Paid by silver, by gold or by fiat - a historical comparison

What if you had started a new job in 2001 and had been given the choice to be paid by silver, paid by gold, or paid in fiat? Let's take a look from 2001 to 2010.

This chart is comparing paid by fiat (US dollar) versus paid by silver using a raise of 3% a year. The paid by silver fiat equivalent adjustment was calculated using January historical silver price average for each year.

Year	Worker One (paid by fiat)	Worker Two (paid by silver)	Fiat Equivalent
2001	$1000	214.59 ounces	$1000
2002	$1030	221.03 ounces	$994.64
2003	$1060.90	227.66 ounces	$1095.04
2004	$1092.73	234.49 ounces	$1477.10
2005	$1125.51	241.52 ounces	$1596.45
2006	$1159.28	248.77 ounces	$2276.25
2007	$1194.06	256.23 ounces	$3289.99
2008	$1229.88	263.92 ounces	$4212.16
2009	$1266.77	271.84 ounces	$3069.07
2010	$1304.77	280 ounces	$4981.20

Note our paid by silver worker had two down years, 2002 and 2009. Note also that the paid by silver worker ends up earning almost 500% more than the "fiat" worker over 10 years. A paid by gold worker would have earned less than the paid by silver worker but paid by gold is infinitely preferable to paid by fiat.

Union leaders could actually offer up the workers at no raise, as long as the workers are paid by silver or paid by gold the raise is built in.

Income tax theft- Billionaire versus Joe Six Pack

Income tax is theft of the poor, middle class, and small business to reward the rich and large corporations. Through the use of "tax breaks" the rich and large corporations take advantages that Joe Six Pack and the small business can't, by design, qualify for. "Tax breaks" are just piles of useless paperwork to the poor, middle class, and the small business.

How is this theft by design? Consider the fictional case of the billionaire versus Joe Six Pack. Let us assume Joe earns the median American household income of $46,000 and the billionaire earns $1,000,000 a year which is about average for someone with $10 billion in assets. How can income tax treat the two fairly? Joe earns $884.62 a week before taxes while the billionaire earns $19230.77 a week.

How could anyone ever devise a way to make their tax burdens fair? It gets worse. Joe has no assets, only debt. The bank owns his house, his car, and whatever he bought on credit. The billionaire has $10 billion in assets, which if they're even remotely competent, are earning 10% a year or $1,000,000,000. If they were smart enough to buy silver, they'd be earning $8.9 billion a year (on average) for the last ten years (but I digress).

If you tax the billionaires salary at 100% it's only 1% of what the billionaire earned that year. ANY tax on Joe Six Pack is exponentially more damaging. A 10% tax on Joe is 10% of everything he earned that year. If we tax the billionaire at 10% of everything earned (as opposed to just salary) that would be more fair.

To be truly fair you would tax based on wealth. In the above example, Joe has no wealth, only salary and a debt which exceeds it. He would pay NO TAX. If we taxed the billionaire at just 5% of his wealth, that's $500,000,000. Want to guess how many of us (Joe) that it taxes to make up for this income tax gift to billionaires?