays, but only if you use enough.

You forgot something, and I guess you don't deny it, that part about you and others trying to be the self appointed hall monitor.

 

 

Are you ever going to define what "hall monitor" means?  

 

 

 

By the way, demonstrating relevant facts that make a case is not "mind control".   

[♦ ficino ♦]

These nine maps show the South in general has more poverty, more obesity, less chance to move up economically, lower on standard "happiness" measures than elsewhere.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_n_4855191.html

 

Some of the people who comment on the linked article make similar arguments to the argument in the link in the OP, i.e. that right-wing policies, in force for decades, are a big part of the reason.  One person who commented made the point, which seems valid to me, that the party affiliation changed from Democrat (Dixiecrat?) to Republican, but the tenor of the policies has been constant.

 

I don't know, however, how to factor in the tendency of "red" states to take in more money in federal aid than their citizens contribute in federal taxes.  

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

As for you MM. You are one who tries to control everybody's thoughts on this board.

Put more aluminum foil on your hat. The aluminum foil will block my mind control rays, but only if you use enough.

You forgot something, and I guess you don't deny it, that part about you and others trying to be the self appointed hall monitor.

 

 

Are you ever going to define what "hall monitor" means?  

 

 

 

By the way, demonstrating relevant facts that make a case is not "mind control".   

 

 

Before I define Hall Monitor, I will throw something at you here.  I know you will ignore it but just to humor you, I will.  

 

You think the government would NEVER do what the Nazis did.  What about the NSA and all their spying?  What about all the foreign wars?  What about the excessive regulations on our lives?  What about all the police check points for DUI, for Drivers License check, for what ever?  Guess what, just like the Nazis.  What about the cops who have wielded their night sticks on people's heads?  Just like the Nazis.  

 

Perhaps it is YOU who are being willfully ignorant.  

 

Now, for a Hall Monitor...

 

Here you go...this should give you a clue:

 

http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Great-Hall-Monitor 

 

 

You have not defined hall monitor.  Your clue indicates I am not a hall monitor.  Perhaps you are thinking of the moderators?  I'm not one of those either.

 

As for the rest, yes . . . if we pay our taxes then of course the US will cart us off to death camps, kill us with poison gas and then dispose of our bodies in ovens.  There is nothing unreasonable or paranoid about your analogy.

 

*backs away slowly*

[MagickMonkey]

Hehehe, tempted to join in, but I know I won't have the time. I'll just say a little quick something.

 

When one looks at what best benefits the well being integral of humanity, taxation, especially a progressive tax that taxes the rich the most, is a good thing. If nothing else, it helps prevent the monopolization of the means for producing wealth by the rich. Libertarians often use the saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", but they don't seem to think about how this applies to the rich.

[MagickMonkey]

 

Hehehe, tempted to join in, but I know I won't have the time. I'll just say a little quick something.

 

When one looks at what best benefits the well being integral of humanity, taxation, especially a progressive tax that taxes the rich the most, is a good thing. If nothing else, it helps prevent the monopolization of the means for producing wealth by the rich. Libertarians often use the saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", but they don't seem to think about how this applies to the rich.

 

Theft is not a benevolent act. That is what direct taxation is.

 

 

So what would be the state of things without taxation?

[mymistake]

 

I have no problem with indirect taxation; sales tax, user fees, excise tax.  To say without taxes is a bit of a misnomer.  

 

 

 

That you personally have a problem with something doesn't make it genocide or the Nazis.  It just means that you don't like direct taxes.  Nothing more.  But it doesn't sound very exciting to say "Burnedout doesn't like direct taxes".  That isn't dramatic.

 

I don't like okra.  But you don't see me starting threads about how the Nazis ate okra.

[MagickMonkey]

 

 

 

Hehehe, tempted to join in, but I know I won't have the time. I'll just say a little quick something.

 

When one looks at what best benefits the well being integral of humanity, taxation, especially a progressive tax that taxes the rich the most, is a good thing. If nothing else, it helps prevent the monopolization of the means for producing wealth by the rich. Libertarians often use the saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", but they don't seem to think about how this applies to the rich.

 

Theft is not a benevolent act. That is what direct taxation is.

 

 

So what would be the state of things without taxation?

 

 

I have no problem with indirect taxation; sales tax, user fees, excise tax.  To say without taxes is a bit of a misnomer.  

 

So why is direct taxation much different?

[MagickMonkey]

 

 

 

 

 

Hehehe, tempted to join in, but I know I won't have the time. I'll just say a little quick something.

 

When one looks at what best benefits the well being integral of humanity, taxation, especially a progressive tax that taxes the rich the most, is a good thing. If nothing else, it helps prevent the monopolization of the means for producing wealth by the rich. Libertarians often use the saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", but they don't seem to think about how this applies to the rich.

 

Theft is not a benevolent act. That is what direct taxation is.

 

 

So what would be the state of things without taxation?

 

 

I have no problem with indirect taxation; sales tax, user fees, excise tax.  To say without taxes is a bit of a misnomer.  

 

So why is direct taxation much different?

 

 

Sales tax, excise tax, and user fees are only extracted when you use a service or buy a product that is merchandise and thus voluntary and avoidable for the most part.  If you don't want to pay them, you can do it a number of ways.  You can go out of state, grow your own food or buy it directly from a farmer, as for fuel for your car, you can produce it in the form of alcohol from your own still.  Not saying it is easy but it is avoidable and voluntary.  

 

A direct tax, income tax and property tax, that is effectively the government saying to you..."YOU PAY US OR YOU GO TO PRISON OR LOSE YOUR HOME".  That is effectively a government pointing a gun to your head, or at least the implied threat of it and taking it from you whether you like it or not.  

 

MM so hysterically likes to use the example of going to a restaurant and not paying for it.  Well...that is a voluntary arrangement.  The situation between you, me, and the rest of us and the government is involuntary.  Don't believe me, try not paying it and you will find yourself after enough time in prison for unpaid taxes or you house will be taken by the county and sold on the courthouse steps.  

 

If you go out of state, you pay their sales taxes, if you put effort into growing your own food, neither income tax nor sales tax apply. Ditto making your own fuel. If the law is violated by sales taxes not being paid someone is going to jail. With generated income, you'll pretty much either pay taxes when you spend it anyway. If you save it to avoid paying taxes, you're not getting value until you spend it anyway, in which case you'll pay sales taxes, which will have to be higher if there's no income tax. And sure, the government will put you in jail if you don't pay taxes. I don't think the honor system would work out very well. 

[RankStranger]

Sales taxes are voluntary because you don't HAVE to buy anything.  You can decide not to.

 

And in the same way income taxes are voluntary because you don't HAVE to earn any income.  You can decide not to.

 

Hell property taxes are voluntary too!  You don't HAVE to own property.  You can decide not to.

[MagickMonkey]

 

Sales taxes are voluntary because you don't HAVE to buy anything.  You can decide not to.

 

And in the same way income taxes are voluntary because you don't HAVE to earn any income.  You can decide not to.

 

Hell property taxes are voluntary too!  You don't HAVE to own property.  You can decide not to.

 

True...you don't have to buy anything.  

 

Income taxes are not voluntary.  Try making a living and not paying them.  Even if you don't report any cash income or you bartered for everything, they can come by and do a forensic audit and then give you a tax bill. If you don't pay it, off to jail you go. 

 

Property taxes are not voluntary, if you rent, you do pay them as they are added on to your rent bill and you never see it. Just like social security tax.  If you think your employer pays half, I got a piece of property in the Florida Everglades I want to sell you.  You pay it by your employer not paying you as much as they could. Try being self employed or owning a small business, you see both ends of it.  

 

"Try making a living and not paying them. "  But you can! Go live in the woods! It's definitely doable. And go try to buy something without paying sales tax. And your monetary income is useless without buying anything.