I still misunderstand you, I think.
> Money is how we keep track of [...] output of others
How do I reconcile that you agree money doesn't represent the output of others, while understanding this comment that says it keeps track of the output of others?
> Spending doesn't make you rich.
I would argue that being rich doesn't matter at all. We can always print more money. The only part of being rich that matters is the influence your spending represents. Otherwise it's nothing more than numbers in a computer database and has no impact on the world. The fact that the government spends so aggressively is what makes their influence so powerful and scary. Unlike rich individuals, the governments wage war frequently. I would much rather see random people have obscene net worth rather than see major countries grow their military budget, building weapons that are even more efficient at killing poor people in other countries.
> Because there's a limit of how much control over others any single person deserves regardless of what they did.
agreed, that's why it matters so much as to where the money is going when you take it from rich individuals. Giving it the federal government grows their military budget, which the president of the US has complete control over. A single individual with the authority to launch a full-scale invasion tomorrow. Compare that to elon musk or bill gates. Their purchasing influence is infinitesimally small compared to the same money utilized by the federal government.
> sport takes a huge toll on the body and pretty much excludes those people from any useful form of activity for entire span of their career and possibly later only for our grotesque entertainment.
valid argument. I don't agree with it, but I don't find the argument to be inconsistent or without merit.