The gist of the article is summed up in the first paragraph:
The poor do not have to worry about what they are going to wear or where they will spend the summer or winter. They have good appetites and enjoy their food when they get it. They lead hard lives and so grow strong and healthy and do not have dyspepsia. They do not have to buy a burial cloth or order a mausoleum. As they have no money to leave, no one is anxious to see them die.
As far as I can tell, the Duke of Manchester (William Montagu), wrote this without a hint of irony or sarcasm. He seemed to genuinely believe that being born rich was a great burden. So it's interesting that he did his best to relieve himself of his riches and become poor. From wikipedia:
Manchester was a notorious spendthrift, and as a result of the excessive spending of both him and the prior two Dukes, the family's fortune (already low) was completely exhausted, culminating in the sale of the family's lands during the tenure of the tenth Duke. He spent much of his life abroad, evading creditors, seeking out wealthy consorts, and attempting to extract money from wealthy acquaintances. He is perhaps most well known in America from the leading case of Hamilton v. Drogo, 150 N.E. 496 (N.Y. 1926), which concerned the establishment of a spendthrift trust for the benefit of the young Duke.
Remarkable confidence in the future ability of the German nation to redeem at "a reasonable price" all outstanding German paper marks issued during the World War is found in one of the clauses of the will of a wealthy out-of-State man whose death occurred recently and whose will has been filed with Assistant Attorney General Philip D. Stubbs for the assessment of the Maine inheritance tax on the shares of the Maine corporations in the estate. The will was drawn in June of 1926.
The deceased left an estate of approximately $800,000, aside from one hundred and forty-three trillion German marks which had cost him about $6,000. The will is unique in the fact that the executor is directed to hold these marks until such time as they shall be redeemed rather than to appraise them as practically worthless.
The following clause in the will covers this point:
"In the belief that the German people will ultimately require redemption of all outstanding German paper marks issued during the World War of 1914-1918 at a reasonable price, I direct my said executor and trustee to continue to hold the German paper marks of such issue as may belong to me at the time of my death (amounting to about one hundred and forty-three trillion marks according to the American method of reckoning) until such marks can be sold at about the cost thereof to me, namely about $6000."
Although the article says the trillions of marks were acquired during World War I, that must be wrong. The period of German hyperinflation occurred from 1921-1924.
Montana Public Radio reports about artist Tim Holmes, who's dying money blue and giving it away. He also stamps it with the phrase, "Based on the value of a clean world!" He hopes this will prompt a widespread discussion about environmentalism. Why? Because the money is blue. He elaborates at his website bluebills.us:
Regular green bills express no value. The money we use every day is backed by NOTHING! Its only value is what others think it has. But when two people exchange a Blue Bill, both agree on the value of a clean environment and a healthy community. Every exchange thus is a vote for a clean world!
So green = "no value" but blue = "clean environment and a healthy community". Got it?
It's a long-standing tradition in the media to come out with stupid tax stories around April 15. Here's one from 1955.
Jo-Jo Kay the parakeet was paid $615 a year by the Kay Jewelry chain to go around to their stores and say the phrase "It's Okay to owe Kay." Of this money, $20.50 went to income tax and $12.30 to Social Security. However, Jo-Jo claimed $25 in deductible travel expenses and $1 in charitable contributions (given to the zoo). This dropped his total income to $589, which was less than the $600 personal exemption. So Jo-Jo asked for a refund.
The IRS responded by pointing out that Kay Jewelry wasn't paying Jo-Jo the minimum wage, which meant they were liable to have their property (including Jo-Jo) seized as a penalty.