My point was that people have to do something to acquire the money they have, and no one is going to give it to them "for free". All the money people have represents some sort of valuable activity, time used and effort spent.
So basically, money isn't free. It costs time and effort, and that's a central reason for why there's a limit to how much of it you can take from people.
(Let's not bicker about the financial industry at this point though - they're not actually providing value anyway)
But it makes no sense to say that "money is just created to reflect wealth". I get that wealth is all of the stuff we have available to us, in whatever pursuits it may be useful, and so on. But money is just a means of exchange. It's fundamentally a commodity that has become widely accepted in exchange for goods and services.
Now that's not how our fiat currencies work in today's world, but that's just because governments have abandoned sound money altogether. What I'm talking about - and what you should be too - is sound money. Something that just emerged as money through people engaging in voluntary trades.
Anyway, you're not in a position to complain about my understanding about economics (or taxes or whatever).
> Sure, I'm going to stop contracting at $3000 a week because, hey!, I could just live on $30 a week instead.
Is that supposed to be an argument against something I said? You'll have to explain how.