> "Money doesn't come only from taxes, it can also come from printing." If the government printed money and gave it directly to the impoverished it would be eq

> "Money doesn't come only from taxes, it can also come from printing." If the government printed money and gave it directly to the impoverished it would be equivalent to a tax on everyone else (and the wealthy would experience the largest absolute wealth loss). Money is only useful in so much that it represents a fraction of the total money supply. It represents a kind of point system for the distribution of wealth. I might own one trillionth of the total money supply, whereas a more wealthy person might one one millionth of the money supply. Thus, when you print money it reduces everyone's wealth (except for the new money holder). So let's say today there is $1 trillion in the money supply, and I (the government) print another trillion and give it directly to the impoverished. The value of every dollar has just been halved. So every millionaire has essentially become a half millionaire. So yes, if you printed $1 trillion and gave it to the impoverished it would be equivalent to a tax on everyone else (and the wealthy would experience the largest absolute wealth loss). However, in today's banking system newly created money disproportionately ends up in the hands of the wealthier. In this way, creating money (today) is a tax on the impoverished and the lower earners in society. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation