Wealthmaker: Fill & Download for Free

Not much easy to answer for best Monthly Wealthmaker Investment Schemes? but Invest in one or two schemes, and keep track of their performance. Compare the performance of your schemes with their benchmark and category at least once a year. If the scheme is beating both, you may continue with the schemes. With careful Wealthmaker during Investment, you can help your super to last longer and serve you better during your critical time. i found this Blue Chip Financial Wealthmaker schemes a bit interesting. Wealthmaker Australia | Pension Strategies Australia -

The same they always did: to fight your wars, clean your bedpans, build your cars, serve your food, grow your crops, and be the backbone of society upon which everyone else survives.The amount of things wrong with the thinking about this question is frankly uncountable, but let’s try to break it down, shall we?First, society has always only functioned off of the hard work of essential first-level providers. We need food, water, and shelter above all. Only when those are provided can we then consider secondary but still critical needs, like medical care. Only after that is done can we consider higher needs, like security provided by soldiers and police. It’s many levels up before we start being able to justify the mere existence of ad executives, people creating the newest sugary cereal to help make kids obese, artists (some of whom participate in market-manipulating collusion), and executives who charge a fortune for marginally increasing the amount of money a company made off of selling burnt coffee.Those with wealth are not the wealthmakers. They’re not the bedrock. They can delude themselves into thinking that, but we can happily put that to the test. Take away all their food but let them keep all their money. Those making the food get to keep all of it. How well will that work out?I’m sure folks will call me a Marxist for this, but it’s entirely uncontroversial. I’m not saying that doctors, CEOs and others don’t work hard and provide valuable services. I’ll get to why many of the rich are in fact parasites profiting off of rent-seeking, market failures, psychological limitations of humans and externalities, but we don’t even need to address that. I can grant that everyone in our society is an absolutely wonderful person with a job that is absolutely prosocial and useful, and it still would be absolutely the case that we would need to make sure that the economy worked well for those at the bottom first. I’m not even addressing the fact that there’s no justification for anyone to have more wealth than their effort and sacrifice justifies, or the history of racism, classism, exploitation and sexism that has dictated who actually has wealth in real living societies, or the fact that we have a society where antisocial production like the creation of new assassin drones is rewarded richly while prosocial production like the output of social workers is rewarded terribly, at least not yet. You don’t have to buy any of that. You just have to accept that society as a whole should insist that those without whom society wouldn’t exist are taken care of.The second problem is that progressive taxation is actually fair taxation. I know, I know, the flat tax intuitively feels fair. So do a bunch of other stupid ideas. It’s astonishing to see people who ostensibly care so much about small government and meritocracy insisting on a tax that actually slams the poor. The reason is obvious if you think for a fraction of a second. The poor still need to eat, drink and sleep. The minimum possible cost to keep a person alive, effectively the marginal cost of a human, is a fixed value at any given point. Any income beyond that point is extra and can scale indefinitely. So if Alice makes $100,000 and Bob makes $10,000, and both of them have to spend a minimum of $5,000 to live, the remaining income is $95,000 and $5,000 respectively. If we have a 30% flat tax, Alice now has $30,000 less, so she’s down to $65,000, or a little more than two-thirds of her pre-tax income. But Bob is now down to $2,000, or less than half of his pre-tax income.That’s literally economics 101 stuff. The argument for a flat tax is an argument for the government to wage war on the poor. Period. Reasonable people can discuss how graduated a progressive tax should be, including if there should be a 100% bracket ever, but no brackets at all isn’t tolerable. But it gets worse.Most progressive taxation advocates offer the argument I just did. But the rich also have more to gain from society. Think about the Randian or basic libertarian state. In their view, the state should just enforce basic security: limited police and the military. That effectively means creating the state as debt enforcers for the rich. But even if we remove the power of courts to enforce contracts, we’re still left with a collective security. Bob’s apartment and Alice’s middle-class home are both way less expensive to protect and way less valuable than Charlie’s fifty million dollar home. Charlie should then pay in more for the immense value that he gets from a government that, at the minimum, guarantees him a functioning market where he can make profit because people aren’t murdering or robbing each other, and at the maximum subsidizes his business, educates his workers and invests into his human capital, provides infrastructure, and so forth. And we know the rich want all those things, despite the delusions of anarcho-capitalists and market libertarians, because when the rich have power (such as with the two wings of the business party), they keep them around. The rich’s agenda will happily cut educational or arts funding but will always retain a world-conquest military, a huge prison industry, and countless other forms of irrational nonsense.Which leads us to a related point: you want it, you pay for it. Markets and democratic systems that allow for campaign finance and other methods of manipulation of democracy alike give more votes, literally and practically, to those with more money. If they dictate the agenda, they should pay for it. Me, I’d rather have a tiny Gini index where inequality is only a result of different amounts of effort and sacrifice, and in such a world we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But if we’re going to insist on inequality, then the rich better pay up. The same reasoning Locke offered for why the poor can swallow inequality is the same reason why the rich can swallow government fixing it: you’re better off than the state of nature, so shut up.Next, we have the issue of the disabled, the sick and those down on their luck. How exactly does a person with Alzheimer’s work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, again? A person with severe schizophrenia? A person with an IQ of 55 as a result of Down’s syndrome? This one is really simple. Either we agree those people should all die or we don’t. If we don’t agree, and this isn’t a matter of civilized debate, then we accept that society has to find a way of taking care of them. Ideally, we’d do so through non-governmental organizations and families. But failure in that regard is not an option.We haven’t even gotten into the fact that our economy has structural barriers to even being able to make basic ends meet, such as a wage that hasn’t kept pace with productivity thanks to overt government policy, a lack of a full employment policy because the Fed has criminally decided to ignore its obligations to actually protect workers, the repeated failure of regulators to crack down on Wall Street criminality and thus allow systemic risk to remain a colossal problem, geographic barriers to employment, and countless other factors. When we have a global economy where people are starving and remained highly peonized, that global economy, again by minimal Lockean standards, is not just. Meaning that the rich don’t “earn” a dime of it. They are profiting while others starve. The social contract is broken and is thus void. Until that’s fixed, no complaint the rich have about pretty much anything is valid. Us taking the rich seriously at all, insisting on their human rights, etc. is us being super cool.While we’re at it, let’s just briefly talk about the rich themselves, shall we? Donald Trump got his money from his Dad being a slum lord and him being a con artist. The man is a criminal. The entire advertising industry is parasitic psychological warfare creating artificial needs to promote profit at the cost of destructive behavior and the loss of human well-being. The defense industry provides a military that can facilitate global conquest but actually makes Americans less safe. We don’t charge a sufficient carbon tax to make the personal driving of vehicles be costed according to their actual true social costs. The automotive industry creates an ecosystem where we continue to use individualized rather than more prosocial and efficient mass transportation. Countless industries produce carbon and methane to generate crap we don’t need, enriching themselves at the cost of future generations and the poor now. I can go on and on. When y’all stop forcing poison down people’s throats, I’ll think about taking you seriously when you tell other people to improve themselves. Until then, pull that beam out of your eye, it’s embarrassing. In contrast, those people who work in the academy and create our sciences, art, and future understanding overwhelmingly make comparatively diddly. Nurses make very little compared to Wall Street parasites.Yes, the poor have personal responsibilities too. They should take care of their families. If they fail at that, then social workers and even police can intervene. They should work reasonably hard. They should obey the law. Most of the poor do so, and also give to charity and support their communities. And yes, the rich have valid concerns and are a stakeholder group that should be listened to. And, no, I am not categorically against speculative capital, experienced managers charging a premium for their hard services, etc. I want a different economy entirely, but for now I recognize that a hedge fund manager and an advertising executive, in theory, have a role to play. But the rich are only rich because of the rest of us. If they forget that, they should be reminded of it.

1990 Sierra Leone’s “face on Mars stamp”Richard C. Hoagland endeavored to help create a groundswell of public interest in a set of souvenir stamp sheets that was being sold through mail order, by promoter (and occasional stamp dealer) Alan Shawn Feinstein, for more than $100, roughly two to three times its face value. The thirty-seven-stamp series from Sierra Leone was devoted to "saluting the coming exploration of Mars" by the ill-fated Mars Observer craft, which was to have returned high-definition photographs of the red planet, including the Cydonia region. The stamps depict likenesses varying from Galileo and Percival Lowell to space probes and Martian surface features, including the "Face" (below).According to Michael Laurence's "Editor's Choice" column in the April 30, 1990, issue of the authoritative Linn's Stamp News, Feinstein's sales pitch included the following heads-up: "If that Face should turn out to be created by intelligent life, this stamp set could become one of the most valuable collector items in the world." Laurence noted that Feinstein's latest venture combined "his interest in extraterrestrial life with his penchant for selling stamps at high markups to non-collectors."In a follow-up December 10, 1990, column, Laurence reported that the stamp set from Sierra Leone, "an obscure and corrupt-ridden African nation," had recently been "blacklisted by a Swiss-based combine of international stamp organizations [due to Sierra Leone's violations of] the philatelic code of ethics of the Universal Postal Union." He also noted that Richard Hoagland had been engaged by Feinstein for some months "as an expert witness to support the assertion that the Sierra Leone set will soon be worth five figures." Laurence then quoted from the October issue of Feinstein's Wealthmaker Quarterly Report, in which Hoagland asserted that the stamp setshould soon be worth $10,000 or more. That's what I believe. I know basically nothing about stamps. But I know a great deal about the specific subject of the Sierra Leone stamp set. On the basis of my research, that's what I think that set is going to be worth. The value of a commemorative is dependent on the intrinsic value of the event it is commemorating.[The "Face"] is a constructed monument made by intelligent life. When the world finds that out, it will be nothing less than the greatest discovery in the world. It will have an unprecedented effect on people everywhere, and on the value of the Sierra Leone set.Michael Laurence's learned response followed: "Those who believe such breathless nonsense probably deserve financial disappointment. And that's the likely reward in store for anyone who expects speculative profit from this overpriced and highly manipulated stamp set."A Skeptical Look at Richard C. Hoagland (Part 2)